Where Is the Love?

The Social Aspects of Mimicry

Author(s): Rick van Baaren, Loes Janssen, Tanya L. Chartrand and Ap Dijksterhuis
Source: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 364, No. 1528, Evolution,
Development and Intentional Control of Imitation (Aug. 27, 2009), pp. 2381-2389
Published by: The Royal Society
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS

OF

THE ROYAL"fj
W'
SOCIETY JlJ

Phil.Trans.R. Soc. B (2009) 364,2381-2389

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0057

Where is the love? The social aspects of mimicry

Rick van Baaren1'*, Loes Janssen2,Tanya L. Chartrand3
and Ap Dijksterhuis1
1BehavioralScience
Radboud University
Institute,
Nijmegen,The Netherlands
2
The Netherlands
Twente
University,
ofCommunication,
Department
Duke
Business
Durham,
NC, USA
School,
University,
3Fugua

is unconsciousmimicry;
of humansocial interactions
characteristic
One striking
peoplehave a
behaviours
without
awareness.
Our
mannerisms
and
other's
each
over
to
take
posture,
tendency
in
social
interan
role
human
unconscious
case
that
the
to
make
is
mimicry
plays important
goal
to
is closelyrelatedto and moderatedby our connectedness
actionand to showthatmimicry
in relationto typesof imitation
used
others.Firstwe willpositionhumanunconsciousmimicry
Then we will providesupportforsocial
and cognitiveneuroscience.
in cognitive
psychology
the
and the mimickeeinfluence
of both the mimicker
Characteristics
of mimicry.
moderation
in a social interaction.
Next,we turnto thepositivesocial consequencesof
degreeof mimicry
and we willpresentdata showinghow beingimitatedmakespeople
thisunconsciousmimicry
wediscusswhatthesefindings
ingeneral.In thefinalsection,
moreassimilative
implyfortheorizing
be
resolved
beforea start
need
to
issues
that
out
several
and
ofimitation point
on themechanisms
on
imitation.
of
research
context
in
the
broader
field
this
to
can be made integrate
social;humans
Keywords:imitation;

is a trulysocialphenomenon: view,should be addressedby studiesin the near

Imitation,
bydefinition,
whattypeof
it takestwoto imitate.Althoughat firstglancethis future.First,however,we will clarify
this
focus
of
is
the
imitation
social
the
somewhat
seem
statementmay
paper.
trivial,
in facthas notbeenfullyapprecinatureofimitation
Whereaswe
on imitation.
atedby current
theorizing
froma
ofimitation
knowa lotaboutthemechanisms
1. TYPE OF IMITATION:UNCONSCIOUS
and
neuropsychological
developmentalcognitive-,
HUMAN MIMICRY
and consequences The social
thesocialmoderators
perspective,
evidencefor
studiesproviding
or the socialpsychological
Do we imitateeverybody
arelesswellunderstood.
have mostlyfocusedon
side of imitation
to human
How does our relationship
are we moreselective?
is dennedas
In thisfield,mimicry
mimicry.
and its unconscious
imitation
moderate
or mimickee
themimicker
behaof gestures,
or automaticimitation
Whatare the social consequencesof
consequences?
facial expressions,speech and movements
viours,
The purposeof thispaper is to present
imitation?
& VanBaaren
reviewsee Chartrand
an extensive
and bydoing (for A
evidenceforthesocialsideofimitation
twopeoplein
is
when
example
2009). prototypical
so, hopefully
inspireotherdisciplinesto integrate a bar are involvedin a conversation
and are unaware
work. of the factthat
and empirical
in theirtheorizing
thesefindings
theytakeon the same posture,nod
to providea completereview their
It is not the intention
and makethesamefacerubbingor hair
heads,
of all the workdone on mimicry
(fora review,see touchingmovements.
thusis
This typeof mimicry
& VanBaaren2009), instead,thepaperis different
Chartrand
fromthemoreconscioustypesof imitation
to makea strongcase forsocialprocessesin thathavebeenstudiedin therealmoflearning,
written
modthistypeofimitation.
Bandura 1962). This
and acculturation
(e.g.
elling
In the nextsectionswe willprovideevidencefor
fromthetypesused
is also different
typeofmimicry
social moderatorsand consequencesof mimicry, in researchin cognitivepsychology
and cognitive
we will discussthe fit and misfitwith neuroscience
whereafter
thathas focusedon imitation
(see other
to integrate
It is notourintention
current
theorizing.
in this
The
difference
in
the
specialissue).
done in other chapters
the presentchapterin the theorizing
case centresaroundawareness;are you awareof the
in thisspecialissue,simplybecausethereis behaviour see and are
chapters
to
trying
youintentionally
you
in cogon thistypeofmimicry
research
little
too
just
the
to
unconscious
it
comes
When
it?
mimicry,
What copy
neuroscience.
and cognitive
nitivepsychology
answerto thosequestionsis 'no'. In mostcognitive
we do insteadis pointout whichquestions,in our and
studies,at leastone of these
neuropsychological
by'yes'.
questionsis answered
* Authorforcorrespondence(r.vanbaaren@bsi.ru.nl).
betweenthesocialpsychoA relatedkeydifference
and
the
studiesincognitiveand
most
of
studies
logical
Issue
a
Theme
1
3
to
of
One contribution
'Evolution,development
relative
focus
on
is
the
neuroscience
and intentionalcontrolof imitation'.
ecological
cognitive
2381

