Download - Van Baaren Et Al 2009
-
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
1/10
Where Is the Love? The Social Aspects of MimicryAuthor(s): Rick van Baaren, Loes Janssen, Tanya L. Chartrand and Ap DijksterhuisSource: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 364, No. 1528, Evolution,Development and Intentional Control of Imitation (Aug. 27, 2009), pp. 2381-2389Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012.
Accessed: 18/12/2014 04:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Royal Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rslhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
2/10
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS
OF
"fj
THE
ROYAL
W'
SOCIETY
JlJ
Phil.
Trans. . Soc. B
(2009) 364,
2381-2389
doi: 0.1 98/rstb.2009.0057
Where
is
the love?
The social
aspects
of
mimicry
Rick
van
Baaren1'*,
Loes
Janssen2,
anya
L.
Chartrand3
and Ap Dijksterhuis1
1
Behavioral
cience
nstitute,
adboud
University
ijmegen,
he Netherlands
2
Department
f
Communication,
wente
niversity,
he Netherlands
3Fugua
Business
chool,
Duke
University,
urham,NC,
USA
One
striking
haracteristic
f human
ocial nteractionss unconscious
mimicry;eople
have a
tendency
o take
ver
ach
other's
osture,
mannerismsnd
behaviours ithoutwareness. ur
goal
sto make
he
ase that
nconscious
imicrylays
n
important
ole
n
human
ocial nter-
action
nd
to show
hat
mimicry
s
closely
elated o and
moderated
y
our connectedness
o
others.
irst
we
will
position
uman
nconscious
mimicry
n
relation o
types
f mitationsed
in
cognitive
sychology
nd
cognitive
euroscience.
hen we
will
provide upport
or ocial
moderation
f
mimicry.
haracteristics
f both
the mimickernd the
mimickeenfluencehe
degree
f
mimicry
n a
social
nteraction.
ext,
we turn
o the
positive
ocial
consequences
f
thisunconsciousmimicryndwewillpresent ata showing owbeing mitatedmakespeople
more ssimilative
n
general.
n the inal
ection,
e discuss
what hese
indingsmply
or
heorizing
on
the
mechanisms
f
mitation
nd
point
ut everalssues hat
eedto
be resolved efore
start
can
bemade
o
ntegrate
his
ield
n thebroader
ontext
fresearchn imitation.
Keywords:
mitation;ocial;
humans
Imitation,
y
definition,
s a
truly
ocial
phenomenon:
it
takes
wo
to
imitate.
lthough
t
first
lance
his
statement
may
seem
somewhat
rivial,
he
social
nature
f
mitation
n
fact
as
notbeen
fully
ppreci-
atedbycurrentheorizingn imitation. hereaswe
know
lot bout
he
mechanisms
f
mitation
rom
cognitive-,
evelopmental-
nd
neuropsychological
perspective,
he
ocial
moderators
nd
consequences
are ess
wellunderstood.
o we
mitate
verybody
r
are
wemore
elective?
ow does
our
relationship
o
the
mimicker
rmimickee
oderate
mitation
nd
ts
consequences?
hat
are the
social
consequences
f
imitation?
he
purpose
f
this
paper
s to
present
evidence
or
he
ocial
ide
of mitation
nd
by
doing
so,
hopefully
nspire
ther
disciplines
o
integrate
these
indings
n
their
heorizing
nd
empirical
ork.
It is
not the
ntention
o
provide
complete
eview
ofall thework oneon mimicryfor review,ee
Chartrand
VanBaaren
009),
nstead,
he
paper
s
written
o
make
strong
ase
for ocial
processes
n
this
ype
f
mitation.
In
the
next
ections
we
will
provide
vidence
or
social
moderators
nd
consequences
f
mimicry,
whereafter
e
will
discuss
the
fit
and
misfit
with
current
heorizing.
t is
not
our
ntention
o
ntegrate
the
present
hapter
n the
theorizing
one
in other
chapters
n this
pecial
ssue,
imply
ecause
here
s
just
oo
ittle
esearch
n this
ype
f
mimicry
n
cog-
nitive
sychology
nd
cognitive
euroscience.
hat
we
do instead
s
point
out
which
uestions,
n our
*
Author
or
orrespondence
One
contribution
f
1 to
a Theme
Issue
'Evolution,
development
and
intentional
ontrol
f
mitation'.
view,
houldbe addressed
y
studies
n
the near
future.
irst,
however,
e
will
clarify
hat
type
of
imitation
s the
focus f
this
aper.
1. TYPE OF
IMITATION:UNCONSCIOUS
HUMAN
MIMICRY
The social
sychological
tudies
roviding
videnceor
the social
side
of imitation
ave
mostly
ocused
n
human
mimicry.
n this
field,
mimicry
s denned
s
unconscious
r automatic
mitationf
gestures,
eha-
viours,
facial
expressions,
peech
and
movements
(for
n extensive
eview ee
Chartrand
Van Baaren
2009).
A
prototypical
xample
s when
wo
people
n
a bar are
nvolved
n a conversation
nd are
unaware
of thefact hat
hey
ake
on the
same
posture,
od
their
eads,
nd make
he ame
face
rubbing
r hair
touchingmovements.his typeofmimicryhus s
different
rom he
more
onscious
ypes
f mitation
that ave
been
tudied
n therealm
f
earning,
od-
elling
nd
acculturation
e.g.
Bandura
1962).
This
type
f
mimicry
s
also different
rom
he
types
sed
in
research
n
cognitive
sychology
nd
cognitive
neuroscience
hat as
focused n
imitation
see
other
chapters
n
the
special
ssue).
The difference
n this
case
centres
round
wareness;
re
you
aware
f the
behaviour
ou
ee
and are
you
ntentionallyrying
o
copy
t?
When
t comes o unconscious
mimicry,
he
answer o
those
questions
s
'no'.
In
most
ognitive
and
neuropsychological
tudies,
t
leastone of
these
questionss answeredy yes'.
A related
ey
ifference
etween he ocial
psycho-
logical
tudies
ndmost f
he tudies
n
cognitive-
nd
cognitive
euroscience
s the
elativeocus n
ecological
2381
This
journal
s 2009 The
Royal Society
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
3/10
2382 R. van Baaren
et al. Social side
of
mimicry
versus nternal
alidity.
Most studies
on unconscious
mimicry
se
an observational
method
nd one is
in a
sense
waitinglike
an
amateur
bird-watcher)
ntil
the
behaviour
o be
imitated
s
spontaneously
roduced.
This
is
in contrastwith
many
tasks used
in
cognitive-
nd
cognitive
euroscience
here ften
stimulus-response
compatibility
ask is
used
(e.g.
Prinz
1990;
Iacoboni
et l. 1999;Brass t l. 2001;Massen& Prinz 009) and
the
behaviour
f nterest
s either
nstructed
r
inherent
in the taskor
participants
re
consciously
bserving
behaviour
nd
their
pontaneous
motor r
neurological
responses
re
coded.
It
is
important
to realize
that,
in
studies
on
unconscious
human
mimicry,
mimicry
s
just
a
by-
product
in the
interaction.
The
participants
are
focusing
n
something
ompletely
ifferent
e.g.
work-
ing
on a
picture
describing
ask
Chartrand
&
Bargh
1999)
or
judging
advertisements
Van
Baaren
et al.
2003))
and
they
are
unaware
of
the
behaviour,
he
mimicry
nd
the fact
hat
the researchers
may
n fact
be interestedn something lse otherthantheirrele-
vant task the
participant
s
working
n....
In
sum,
the
type
of
imitation
we have
researched
most
extensively
s
unconscious,
peripheral
mimicry.
A
prototypical
example
of
an
experimental
investigation
f
human
unconscious
mimicry
s
the
'Chameleon
effect'
Chartrand
&
Bargh
1999).
In
this
research,
articipants
nteracted
ith
n unknown
confederate
n two consecutive
picture-describing
sessions.
In one
session,
the confederate
either
rubbed
her face
or shook
her foot
while
describing
the
pictures
with the
participants,
while the
second
confederate
performed
he
behaviour
that the
first
confederateid
not. The
behaviour
fthe
participants,
'secretly'
ecordedon
videotape,
howedthatpartici-
pants
shook
their
foot
more in the
presence
of
the
foot-shaking
onfederate,
and
rubbed
their
faces
more
n
the
presence
of the
face-rubbing
onfederate.
Debriefing
ndicated
hat
participants
ere
unaware
f
their
mimicry.
2.
EVIDENCE
FOR SOCIAL
MODERATORS:
MIMICKER
CHARACTERISTICS
The
Chameleon
effect
Chartrand
&
Bargh
1999)
did
show thatthere s an
automatic
human
tendency
o
mimic behaviour
and mannerisms.
However,
sub-
sequent researchrevealedwe don't imitateeveryone
all the
time. Our
tendency
to
unconsciously
mimic
is moderated
by
both
enduring
and
temporary
characteristicsf the
mimicker
nd the
mimickee.
First,
nonconscious
mimicry
s increased
when
people
are more
focusedon the
individuals
round
them.
Providing
nitial
support
for this
contention,
Chartrand
&
Bargh
(1999, study
3)
found
that
people
high
n
perspective
aking
i.e.
who are
paying
more attention o those
around
them)
mimicked
he
behaviour
of a
confederate o a
greater
xtentthan
those ow
in
perspective
aking.
Additional
evidence
for the
moderating
role of
concern with others comes from researchby van
Baaren et
al.
(2003).
In three
tudies
that
either em-
porarilyrimed
elf-construal
rientation
r
compared
participants
rom
ifferent
ultures,
n
interdependent
Phil
Trans.R. Soc.
B
(2009)
self-construal
was associated
with
more
automatic
mimicry
than
with
an
independent
self-construal.
In
essence,
self-construal
efers
to the
extent
to
which
people
perceive
hemselves
s
unique
individ-
uals,
independent
f others
nstead
of
connected
to,
and
dependent
on,
others
see
Brewer
1991).
Even
though,
n
general,
ome
people
are
enduringly
more
dependent than independent, elf-construalan be
temporarily
modified.
For
example,
priming
artici-
pants
by presenting
hem
or
having
hem
read
words
like
T,
'me'
or mine'
versus
we',
us'
or
our'
tempor-
arily
hifts
heir
elf-construals
n
the
social-personal
dimension.
This
in turn
influences
he
degree
of
unconscious
mimicry
n a
subsequent
interaction
with
a
stranger
Van
Baaren
et
al.
2003;
study
2).
That
is,
participants
ith
ither
temporary
r endur-
ingly
dominant
and
interdependent
elf
were
more
likely
o
nonconsciously
ake
on
the
behaviours
nd
mannerisms
of
a confederate.
Using
a stimulus
response
compatibility
ask
(a
dependent
variable
morecommonto cognitive sychologyompared
to
spontaneous
mimicry),
Leighton
et al.
(submitted)
recentlyonceptually
eplicated
his
effect.
Finally,
enduring
or
temporary
ttention
o
and
concern
with
others
have
been
shown
to
moderate
the
extent
o
which
ndividuals
mimican
interaction
partner.
or
example,
an
affiliation
oal
is associated
with
more
mimicry
han
no affiliation
oal,
as
has
been
shown
by
Lakin
& Chartrand
2003).
This held
regardless
f
whether
he
goal
was
consciously
held
after
getting
xplicit
nstructions
o
get
along
with
another
person,
or
nonconsciously
held
after
being
subliminally primed
with
affiliation-related
ords
such
as
affiliate,
riend,eam,
partner,
nd
like.
Thus, whenwe are more concernedwithothers,
depend
more
on
them,
feel
closer
to
them,
or
want
to be
liked
by
them,
we tend
to
takeover
their
ehav-
iourto
greater
xtent.
This
malleability
f
mimicry
s
beautifully
aptured
by
Brewer's
1991) optimal
dis-
tinctiveness
heory.
he
theory
uggests
hat
people
try
o
strike
balance
between
desire
for
distinctive-
ness
i.e. feeling nique
anddifferent
rom
thers)
nd
a desire
for ssimilation
r
belonging
i.e.
feeling
imi-
lar to
others).
When
people
feel
too
distinct
r
too
similar,
they
are
motivated
to
regain
the
balance.
Thus,
they
have
a
need
to
assimilate
activated
n
situations
where
they
feel unusual
or
different.
n a
study pplying heprinciples fthis heoryomimicry
behaviour,
Uldall
et
al.
(submitted)
had
participants
complete
a
supposed
'personality
est'.
They
were
given
(bogus)
feedback
on
the
test
that
indicated
they
had
a
'personality
ype'
hat
was
either
ery
imi-
lar
to
most
others
t their
ndergrad
nstitution
r one
that
was
extremely
nusual
at
their
niversity.
artici-
pants
then
nteracted
with nother
tudent
actually
confederate),
nd
those
who had
earlier
een
told
they
were
very
ifferent
rom thers
t their
chool
engaged
in more
mimicry
f
the confederate
han
those
who
had
been told
they
were
similar
to
others
at
their
school.
This
suggests
hat
people
mimic
more
when
they refeeling oo differentromn-groupmembers.
Mimicry
s a
way
that
people
(nonconsciously)
egain
their
optimal'
balance
(Brewer
1991)
by
affiliating
with others
n an
effort
o
belong.
It
is
important
o
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
4/10
Social side
of
mimicry
R.
vanBaaren et al
2383
note the difference
etween
riming
r
activating
self-construalnd the
manipulation
sed in the
Uldall et al
(2008)
study.
Whereas
ndependent
r
interdependent
elf-construalsre self-construalshat
can
differ
etween nd
within
eople,depending
n
context,
heUldall t
l
manipulation
ntails n
extre-
mely
ependent
r
ndependentriming.
his
means
that t s outside he normal' oundariesfhow we
relate
o
others
nd
we
(unconsciously)
eel heneed
to
restore
he alance.
n
the
xperiments
n affiliation
goals
nd
self-construal,
owever,
he
priming
s not
extremend
people
assimilateo
the
prime,
nstead
of
restoring
balance.
Extremity
s
the
moderating
principle
ere
Brewer
991).