This journalis 2009 The Royal Society

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2382

R. van Baaren et al. Social sideofmimicry

versus internalvalidity.Most studies on unconscious

mimicryuse an observationalmethodand one is in a
untilthe
sense waiting(like an amateurbird-watcher)
behaviourto be imitatedis spontaneously
produced.This
is in contrastwith many tasksused in cognitive-and
neurosciencewhereoftena stimulus-response
cognitive
task is used (e.g. Prinz 1990; Iacoboni
compatibility
etal. 1999; Brassetal. 2001; Massen & Prinz2009) and
or inherent
thebehaviourof interestis eitherinstructed
in the task or participantsare consciouslyobservinga
behaviourand theirspontaneousmotoror neurological
responsesare coded.
It is important to realize that, in studies on
unconscious human mimicry,mimicryis just a byproduct in the interaction. The participants are
(e.g. workfocusingon somethingcompletelydifferent
ing on a picturedescribingtask (Chartrand& Bargh
1999) or judging advertisements(Van Baaren et al.
2003)) and they are unaware of the behaviour,the
mimicryand the factthatthe researchersmay in fact
be interestedin somethingelse otherthan the irrelevant task the participantis workingon.... In sum,
the type of imitation we have researched most
is unconscious,peripheralmimicry.
extensively
A prototypical example of an experimental
investigationof human unconscious mimicryis the
'Chameleon effect'(Chartrand & Bargh 1999). In
thisresearch,participantsinteractedwithan unknown
confederate in two consecutive picture-describing
sessions. In one session, the confederate either
rubbed her face or shook her foot while describing
the pictureswith the participants,while the second
confederateperformedthe behaviour that the first
confederatedid not.The behaviouroftheparticipants,
'secretly'recordedon videotape,showed thatparticipants shook theirfoot more in the presence of the
foot-shakingconfederate, and rubbed their faces
more in the presenceof the face-rubbingconfederate.
Debriefingindicatedthatparticipantswereunawareof
theirmimicry.
2. EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL MODERATORS:
MIMICKER CHARACTERISTICS
The Chameleon effect(Chartrand& Bargh 1999) did
show that thereis an automatichuman tendencyto
mimic behaviour and mannerisms.However, subsequent researchrevealed we don't imitateeveryone
all the time.Our tendencyto unconsciouslymimic
is moderated by both enduring and temporary
of the mimickerand the mimickee.
characteristics
nonconscious
First,
mimicryis increased when
on the individualsaround
focused
are
more
people
them. Providinginitial support for this contention,
Chartrand & Bargh (1999, study 3) found that
people highin perspectivetaking(i.e. who are paying
more attentionto those around them) mimickedthe
behaviourof a confederateto a greaterextentthan
those low in perspectivetaking.
Additional evidence for the moderatingrole of
concern with others comes from research by van
Baaren et al. (2003). In threestudiesthateithertemorientationor compared
porarilyprimedself-construal
different
from
cultures,an interdependent
participants