Social
processes
an extend
o a basic
perceptual
and
cognitive
evel,
nd
research rom ultural nd
social
psychology
ndicated
hat he
mimickerharac-
teristics,
uch as
self-construal,
re correlated ith
the
perceptual
nd
cognitive
imickerharacteristics
(Witkin
t al
1979;
Witkin
Goodenough
981;
Ji t al 2000).Fielddependence,or xample, hich
refers
o the
phenomenon
f
perceptually
ntegrating
objects
n
their
ontext,
oes together
ith
ocially
being
more ttunedo others.
n the ther
and,
ield
independence,
hich
s
he
endency
o
perceptually
so-
late
objects
rom
heir
ontexts,
s related
o a
socially
independent
indset.
n three
xperiments
y
Van
Baaren
t l
(2004a,>),
he
ognitive
tyles
field
epen-
dency
ersus
ield
ndependence)
ere ither
measured
or
experimentally
rimed
nd
then the
degree
of
unconscious
imicry
n
a
subsequent
nteraction
as
measured.
As
expected,
he more
field
dependent
participants
ere n a test
f
cognitive
tyle
e.g.
the
HiddenFigures est,Witkin t al 1971) the more
they
mimicked
heir
nteraction
artner.
his attests
the
dea that
he
mimicker
haracteristics
nfluencing
our
unconscious
mimicry
re
deeply
rooted and
fundamental.
3.
EVIDENCE
FOR
SOCIAL
MODERATORS:
MIMICKEE
CHARACTERISTICS
Another
mportant
ocialmoderator
f
mimicry
s our
evaluation
f the
characteristics
f our interaction
partner.
When
we
like
person,
r
his/her
thnicity,
or
group
membership
r social
tatus,
e
will mitate
that erson oa greaterxtentompared
o whenwe
do not
positively
valuate those characteristics.
Johnston
nd
colleagues
have
conductedseveral
experiments
roviding
vidence
or
his ffect.
irst,
Johnston
2002) investigated
he
mpact
f a
social
stigma
n
mimicry.
n two
tudies,
articipants
ere
ostensibly
working
n an icecream
tasting
ask
together
ith
nother
erson
a
confederate),
ho
had
or had
not a visible
ocial
stigma
being
bese,
or
having
facial
car).
The confederate
te a lot or
a little
ce creamnd
t
was
assessed
whether
he
par-
ticipant
mimicked
he
ce cream
onsumption.
he
results
evealed
ndeed
mimicry
ffect
f he
partici-
pant'sconsumption;owever,
o
mimicry
ccurred
when he onfederatead a visibleocial tigma. he
theory
s that
mimicry
unconsciously)
reates
a
bond
or connection etween ndividuals nd that
humans
automatically
nd
unconsciously ry
to
Phil. Trans.
. Soc. B
(2009)
prevent
mimicry
n
caseswhere
hey
o
not want o
bondwith
nother
erson.
Taking
tmore
roadly
han
ocial
tigma,
tel t
l
(submitted)
ave
explored
he
relationship
etween
evaluationr
iking
fa
target
nd
mimicry.
n a
first
study
where
articipants' priori
iking
or
target
was
manipulated
nd
their
mimicry
f
that
person
was thenmeasured,hey ound hatwhen targets
disliked,
acial
mimicry
s
attenuated.
n
another
study,
reaction ime
measure o assess
implicit
associations
IAT,
ee
Greenwaldt
l
1998)
towards
Dutch and Moroccans
was
administered. ith
his
measure,
he relative
valuation f
Dutch
versus
Moroccans an
be
quantified.
n a
subsequent
ession,
participants
atched
ideos of both a Dutch actor
and a Moroccan
actor
performing
ome
clerical
tasks nd in
addition
erforming
ome subtle
eha-
viours,
uch as face/hair
ouching
nd
pen-playing.
Hidden videocameras
egistered
he
participants'
behaviours
nd
twasfound hat he
mplicit
ttitudes
correlatedith nconscious imicry,hats, hemore
negative articipants
ere owards oroccans
elative
to
Dutch,
he ess
relatively
hey
mimicked Moroc-
can
compared
o a
Dutch actor. imilar esults ere
previously
btained
by
Yabar et al
(2006),
where
instead f ethnic
ttitudes,
mplicit
ttitudes
owards
Christians
versus on-Christians)
ere sed.
Finally,
several ther tudies oundmaineffectsf
ngroup
outgroup
distinctionon
mimicry.
Heider &
Skowronski
submitted)
onducted
study
n which
African-merican nd Caucasian
participants
nter-
actedwith
woconfederatesne after he
other,
ne
African-American
nd one Caucasian.
They
found
more mimicry f ethnic ngroupmembers hanethnic
outgroup
members.
imilarly,
ourgeois
&
Hess
(2008)
foundmorefacial
mimicry
f
ingroup
membershan
utgroup
embers.
In
sum,
here
s
ample
vidence or ocialmoder-
ation
of
mimicry,amely,
he
humannonconscious
tendency
o imitate.We
do not
ust
mitate
verybody
all the ime.We mitatemorewhen:we
feel
onnected
to
others,
thers re
important,
e want o affiliate
with
thers,
e are
ocially
riented
r have
n
assim-
ilative
ognitive tyle.
Furthermore,
n
addition o
these more
general
mimicker
haracteristics,
he
characteristics
f
he
mimickee
lso
moderate
imicry.
A
priori
valuations
f those
targets redict
our
subsequentmimicry.
In
the
next section
we
discuss
another ine of
evidence
ending trong
upport
or view hat
mimi-
cry
s
closely
elatedo nfluencesnd s nfluenced
y
social
rocesses
nhuman nteractions.
hen,
wemove
on to
an
attempt
o
integrate
hese ocial
moderators
and
consequences
n
current
heorizing
n mitation.
4.
SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES
OF UNCONSCIOUS
MIMICRY: ON
THE DYAD
In
many
ommercialooks
on
influencend
making
friends,
mitations
offered
s one of the
means o
create good mpressionnd have positiveelation
or
rapport
ith
thers
e.g.
Lieberman
000).
There
is now
xperimental
vidence hat
his ndeed
ccurs.
Positive
ocial
consequences
ave
been
observed
or
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
5/10
2384 R. van Baaren et al. Social side
of
mimicry
mimicry
f
body
movementsnd
peech
ariables.
n a
typical xperiment,
participant
nd a confederate
workon an irrelevantask.
During
that
task,
the
confederate
imics
or not)
the
posture,
annerisms,
andbehavioursf the
participant
fter
short
elay.
These can be
gestures
r movementsuchas
face-
rubbing,
oot-shaking,
laying
ith
pen,
orientation
ofthebody avoidingmovementshat ndicate ower
or
status),
r
speech
ariables
uch s
using
he ame
phrases
of
speech.
This subtle
mimicking
lmost
always
s
completely
nnoticed
y
the
participant.
After
his imitation
manipulation,
he
dependent
variable
s
assessed,
which s often
n evaluation
f
or behaviour
owards
he onfederate.