self-construalwas associated with more automatic

mimicrythan with an independent self-construal.
In essence, self-construalrefers to the extent to
which people perceivethemselvesas unique individuals, independentof othersinstead of connectedto,
and dependent on, others (see Brewer 1991). Even
though,in general,some people are enduringlymore
dependent than independent,self-construalcan be
temporarilymodified.For example, primingparticipants by presentingthemor havingthemread words
likeT, 'me' or 'mine' versus'we', 'us' or 'our' temporon the social-personal
arilyshiftstheirself-construals
dimension. This in turn influencesthe degree of
unconscious mimicryin a subsequent interaction
with a stranger(Van Baaren et al. 2003; study 2).
or endurThat is, participantswitheithera temporary
ingly dominant and interdependentself were more
likelyto nonconsciouslytake on the behavioursand
mannerisms of a confederate.Using a stimulusresponse compatibilitytask (a dependent variable
more common to cognitivepsychologycompared to
spontaneous mimicry),Leighton et al. (submitted)
recentlyconceptuallyreplicatedthiseffect.
Finally, enduringor temporaryattentionto and
concern with others have been shown to moderate
the extentto which individualsmimic an interaction
goal is associated
partner.For example,an affiliation
with more mimicrythan no affiliationgoal, as has
been shownby Lakin & Chartrand(2003). This held
regardlessof whetherthe goal was consciouslyheld
aftergettingexplicit instructionsto get along with
another person, or nonconsciouslyheld afterbeing
words
subliminallyprimed with affiliation-related
such as affiliate,
friend,team,partner,and like.
Thus, when we are more concernedwith others,
depend more on them,feel closer to them,or want
to be likedby them,we tend to take overtheirbehaviour to greaterextent.This malleabilityof mimicryis
beautifullycapturedby Brewer's(1991) optimaldistinctivenesstheory.The theorysuggeststhat people
tryto strikea balance betweena desirefordistinctivefromothers)and
ness (i.e. feelingunique and different
a desireforassimilationor belonging(i.e. feelingsimilar to others). When people feel too distinctor too
similar, they are motivatedto regain the balance.
Thus, they have a need to assimilate activated in
In a
situationswhere theyfeel unusual or different.
to
this
of
theory mimicry
studyapplyingtheprinciples
behaviour,Uldall et al. (submitted)had participants
complete a supposed 'personalitytest'. They were
given (bogus) feedback on the test that indicated
theyhad a 'personalitytype'thatwas eitherverysimior one
lar to mostothersat theirundergradinstitution
Particiunusual at theiruniversity.
thatwas extremely
pants theninteractedwithanotherstudent(actuallya
confederate),and thosewho had earlierbeen toldthey
fromothersat theirschool engaged
wereverydifferent
in more mimicryof the confederatethan those who
had been told they were similar to others at their
school. This suggeststhat people mimic more when
fromin-groupmembers.
theyare feelingtoo different
that
is
a
people (nonconsciously)regain
way
Mimicry
their 'optimal' balance (Brewer 1991) by affiliating
with othersin an effortto belong. It is importantto

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social sideofmimicryR. van Baaren et al