Chartrand
Bargh
1999)
found hat
articipants
who were
subtly
mimicked
y
a confederate
iked
that onfederate
ore
nd had smoothernteractions
with hat
onfederate.
he
developmentalsychology
literature
ocuments
vidence
hat nfants
eact
more
favourably
owards
dults
who mitate
hem han
dults
who do not Meltzoff990;Asendorpft al. 1996).
Interestingly,
imilar
onsequences
ave een bserved
in
human
computer
nteractions.
ailenson
& Yee
(2005)
had a realistic
nterface
gent
i.e.
an
avatar
using
virtual
eality
echnology)
ither
mitating
he
participant's
ead
movements
r
performing
ifferent
headmovements.
he
imitating
nterface
gents
were
rated
s more
ikeable ndmore
persuasive
han he
non-mimicking
vatars.
Similarly,
uzuki et al.
(2003)
found hat
mimicry
f
ertain
prosodie)
rop-
erties
fa
participant's
oice
by computer
gent
ed
to more avourable
valuations
f he
omputer
gent.
Thus,
he valuative
onsequences
f
mitationre
not
unique
o human-humannteractions.
VanBaaren t l (2004a,>;xperiment)found hat
being
mitated ot
only
nfluencesvaluations
uch
s
liking
r
rapport,
ut also
makes
eople
behave
n a
more
ro-social
anner.n this
tudy,
mimicking
r
non-mimickingxperimenter
accidentally' ropped
several
ens
on thefloor. he
dependent
ariable
as
whether
articipantsot
off heir hairs nd
startedo
help
(a
measure
eveloped
y
Macrae
&
Johnston
1998).
The results evealed
hat mitated
articipants
were
considerably
ore
helpful
han
non-imitated
participants.
his effect
as
recentlyeplicated
ith
eighteen-month
ld hildren
Carpenter
t l.
ubmitted).
Whatwas confounded
n the
tudies,
n the
onse-
quencesof mitation,s that he effectsf mitation
were
measured is-a-vishe
mitator.his s
mportant
to
note,
ecause tcould
heoretically
e
possible
hat
theeffects
f mitationre
not restrictedo
the
dyad
and the mitator.
erhaps
he effects
xtend
eyond
the relation etween
he mitatornd
the
mitated.
Accordingly,
t affects
he mitated
erson
n a more
fundamental
ay.
t is
possible
hat
mitation akes
one more
ro-socially
riented
n
general.
5. SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES
OF UNCONSCIOUS
MIMICRY:BEYOND
THE
DYAD
Initial upport or his dea was obtainedn studies
looking
t the
ffectsf
being
mimickedn behaviour
towards
eople
other han
hemimicker
Van
Baaren
et al.
2004a,>).
imilar o the
previously
escribed
Phil
Trans.R. Soc.
B
(2009)
experiment,
articipants
ere
mimicked
r
not
by
an
experimenter
nd
the effects
n
prosocial
ehaviour
were ssessed.
This
time,
owever,
he
experimenter
who
mimicked
he
participant
aid
he was
finished,
and
that
new
xperimenter
ould ome
n and
eft
the
oom.
After
while,
he
new
xperimenter
ntered
theroom
nd
dropped
he
pens
on
the
floor.
Were
mimicked articipants oreprosocial fterbeing
mimicked,
ven
though
he
person
was
somebody
else rather
hanthe
mimicker?
he results
evealed
indeed hat
lso this
new
person
enefited
orm
he
increased
ro-sociality
f
a mimicked
articipant.
t
could
be the
case
that hese
esults
an be
explained
by
a transfer
f
the
pro-social
rientation
owardshe
mimickingxperimenter
nto
the
new
experimenter,
because
they
have
similar oles
and
operate
n the
same
setting.
o control
his,
he
next
tudy
ooked
at
prosocial
behaviour
owards
n
abstract,
on-
human
ntity:
onation
o
a
charity.
fter
he mita-
tion
manipulation,
articipants
ere
eft
lone
n a
room,with hemoneyhey eceivedor articipatingand
they
were sked ofill ut a
questionnaire
nthe
'CliniClowns'
Dutch
charity
rying
o
alleviate
he
stay
n
hospital
or
eriously
ll children.
here
was
a
sealed
collection
ox
in the
corner
f the
room
nd
participants
ere
in the
position
o
anonymously
donate
or not.
Whereas
non-mimicked
articipants
on
average
onated
little
nder
0 eurocents
o the
CliniClowns,
he donation
ncreased
pto
almost
0
eurocents
for those
whose
behaviour
had been
mimicked.
6. SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES
OF
UNCONSCIOUS
MIMICRY:SELF-CONSTRUAL
Howcan these
eneral
onsequences
e
explained?
s
was
described
n the section
on
moderators
f
mimicry,
elf-construals
re
intimately
inked
to
unconscious
mitation.
interdependent
or
social)
self-construal
oes
hand
n hand
with
mimicry
nd
prosocial
behaviour,
whereas
n
independent
or
personal)
elf-construal
s
associated
with
ess
mimi-
cry.
A
bi-directional
inkbetween
his
mindset nd
mimicry
ould
xplain
he
general
ocial
onsequences
described
n the
previous
aragraph.
shton-James
et al.
(2007)
tested
he
dea
that elf-construal
ay
mediate he
ffect
f
mimicry
n
prosocial
ehaviour.
In one of he xperiments,articipantseremimicked
during
an
initial
nteraction.
fter
his
mimicry
manipulation,
heir
self-construal
as
assessed
using
he
Twenty
tatements
est'
(TST,
Kuhn
&
McPartland
954),
n which
articipants
ad to
give
twenty
nswers
o
the
question
Who
am
I?'.
The
answers
othis est
re
hen oded
for
nterdependence
(social
roles,
onnections
o
others,
.g.
I amTom's
brother)
nd
independence
unique
attributes,
er-
sonal
characteristics,
.g.
I
am
tall).
After
he
TST,
the
measure
f
prosocial
ehaviour
in general)
ook
place.
The
participant
as asked
to
help
another
researcher,
ho
was unable
o
pay
hem,
ith nother
experiment.shton-Jamest l. (2007) indeed ound
an effect f
mimicry
n both
self-construal
nd
prosocial
ehaviour
nd,
n line
with
he
hypotheses,
self-construal
ediated
he
mimicry-prosocial
ffect.
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
6/10
Social side
of
mimicry
R.
van
Baaren et al
2385
Thus,
being
mitated
makes
people
feelmore attuned
to and connected
withothers.
As was
previously
mentioned,
here s an intimate
linkbetween elf-construal
nd
cognitive tyle.
Assim-
ilation n
a
behavioral
evel
goes
hand
n
hand with
n
assimilative
nformation
rocessing
tyle, mplying
hat
if
being
mimicked eads
to a social self-construal
hen
it should also lead to an interdependent field-
dependent)
ognitive tyle.
Van Baaren et
al.
(2004a,>;
experiment
)
found evidence
for this
hypothesis.
After
a
mimicry
manipulation,participants
whose
behaviour
had been
unobtrusively opied
scored
better
n
a
memory
ask
sensitive
o
contextualized
memory
Chalfonte
Johnson 996).
In this
measure,
the relative
osition
of an
object
in relation
o other
objects
s the
focus of interest nd
an
example
of an
interdependent
rocessingtyle.
(a)
Present
study
However,
the
question
remains
whether
being
mimickedreally leads to an assimilativemindset.
Instead,
t could
be the case
that,
through
mimicry,
we tend
to
relate
people
and
objects
to their ontext
and
see
them
n relation
o other
people
and
objects,
but
we do
not
necessarily
have to
assimilate
bject
and
context.
Contrast
could also
be an
outcome
of
such
a
comparative
rocess.
Here,
we will
present
study
designed
to test
whether
mimicry
ndeed
truly
leads to
an assimilative
endency.
o
people
actually
see
more
similarities
between
objects
or
people
after
being
mimicked?
To test
this,
a measure
developed
by
Mussweiler
2003)
will be used
(see
appendix
A).
In this
ask,
articipants
ee two different
pictures nd are asked to ratehow similar heyfind
them.
There
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers
and
because
there
is
no context
or
comparison
to
other
pictures,
here
are
no anchors
to
perform
he
task.
Hence,
the
similarity
udgement
s based
on
a
general
tendency
to
assimilate
or contrast.
In
this
experiment
we
will test the
hypothesis
that
being
mimicked
ndeed
moves
people
to be
more
assimilative
n
general
and
we
expect
mimicked
participants
o
perceive
more
similarity
etween
the
two
pictures.
7. METHOD
(a)
Participants
and
design
Twenty-one
tudents
rom
adboud
University
ijmegen
were
andomly
ssigned
o
one
or two
between-subjects
conditions,
Mimicry
yes
versus
no),
and
received
1
euro
for
articipation
n this rief
xperiment.
(b)
Procedure
Upon
arrival
t
the
laboratory,
he
participant
was
brought
to a room
by
the
experimenter
nd
was
asked
to take
a
seat at a
table
with
two chairs.
The
experimenter
eated
herself
n the
other
chair
and
explained
they
will
discuss
some
recent advertise-
ments.
During
this
discussion,
she
unobtrusivelymimicked
or
not)
the
spontaneous
behaviourof the
participant
e.g.
facial
xpressions,
ace/hair
ouching,
movements
y
feet or
arms)
with a 4-second
delay.
The interaction
asted
between
5.5 and 6 min. After
Phil.
Trans.
. Soc.
B
(2009)
this
mimicry
manipulation,
he
experimenter
anded
the
similarity
measure to the
participant
nd
left
he
room.
(c)
Results and discussion
To
test the effect f
mimicry
n
assimilation,
r-test
was
performed.
As
predicted,
mimicked
participants
perceived
more
similarity
etweenthe two random
pictures
(A
=6.91,
s.d.
=
1.14)
compared
to
non-mimicked
participants
(M=5.6,
s.d.
=
1.51),
r(21)
=
2.26,p
-
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
7/10
2386 R. van
Baaren
et al.
Social side
of
mimicry
evaluated ore
ositively
han
non-mimicking
vatar.
Importantly,
his ffect asreversedor
igh-prejudiced
participants
ho
weremimicked
y
n avatar ith
ypi-
cal Moroccan
eatures;
hey
valuatedhe
mimicking
avatar
ess
favourablyompared
o the
non-mimicking
one.
A
final
nterestinghenomenon
here
mimicry
s
not the defaults complementarity,r thetendency
to
automatically
eact
pposite
othe bserved
ehav-
iour.
Whenbehaviour
s
related
o
status,
ower
r
hierarchy,
umans
seem not to
imitate.
nstead,
dominance
utomaticallyriggers
ubmissiveness
nd
vice
versa
Wiggins
982;
Tiedens&
Fragale
003).
Tiedens
&
Fragale
2003)
for
xample
manipulated
the
dominance
r submissiveness
f a confederate's
posture e.g.
wide
versus
arrow)
nd observed
ow
the
articipant's
osture
hanges
ver
ime
n
response
to the onfederate.
hey
ound vidence
or utomatic
complementarity;
hen
participants
erefacedwith
a
dominant
onfederate,
heir
wn
body gradually
and unconsciouslyook up less space, whereas
they
ended
o extend
heir odies
in
space
when
interacting
ith submissive
onfederate.
(e)
Implications
or theorizing
n imitation
How
do these
ocialmoderators
nd
consequences
it
withinhebroader
heoriesn the
mechanisms
f mi-
tation
resented
lsewhere
n this ssue?Atthe
present
time,
his
uestion
annot e answered
y empirical
data
and
any theorizing
s
at best
speculative.
he
field f unconscious
mimicry
as worked
n isolation
too
ong.
What an
be
done,however,
s to
focus n
the research escribed n thischapternd to distilland
highlight
hose
aspects
of the data thatneed
an
explanation
r
may
be of nteresto theories
n
imitation
n
a broader ense.
Firstof
all,
unconscious
mimicry
s
surprisingly
flexible,
n
some cases
t occursmore han
n
others
and there re even circumstances
here
tendency
to act na
complementary
nstead f assimilative
ay
is
revealed.
econd,
given
hat he studies
eported
here
n the
onsequences
f mitation
oncern ffects
ofwhich
he
mimickees
unaware,
e needto be able
to
explain
how our brains
unconsciously
ode
or
'recognize'
we are
being
mitated r not and how
that
ffects
ur
brains
n
such
way
hatwe become
more rosocialor ess ncasesofnot iked argets).
In our
view,
hese
spects
re
currently
ot well
understoodnd thus
ny uggestion
n
possible
nte-
gration
s
inherentlypeculative.
owever,
egarding
the
flexibility
f
mimicry,
here re two
theories hat
provide
n architecture
theoretically
r
neurologi-
cally)
n
which
lexibility
f
sensory-motorouplings
may
occur:
Heyes'
Associative
equence
Learning
theory
n sensorimotorssociations
e.g. Heyes
&
Bird
007)
and
Keysers
Perrett's ebbian
Perspec-
tive n
themirror
ystemKeysers
Perrett
004).
In
both these
theories,
he mirror
ystem
cquires
ts
properties y
learned ssociations etween
ensory
input nd associatedctions.When heres consistent
co-activation
etween
ensory
nd motor
eurons,
n
time,
hese
neurons
ecome
capable
of
mutual cti-
vation.When
you
wave
your
hand and
you always
Phil. Trans.
R. Soc.
B
(2009)
see
your
and
wave,
directink etween
he
percep-
tion
of a
waving
and and
waving
t
occurs. his
in
turn,
due to
sensitivity
f
both
endogenous
nd
exogenous
timuli
n the
mirror
ystem,
an
leadto
(pre)motor
ctivity
hen
we see
somebody
lse
move
a hand.
Importantly,
his can
also
explain
why
we
sometimes
espond
n a
complementary
ay.
f we
learnn ife hatt shealthierorespondubmissively
to
dominant
eople,
nd
vice
versa,
he
ame
mechan-
isms
of associated
sensory-motor
ouplings
an
explain
hese
utomatic
omplementary
ovements.
Recent
work
by
Catmur
nd
colleagues
Catmur
et l.
2007,
2008)provides
videnceor
his
lexibility
of the
mirror
ystem
Catmur
t
al
2009).