2383

betweenprimingor activating
note the difference
a
in cases wheretheydo notwantto
prevent
mimicry
and the manipulationused in the bondwithanotherperson.
self-construal
or
Uldall et al (2008) study.Whereasindependent
Steletal
Takingitmorebroadlythansocialstigma,
self-construals
are self-construals
that (submitted)have exploredthe relationship
between
interdependent
can differ
betweenand withinpeople,dependingon evaluation
or likingofa targetand mimicry.
In a first
theUldalletal manipulation
entailsan extre- studywhereparticipants'
a priorilikingfora target
context,
This
or
means
was
and
their
of thatperson
priming.
melydependent independent
manipulated
mimicry
thatit is outsidethe 'normal'boundariesof howwe was thenmeasured,theyfoundthatwhena targetis
feeltheneed disliked,facial mimicryis attenuated.In another
relateto othersand we (unconsciously)
on affiliation study,a reactiontime measureto assess implicit
torestore
thebalance.In theexperiments
thepriming
is not associations
etal 1998) towards
however,
(IAT,see Greenwald
goalsand self-construal,
extreme
and peopleassimilateto the prime,instead Dutch and Moroccanswas administered.
Withthis
is the moderating measure,the relativeevaluationof Dutch versus
a balance.Extremity
of restoring
Moroccanscanbe quantified.
here(Brewer1991).
In a subsequent
session,
principle
watchedvideos of both a Dutch actor
Social processescan extendto a basic perceptual participants
some clerical
and cognitive
level,and researchfromculturaland and a Moroccan actor performing
charac- tasksand in additionperforming
indicatedthatthemimicker
some subtlebehasocialpsychology
are correlatedwith viours,such as face/hair
such as self-construal,
teristics,
touchingand pen-playing.
mimicker
characteristics Hidden videocamerasregisteredthe participants'
and cognitive
theperceptual
and itwasfoundthattheimplicit
attitudes
(Witkinet al 1979; Witkin& Goodenough1981; behaviours
withunconscious
forexample,which correlated
thatis,themore
mimicry,
Jietal 2000). Fielddependence,
weretowardsMoroccansrelative
of perceptually
to thephenomenon
refers
participants
integrating negative
withsocially to Dutch,theless relatively
a Moroctheymimicked
objectsin theircontext,goes together
to others.On theotherhand,field can comparedto a Dutch actor.Similarresultswere
beingmoreattuned
obtainedby Yabar et al (2006), where
toperceptually
iso- previously
whichisthetendency
independence,
towards
is relatedto a socially insteadof ethnicattitudes,
lateobjectsfromtheircontexts,
implicitattitudes
Van
Christians
wereused.Finally,
In
three
mindset.
(versusnon-Christians)
by
experiments
independent
of ingroup
thecognitive
Baarenetal (2004a,>),
(fielddepen- severalotherstudiesfoundmaineffects
styles
distinction
on
Heider
&
measured
were
either
field
versus
outgroup
mimicry.
independence)
dency
conducteda studyin which
or experimentally
(submitted)
primedand then the degreeof Skowronski
interAmericanand Caucasian participants
was Africaninteraction
in a subsequent
unconscious
mimicry
one aftertheother,one
measured.As expected,the more fielddependent actedwithtwoconfederates
and one Caucasian. They found
wereon a testof cognitive
style(e.g. the African-American
participants
HiddenFiguresTest,Witkinet al 1971) the more more mimicryof ethnic ingroupmembersthan
theirinteraction
Bourgeois&
partner.This attests ethnicoutgroupmembers.Similarly,
theymimicked
of ingroup
characteristics
theidea thatthemimicker
influencing Hess (2008) foundmorefacialmimicry
members.
members
than
rooted
and
our unconsciousmimicryare deeply
outgroup
In sum,thereis ampleevidenceforsocialmoderfundamental.
ationof mimicry,
namely,the humannonconscious
to
imitate.
We do notjustimitateeverybody
tendency
all thetime.We imitatemorewhen:we feelconnected
3. EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL MODERATORS:
we wantto affiliate
to others,othersare important,
MIMICKEE CHARACTERISTICS
orhavean assimoriented
with
we
are
is
our
of
moderator
social
Another
others,
socially
mimicry
important
in additionto
of our interaction ilativecognitivestyle.Furthermore,
evaluationof the characteristics
the
Whenwe likea person,or his/her
ethnicity, these more general mimickercharacteristics,
partner.
ofthemimickee
alsomoderate
or socialstatus,we willimitate characteristics
or groupmembership
mimicry.
extentcomparedto whenwe A priorievaluationsof those targetspredictour
thatpersonto a greater
do not positivelyevaluate those characteristics. subsequent
mimicry.
In the next sectionwe discuss anotherline of
Johnstonand colleagueshave conducted several
evidenceforthiseffect.
First, evidencelendingstrong
supportfora viewthatmimiproviding
experiments
to
influences
and is influenced
is
related
social
of
a
the
by
cry closely
(2002) investigated impact
Johnston
we
move
in
human
interactions.
social
were
In
two
on
Then,
studies,
processes
participants
stigma mimicry.
to integrate
thesesocialmoderators
ostensiblyworkingon an icecream tastingtask on to an attempt
in current
on imitation.
who and consequences
withanotherperson(a confederate),
theorizing
together
had or had not a visiblesocial stigma(beingobese,
ate a lot or
or havinga facialscar).The confederate
thepar- 4. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNCONSCIOUS
a littleice creamand itwas assessedwhether
The
MIMICRY: ON THE DYAD
the ice creamconsumption.
ticipantmimicked
In
bookson influence
and making
of
the
effect
a
revealedindeed mimicry
results
manycommercial
particiimitation
is
as
one
of
the
offered
meansto
occurred
no
friends,
however, mimicry
pant'sconsumption;
createa good impression
and havea positiverelation
had a visiblesocialstigma.The
whentheconfederate
or rapportwithothers(e.g. Lieberman2000). There
theoryis that mimicry(unconsciously)createsa
evidencethatthisindeedoccurs.
bond or connectionbetweenindividualsand that is nowexperimental
humans automaticallyand unconsciouslytry to Positivesocial consequenceshavebeen observedfor
Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2384