In their
study,
training
aradigm
was
introduced
here
different
ypes
of
sensory-motor
ouplings
were
trained;
ompatible
ombinations
e.g.
responding
with
hand
movement
hen
bserving
hand
move-
ment)
nd
incompatible
ombinations
e.g.
respond-
ing
with
foot
movement
hen
observing
hand
movementr vice versa).Whenparticipantsere
trained
n
incompatible
ombinations,
reversalf
the
ypical
ompatibility
ffectsere ound
n a
reac-
tion imes
measure;
articipants
ere
ctually
aster
n
compatible
ompared
to
incompatible
rials.
In
addition,
sing
fMRI,
the
corresponding
ffect
lso
occurred
nthemirror
ystem.
fter
ncompatible
rain-
ing,
he
ctivation
f he ction
bservation
arts
f he
mirror
ystem
ere
modulated
y
training.
oncep-
tually
imilar
ffects
ere
bserved
n a muscular
evel
using
MS
and a
hand
pening-hand
losing
ask.
Relating
his o the work
n human
unconscious
mimicry
nd
the
finding
hat
mimicry
s
moderated
bya prioriiking f
the
targetor
his/her
roup),
t
would
uggest
hat his ystemsalso sensitiveocon-
text.
raining
rtask
emands
re
ne
type
f
ontext,
but he
haracteristic
f he
erson
hom
we are
bout
to mimic
s another
mportant
ontext.
n
a
sensory
level,
the
behaviour
we
observe s
integrated
n a
more
complex
rray
f stimuli:
ime,
place,
race,
prior xperience,
xpectations
nd the
like.
f the
mirror
ystem
s
flexible
n the
ensory-
ction
oup-
lings,
henthese
peripheral
spects
of
the
sensory
input
could
be
capable
of
influencing
he
type
or
direction
f
ensory-
ction
oupling.
A
possible
mechanism
hat
may elp
o
explain
ow
liking
f
a
target
moderates
mimicry
s
provided
y
Brasset al. (2009). Theydescribehefunctionfa
brain
ircuit,
omprised
ainly
f
anterior
rontome-
dian cortex
aFMC)
and
temporoparietal
unction
(TPJ),
that
plays
crucial
ole
n
distinguishing
elf
from ther.
t is
possible
hat uch
system
lays
n
important
oleboth
n
mimicry
nd
in the
conse-
quences
of
being
mimicked.
he
more
self-other
overlap
we
feel',
he
morewewill
mimic
he
other
and the
more
positive
he
consequences
f
being
mimicked
y
that
other
will be.
Future
tudies
will
be
needed o test
his dea
and
find vidence
or
on-
nections
etween
his different-from-me'
echanism
andthe
brainmechanisms
esponsible
or nconscious
mimicrynd tsconsequences.
Finally,
egarding
he
consequences
f
being
mi-
tated,
hefirst
uestion
hat
needs
o
be addressed
s
how
our brain
detects
we are
being
mitated,
ven
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
8/10
Social
side
of
mimicry
R.
van
Baarenet
al
2387
though
e do not
onsciously
ealize
t.
Theoretically,
the
difference
etween
eing
nd
not
being
mitated
can
be
conceptualized
s the
presence
r absence
f
compatible
ensory
nd
motor
oncepts.
When
we
are mitated
tmeans
ur
ensory
ndmotor
ctivation
resembleach
other
more
ompared
o
cases
where
e
arenot mitated.
ow
thebrain
etects
his
nd how
that ubsequentlyffectsurprosocial rientations
still
mystery,
lthough
he
suggested
inkbetween
the
neural
ases
of mitation
nd
empathy
Preston
de Waal
2002;
Decety
Jackson
004)
may
e
a start-
ing point
also
see Bastiaansen
t al.
2009).
Both
(automatic)
mitation
nd
empathy
eem
to share
t
least
for
large
art
he same
neuralmechanism.
n
addition,
e
Vignemont
Singer
2006)
describe he
contextual
alleability
f
mpathy,
here ur
mpathie
response
o others
s
modulated
y,
among
others,
individual
characteristics
nd
relational
factors.
Whereas
n
empathie
esponse
o
a
specific
erson
s
something
lse than
a
general
ssimilative
indset,
the onsequences
f
being
mitated
nd
empathy ayshow onsiderableverlap.
Before
losing,
owever,
he
mere act
hat ncon-
scious
mimicry
s so
pervasive
nd
omnipresent
n
humans
s in itself
elevant
o several
hapters
n this
special
ssue.
First
f
ll,
Ferrarit l.
(2009)
describe
two
ossible
mechanisms
y
whichmirror
eurons
an
influence
ehaviour;
'direct'
and 'indirect'
way.
According
o
these
authors,
direct
mitation,
f
which nconscious
mimicry
eems
o be
an
example,
is
only resent
arly
n human
evelopment.
oming
with
ge,
this
direct
ranslation
f
perception
nto
action
s less
and
mirror eurons
nfluence
ehaviour
less
directly.
owever,
his
eems
o be at
odds
with
thereviewf studies n unconsciousmimicrynthis
current
hapter.
One
possible
explanation
s
that
unconscious
mimicry
ccurs
completely
utside
of
awareness
nd
when tdoes become
onscious,
eople
tendto
stop
or control
t
immediately.
he
type
f
imitation
sed
by
Ferrari
tal. and the
vast
majority
of tudies
n
mitation
n
cognitive
sychology
nd
cog-
nitive euroscience
s
notunaware
nd s
not ested
n a
trulycological
alid ocial
ontext.
n
young
hildren,
this
disliking
f conscious
mitation
eems
not to be
apparent,
lthough
his
eeds
more esearch.
In
addition,
Whiten
t l.
(2009)
theorize
bout he
mechanisms
hat
acilitate
umulative
ultural
earning
in humans nd chimpanzeesnddescribe ow auto-
matic
mitation
lays
fundamental
ole
nthis
rocess.
Whereas
himpanzees
re
capable
of
imitation,
hey
seem o
use/apply
t more
onservatively,
hile uman
children
and
adults)
eem
to be 'enthusiastic'
mita-
tors.Our
chapter
orroborates
his
iew,
t least
from
the
human
perspective
n
showing
he
omnipresence
of
mimicry.
A final
oint
f oncern
swhether
nconscious
imi-
cry
s a
high
evel r
ow evel
utomatic echanism.
n
this
hapter,
ehave
epeatedly
tressed
ts
nconscious,
and hence
utomatic
ature.
onversely,
e have
pre-
sented
moderators
hat
eem
to be
more
high-level,
such s self-construalnd iking.We thinkt willbe a
major hallenge
o
explain
ow suchseeminglyigh
level
psychological
onstructs
nteract
ith his
ow
level
motorie
henomenon.
ne
speculative
ossibility
Phil Trans.R. Soc. B
(2009)
is that
we
automatically
mitate
or complement)
nd
we need
nhibitory
ontrol
o
stop
this
phenomenon
(see
Van
Leeuwen
t
al
in
press).
The
higher
evel
moderatorshen
may
work
s
triggers
or
nhibition.
Alternatively,
igh
evel
moderators
perate
efore
he
to-be-mimicked
ction
s
perceived
nd
exert
heir
moderating
nfluence
t
the
eginning
f
he
rocess.
In sum, ocialprocesseslay crucialole nmimi-
cry
nd
most
robably
n
most
ypes
f mitation.t s
now
he ime
o start
o
ntegrate
his
iew
n theories
explaining
he
mechanisms
f
mitation.
ore
mphasis
on the
ecological
ircumstances
nd
context
f
mita-
tion
will
undoubtedly
nspire
ther
disciplines
nd
ultimately
ell
us
more
bout
he
rchitecture
f ocial
interactions,
f
which
mitation
s a
prime
xample.
In the
end,
mimicry
s
a
truly
ocial
phenomenon
where
multiple
ndividuals
re
needed
nd
influence
each
other.
f
we
only
focus
on
the
micro-level
r
intra-individual
spects
f
mimicry,
e
may
ose
sight
of
the affective
nd
emotional
actors
elated
o
it,
hence
he itle
f his
hapter:
here
s
the
ove?
APPENDIX
A
Dependent
ariable
ssimilation.
4
I
_*_*
li fis
Nk- Ew--3
how
imilar
re hese wo
pictures?
(not tall)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(verymuch)
REFERENCES
Asendorpf,
.
B.,
Warkentin,
. &
Baudonniere,
J.
199o
Self-awareness
nd
other-awareness.
I:
Mirror
elf-
recognition,
ocial
ontingency
wareness,
nd
synchronie
imitation.
ev.
Psychol
2,
313-321.
(doi:10.
037/00
2-
1649.32.2.313)
Ashton-James,
.
E.,
van
Baaren,
R.,
Chartrand,
.
L.,
Decety,
.
&
Karremans,
.
C.
2007
Mimicry
nd
me:
the
mpact
f
mimicry
n
self-construal.
oc.
Cogn.
5,
518-535.
(doi:
0. 521/SOCO.2007.
5.4.518)
Bailenson,J. N. & Yee, N. 2005 Digitalchameleons:
automatic
ssimilation
f
nonverbal
estures
n mmersive
virtual
nvironments.
sychol.
ci.
16
10,
814-819.
(doi:10.1111/j.l467-9280.2005.
1619.x)
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
9/10
2388 R. van Baaren et al Social side
of
mimicry
Bandura,
A. 1962 Social
learning hrough
mitation.n
Nebraska
ymposium
n motivation
ed.
M. R.
Jones).
Lincoln,
E:
University
fNebraska ress.
Bastiaansen,
.
A.
C.
J.,
Thioux,
M. &
Keysers,
. 2009
Evidence
ormirror
ystems
n emotions. hil Trans. .
Soc.
B
364,
2391-2404.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0058)
Bourgeois,
.
&
Hess,
U. 2008 The
impact
f ocial ontext
on
mimicry.
iol
Psychol
7,
343-352.
(doi:10.1016/j.
biopsycho.2007.1 008)
Brass,M.,
Bekkering,
. &
Prinz,
W.2001 Movementbser-
vation ffects ovement
xecutionn a
simple esponse
task.
Acta
Psychol.
06,
3-22.
(doi:10.1016/S0001-
6918(00)00024-X)
Brass,
M.,
Ruby,
. &
Spengler,
. 2009 nhibitionf mita-
tive
ehaviournd
ocial
ognition.
hil.Trans.
. Soc. B
364,
2359-2367.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0066)
Brewer,
. B.
1991The social elf: n
being
he ame nd
different
t the
same time.Pers.
oc.
Psychol.
ull.
17,
475-482.
(doi:10.1
77/0146167291
75001)
Carpenter,
., Uebel,
J.
&
Tomasello,
.
Submitted.
imi-
cry
ncreases
rosocial
ehaviorn 18-month-olds.
Catmur,
, Walsh,
V. &
Heyes,
C. 2007 Sensorimotor
learningonfigureshe humanmirrorystem. urr.
Biol.
17,
1527-1531.
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.006)
Catmur, C,
Gillmeister,
., Bird, G.,
Liepelt,
R.,
Brass,
M. &
Heyes,
. 2008
Through
he
ooking lass:
counter-mirror
ctivation
ollowingncompatible
ensori-
motor
earning.
ur.
.
Neurosci.
8,
1208-1215.
doi:10.
111
1/j.
460-9568.
008.06419.x)
Catmur,C,
Walsh,
V. &
Heyes,
C. 2009 Associative
sequence
earning:
he
ole f
experience
n the
develop-
ment f mitation
nd
themirror
ystem.
hil.Trans.
.
Soc.
B
364,
2369-2380.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0048)
Chalfonte,
.
L. &
Johnson,
. K. 1996 Feature
memory
and
binding
n
young
nd older
dults.
Mem.
Cogn.
4,
403-416.
Chartrand,. L. & Bargh, .A. 1999The chameleonffect:the
perception-behavior
ink and social interaction.
J.
Pers.
oc.
Psychol.
6,
93-910.
(doi:
0. 037/0022-
3514.76.6.893)
Chartrand,
. L. & Van
Baaren,
.
B. 2009 Human
mimicry.
Adv.
Exp.
Soc.
Psychol.
Decety,
.
&
Jackson,
. L. 2004
The functionalrchitecture
of human
empathy.
ehav.
Cogn.
Neurosci.
ev.
3,
71-100.
(doi:10.1
77/1534582304267187)
de
Vignemont,
. &
Singer,
.
2006 The
empathie
rain:
how,
when
nd
why?
Trends
ogn.
ci.
10,
435-441.
(doi:
0.101
/j.tics.2006.08.008)
Ferrari,
.
F.,
Bonini,
. &
Fogassi,
. 2009
From
monkey
mirror eurons
o
primate
ehaviours:
ossible
direct'
and
'indirect'
athways.
hil.
Trans.R. Soc.
B
364,
2311-2323. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0062)
Greenwald,
.
G.,
McGhee,
. E. &
Schwartz,
.
K.
L. 1998
Measuring
ndividual
ifferences
n
implicit
ognition:
the
mplicit
ssociationest.
J.
Pers.
oc.
Psychol.
4,
1464-1480.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464)
Heider,
.
D. &
Skowronski,
.
J.
Submitted.
thnicity-based
similarity
ndthe
hameleon
ffect.
Heyes,
C.
M. &
Bird,
G. 2007
Mirroring,
ssociation
and
the
correspondence
roblem.
n Sensorimotor
oun-
dations
f
Higher
Cognition,
ttention
Performance
XXII.
(eds
P.
Haggard,
Y. Rossetti
M.
Kawato),
pp.
461-479.
Oxford,
K:
Oxford
niversity
ress.
Iacoboni,
M.,
Woods,
R.
P., Brass,
M.,
Bekkering,
.,
Mazziotta,
.
C. &
Rizzolatti,
. 1999 Cortical
mechan-
isms of human mitation.cience 86, 2526-2528.
(doi:
0.11
6/science.286.5449.2526)
Ji,
.,
Peng,
K. &
Nisbett,
. E. 2000
Culture,ontrol,
nd
perception
f
elationships
nthe nvironment.
.
Pers.
oc.
Psychol.