R. van Baaren et al. Social sideofmimicry

or notbyan
weremimicked
In a
ofbodymovements
andspeechvariables.
participants
experiment,
mimicry
on
the
effects
and
a
and
a
confederate
prosocialbehaviour
typicalexperiment, participant
experimenter
theexperimenter
workon an irrelevant
task. During that task,the wereassessed.This time,however,
said
the
mimicked
who
mimics(or not)theposture,
confederate
mannerisms,
participant he was finished,
wouldcomein and left
aftera shortdelay. and thata newexperimenter
and behaviours
of theparticipant
entered
a while,thenewexperimenter
such as face- theroom.After
These can be gesturesor movements
Were
floor.
the
on
the
and
room
the
a
orientation
with
pens
dropped
pen,
foot-shaking,
rubbing,
playing
more prosocialafterbeing
thatindicatepower mimickedparticipants
ofthebody(avoidingmovements
or status),or speechvariablessuchas usingthesame mimicked,even thoughthe personwas somebody
The resultsrevealed
almost else ratherthanthe mimicker?
phrasesof speech. This subtle mimicking
formthe
new
also
this
unnoticedby the participant. indeedthat
personbenefited
alwaysis completely
It
a
mimicked
of
increased
the
Afterthis imitationmanipulation, dependent
participant.
pro-sociality
variableis assessed,whichis oftenan evaluationof couldbe thecase thattheseresultscan be explained
the
towards
orientation
ofthepro-social
towardstheconfederate.
or behaviour
bya transfer
ontothenewexperimenter,
Chartrand
& Bargh(1999) foundthatparticipants mimicking
experimenter
liked because theyhave similarrolesand operatein the
who were subtlymimickedby a confederate
interactions same setting.To controlthis,the nextstudylooked
moreand had smoother
thatconfederate
The developmental
withthatconfederate.
psychology at prosocialbehaviourtowardsan abstract,nonAftertheimitadonationto a charity.
reactmore humanentity:
evidencethatinfants
documents
literature
leftalone in a
were
themthanadults tion manipulation,
adultswhoimitate
towards
participants
favourably
for
received
with
the
et al. 1996). room,
who do not (Meltzoff1990; Asendorpf
participating
moneythey
on the
havebeenobserved and theywereaskedto fillouta questionnaire
similar
consequences
Interestingly,
the
alleviate
to
Bailenson& Yee 'CliniClowns'a Dutch charity
in human-computerinteractions.
trying
a
was
There
ill
children.
for
in
an
avatar
interface
had
a
realistic
stay hospital seriously
agent(i.e.
(2005)
and
room
of
the
corner
in
the
box
collection
sealed
the
either
virtual
imitating
realitytechnology)
using
were in the positionto anonymously
different participants
or performing
headmovements
participant's
interface
The imitating
head movements.
participants
agentswere donateor not. Whereasnon-mimicked
to the
thanthe on averagedonateda littleunder40 eurocents
ratedas morelikeableand morepersuasive
the donationincreaseduptoalmost80
avatars. Similarly,Suzuki et al.
CliniClowns,
non-mimicking
ofcertain(prosodie)prop- eurocentsfor those whose behaviourhad been
(2003) foundthatmimicry
voicebya computer
ertiesofa participant's
agentled mimicked.
of
the
evaluations
to morefavourable
agent.
computer
arenot
ofimitation
Thus,theevaluative
consequences
6. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNCONSCIOUS
interactions.
uniqueto human-human
MIMICRY: SELF-CONSTRUAL
found
that
VanBaarenetal (2004a,>;
1)
experiment
As
be explained?
can thesegeneralconsequences
as
How
such
influences
evaluations
imitated
not
only
being
was describedin the section on moderatorsof
but also makespeoplebehavein a
likingor rapport,
linked to
are intimately
or mimicry,self-construals
a mimicking
manner.In thisstudy,
morepro-social
A interdependent
(or social)
'accidentally'dropped unconsciousimitation.
non-mimicking
experimenter
and
variablewas self-construal
severalpenson thefloor.The dependent
goes hand in hand withmimicry
an
whereas
to
whether
independent(or
prosocialbehaviour,
participants
gotofftheirchairsand started
is associatedwithless mimihelp (a measuredevelopedby Macrae & Johnston personal)self-construal
linkbetweenthismindsetand
1998). The resultsrevealedthatimitated
participants cry.A bi-directional
couldexplainthegeneralsocialconsequences
more helpfulthan non-imitated mimicry
were considerably
with describedin the previousparagraph.Ashton-James
This effectwas recently
replicated
participants.
etal.submitted). et al. (2007) testedthe idea thatself-construal
oldchildren
may
(Carpenter
eighteen-month
on prosocialbehaviour.
ofmimicry
in thestudies,on theconse- mediatetheeffect
Whatwas confounded
weremimicked
of imitation In one oftheexperiments,
is thatthe effects
participants
quencesof imitation,
Afterthis mimicry
Thisis important during an initial interaction.
vis-a-vis
theimitator.
weremeasured
was assessed
be possiblethat manipulation,their self-construal
to note,becauseit couldtheoretically
Test'
Statements
to thedyad usingthe 'Twenty
of imitation
are notrestricted
theeffects
(TST, Kuhn &
had to give
in
which
McPartland
extend
the
effects
and the imitator.
participants
1954),
beyond
Perhaps
the relationbetweenthe imitatorand the imitated. twentyanswersto the question'Who am I?'. The
tothistestarethencodedforinterdependence
theimitated
it affects
personin a more answers
Accordingly,
to others,e.g. I am Tom's
connections
imitation
makes
It
is
that
fundamental
roles,
(social
way.
possible
in general.
oriented
one morepro-socially
perbrother)and independence(unique attributes,
sonal characteristics,
e.g. I am tall). AftertheTST,
themeasureof prosocialbehaviour(in general)took
was asked to help another
5. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNCONSCIOUS
place. The participant
whowasunableto paythem,withanother
MIMICRY: BEYOND THE DYAD
researcher,
etal. (2007) indeedfound
Initialsupportforthisidea was obtainedin studies experiment.
Ashton-James
and
on
of
an
effect
on behaviour
ofbeingmimicked
mimicry both self-construal
lookingat theeffects
the
with
in
line
behaviour
Baaren
the
mimicker
other
than
towardspeople
and,
hypotheses,
(Van
prosocial
effect.
mediatedthe mimicry-prosocial
described self-construal
et al. 2004a,>).Similarto the previously
Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social sideofmimicryR. van Baaren et al

Thus, being imitatedmakes people feelmore attuned
to and connectedwithothers.
As was previouslymentioned,thereis an intimate
and cognitivestyle.Assimlinkbetweenself-construal
ilationon a behaviorallevelgoes hand in hand withan
information
assimilative
processingstyle,implyingthat
then
ifbeingmimickedleads to a social self-construal
it should also lead to an interdependent(fielddependent)cognitivestyle.Van Baaren et al. (2004a,>;
experiment3) found evidence for this hypothesis.
After a mimicrymanipulation,participantswhose
behaviour had been unobtrusivelycopied scored
betteron a memorytask sensitiveto contextualized
memory(Chalfonte& Johnson1996). In thismeasure,
the relativepositionof an object in relationto other
objectsis the focus of interestand an example of an
processingstyle.
interdependent

2385

this mimicrymanipulation,the experimenter

handed
the similaritymeasure to the participantand leftthe
room.

(c) Results and discussion

To testthe effectof mimicryon assimilation,a r-test
was performed.As predicted,mimickedparticipants
perceived more similaritybetween the two random
s.d. = 1.14) compared to
pictures (A =6.91,
non-mimicked participants (M=5.6,
s.d. = 1.51),
=
r(21) 2.26,p<0.05.
These results demonstrate that being imitated
changes the way we perceiveand interactwith other
people on a fundamentallevel. Afterbeing imitated,
we perceive more similaritybetween objects, feel
more similarto othersand behave in a moreprosocial
manner. What remains a great challenge for future
researchis findingout how theseeffectsoccur chrono(a) Present study
logically. What exactly activates this assimilative
However, the question remains whether being
mindsetand therelatedself-construal?
Whatingredient
mimicked really leads to an assimilativemindset. in
mimicrytriggersthese assimilativeand social proInstead, it could be the case that,throughmimicry, cesses? In our view, at this stage of researchon the
we tend to relatepeople and objects to theircontext social aspects of mimicry,
now is the timeto focuson
and see themin relationto otherpeople and objects, the neural correlatesof being imitated.Until we have
but we do not necessarilyhave to assimilateobject
found sound ways to measure being imitatedin the
and context.Contrastcould also be an outcome of
brain,themagicofmimicryremainsa mystery.
such a comparativeprocess. Here, we will presenta
on the consequencesof being
In all the experiments
studydesignedto testwhethermimicryindeed truly mimickedthathavebeen describedso far,theinteraction
leads to an assimilativetendency.Do people actually is alwaysbetweentwo strangers.
In all thesecases, the
see more similaritiesbetween objects or people
consequenceshave been positive.What happenswhen
after being mimicked? To test this, a measure we a priorido not like a person?Does thatyieldthe
developed by Mussweiler (2003) will be used (see
same resultsor can mimicryactuallybackfire?
appendixA). In thistask,participantssee twodifferent
picturesand are asked to rate how similartheyfind
(d) Social consequences of unconscious
them. There are no right or wrong answers and
mimicry: when it backfires
because there is no context or comparison to
Likowski et al (submitted)examined the boundary
otherpictures,there are no anchors to performthe
conditions of the positive consequences of being
task. Hence, the similarityjudgement is based on
mimicked.
theyfoundthatbeingmimicked
Specifically,
a general tendency to assimilate or contrast. In
of
an
member
a
outgroupmakes an individuallike
this experimentwe will test the hypothesis that by
member
the
less,not more. Thus, outgroup
outgroup
being mimickedindeed moves people to be more
are
lesslikedthanoutgroupmemwho
mimic
members
assimilativein general and we expect mimicked
In
a second study,theyexamnot
mimic.
who
do
bers
participantsto perceivemore similaritybetween the
A synchronizedingroup
ined
walking
synchrony.
two pictures.
member was liked more than a non-synchronized
ingroupmember,but the oppositewas foundforout7. METHOD
group members (a synchronizedoutgroup member
was liked less than a non-synchronizedoutgroup
(a) Participants and design
fromRadboudUniversity
students
the authors also found that
Nijmegen member). Interestingly,
Twenty-one
wererandomlyassignedto one or twobetween-subjects the effectextendsto likingof the ingroupor outgroup
as a whole; being mimickedby an ingroupmember
conditions,Mimicry(yes versus no), and received 1
in thisbriefexperiment.
euroforparticipation
leads to more likingof the ingroup,whereas being
mimickedby an outgroupmemberleads to less liking
of the outgroup.
Procedure
(b)
was
the
the
at
arrival
Wigboldus et al (in preparation)showed that the
participant
laboratory,
Upon
of being imitated by an outgroup
was
and
the
a
room
to
consequences
experimenter
by
brought
member are moderated by implicitprejudice. The
asked to take a seat at a table with two chairs. The
head movementsof white Dutch participantswere
experimenterseated herselfon the other chair and
explained they will discuss some recent advertise- unobtrusivelymimickedor not by an avatar in an
ments. During this discussion, she unobtrusively immersivevirtualenvironment.For half the particimimicked(or not) the spontaneousbehaviourof the
pants, the avatar was Dutch looking, and for the
face/hair
touching, othershe was Moroccan looking.The resultsshowed
participant(e.g. facialexpressions,
movementsby feet or arms) with a 4-second delay. that forlow-prejudicedpeople, the 'normal5effectof
The interactionlasted between 5.5 and 6 min. After being mimicked occurred: a mimickingavatar was
Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2386

R. van Baaren et al. Social sideofmimicry

evaluated
morepositively
avatar. see yourhandwave,a directlinkbetweenthepercepthana non-mimicking
thiseffect
wasreversed
forhigh-prejudiced tionof a wavinghand and wavingit occurs.This in
Importantly,
of both endogenousand
whoweremimicked
participants
byan avatarwithtypi- turn,due to sensitivity
can lead to
mirror
in
the
stimuli
the
cal Moroccanfeatures;
evaluated
system,
mimicking exogenous
they
elsemove
we
see
when
to
the
avatarlessfavourably
somebody
activity
non-mimicking(pre)motor
compared
thiscan also explainwhywe
a hand. Importantly,
one.
is sometimesrespondin a complementary
A finalinteresting
wheremimicry
way.If we
phenomenon
to respondsubmissively
or the tendency learnin lifethatitis healthier
not the defaultis complementarity,
to automatically
reactoppositeto theobservedbehav- to dominant
people,andviceversa,thesamemechaniour.Whenbehaviouris relatedto status,poweror isms of associated sensory-motor
couplingscan
movements.
humans seem not to imitate