8,943-955.
doi:
0. 037/0022-35
4.78.5.943)
Johnston,
.
2002
Behavioral
mimicry
nd
stigmatization.
Soc.
Cogn.
0,
18-35.
(doi:
0.1 2
/soco.20.
.18.20944)
Keysers,
. &
Perrett,
. 2004
Demystifying
ocial
cogni-
tion:
Hebbian
perspective.
rends
ogn.
ci.
8,
501-
507.
(doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.005)
Kuhn,
M. H. &
McPartland,
. S. 1954An
empirical
nves-
tigation
f
self-attitude.
m. Sociol.Rev.
19,
68-76.
(doi:
0.2307/2088
75)
Lakin,J. & Chartrand,. L. 2003 Usingnonconscious
behavioral
mimicry
o
create affiliation
nd
rapport.
Psychol.
ci.
14,
34-339.
doi:10.1
1
1/1467-9280.14481)
Leighton,
.,
Bird,
G.
&
Heyes,
.
Submitted.ocial
ttitudes
modulate
utomaticmitation.
Lieberman,
. 2000
Get
nyone
o
do
anything
nd never
eel
powerless
gain:
psychological
ecrets o
predict,
ontrol,
and
nfluence
very
ituation.
ew
York,
Y: Saint
Martin's
Press.
Likowski,
K.
U.,
Schubert,
T.
W,
Fleischmann, .,
Landgraf,.
&
Volk,
.
Submitted.ositive
ffectsf
mimi-
cry
re imitedo
he
ngroup.
Macrae,
. N. &
Johnston,
. 1998
Help,
need
omebody:
automaticction nd
naction. oc.
Cogn. 6,
400-417.
Massen,C. & Prinz,W. 2009 Movements,ctions nd
tool-use
actions: an ideomotor
pproach
to imita-
tion.
Phil.
Trans. . Soc. B
364,
2349-2358.
(doi:
0.
1098/rstb.2009.0059)
Meltzoff,
. 1990 Foundationsor
eveloping concept
f
self: herole
f
mitation
n
relating
elf o other nd
the
value f ocial
mirroring,
ocial
modeling,
nd
elf-practice
in
infancy.
n The
elf
n transition
eds
D.
Cicchetti
M.
Beeghly),pp.
139-164.
Chicago: University
f
Chicago
Press.
Mussweiler,
.
2003
Comparison rocesses
n social
udge-
ment:mechanismsnd
consequences. sychol.
ev.
110,
472-489.
(doi:10.1037/0033-295X.l0.3.472)
Preston,
. D. & de
Waal,
F.
B.
M.
2002
Empathy:
ts
ultimate
nd
proximate
ases.Behav. rain ci.
25,
1-72.
Prinz,W. 1990A common oding pproachoperception
and action.
n
Relationships
etween
erception
nd action
(eds
O.
Neumann& W
Prinz)
pp.
167-201.
Berlin,
Germany:
pringer-
erlag.
Stel,
M.,
van
Baaren, R., Blascovich,
.,
McCall, C,
Pollmann,
M.
H.,
van
Leeuwen, M.,
Mastop,J.,
Mller,
. C. N. &
Vonk,
R.
Submitted.
imicry
nd
liking:
s t
really
hat
imple?
Suzuki,
., Takeuchi,
, Ishii,
.
&
Okada,
M.
2003 Effects
of echoic
mimicrysing
hummed ounds
on human
computerpeech
nteraction.
peech
ommunication
0,
559-573.
(doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00180-2)
Tiedens,
. Z. &
Fragale,
. R. 2003 Powermoves:
om-
plementarity
n submissive nd dominant onverbal
behavior. . Pers. oc. Psychol 4, 558-568. (doi: 0.
1037/0022-3514.84.3.558)
Uldall,B.,
Hall,
C. &
Chartrand,
. Submitted.
ptimal
distinctiveness
nd
mimicry.
van
aaren,
.
B.,Maddux,
W.
W,
Chartrand,
.
L.,
De
Bouter,
C. &
van
Knippenberg,
. 2003
It
takes wo o mimic:
behavioral
onsequences
f self-construals.
.
Pers. oc.
Psychol.
4,
1093-1102.
(doi:
0. 037/0022-354.84.5.
1093)
van
Baaren,
R.
B., Holland,
R.
W,
Kawakami,
.
& van
Knippenberg,
. 2004a
Mimicry
nd
pro-social
ehavior.
Psychol
ci.
15,
71-74.
(doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.
01501012.x)
van
Baaren,
R.
B.,
Horgan,
T.
G., Chartrand,
. L. &
Dijkmans,M. 20046 The forest,he treesand the
chameleon:
ontext-dependency
nd
mimicry..
Pers.
oc.
Psychol
6,453-459.
doi:
0. 037/0022-35
4.86.3.453)
Van
Leeuwen,
M.
L.,
Van
Baaren,
R.
B., Martin,D.,
Dijksterhuis,
A. &
Bekkering,
H.
In
press.
Phil. Trans.
R. Soc.
B
(2009)
This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009
10/10
Social side
of
mimicry
R. van Baaren
et ai 2389
Executive
functioning
imitation:
ncreasingworking
memory
oad
facilitatesehavioral
mitation.
europsychobgia.
Whiten, A., McGuigan,
N.,
Marshall-Pescini,
S. &
Hopper,
L.
M. 2009
Emulation, mitation,
ver-imita-
tion and
the
scope
of culturefor hild and
chimpanzee.
Phil. Trans.
R. Soc.
B
364,
2417-2428.
(doi:10.1098/
rstb.2009.0069)
Wigboldus,
D.,
Van
Gaal,
M., Dotsch,
R. & Van
Baaren,
R.
In preparation. irtualmimicry:mplicitrejudice oderates
the
ffectsf
mimicking.
Wiggins,
J.
S.
1982
Circumplex
models
of
interpersonal
behavior
n clinical
psychology.
n Handbook
of
research
methods
n
clinical
sychology
eds
P. C. Kendall &
J.
N.
Butcher)
pp.
183-221. New
York,
NY:
Wiley.
Witkin,
H. A.
&
Goodenough,
D. R.
1981
Cognitivetyles,
essence,
nd
origins: ield
dependence
nd
field
ndependence.
New
York,
NY:
International
niversity
ress.
Witkin,
.
A., Oltman,
P.
K., Raskin,
E. &
Karp,
S. A. 1971
A manual
for
the
embedded
igures
ests. alo
Alto,
CA:
Consulting sychologists
ress.
Witkin,
H.
A.,
Goodenough,
D. R.
&
Oltman,
P. K. 1979
Psychological
ifferentiation:urrent
tatus.
J.
Pers.Soc.
Psychol. 7, 1127-1145. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.
1127)
Yabar, Y,
Johnston,
.,
Miles,
L. &
Peace,
V.
2006
Implicit
behavioral
mimicry:
nvestigating
he
impact
of
group
membership. .
Nonverbal ehav.
30,
97-113.
(doi:10.
1 07/s 9
1
9-006-001
-6)
Phil
Trans.
. Soc.
B
(2009)
Thi t t d l d d f 137 120 118 241 Th 18 D 2014 04 49 57 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp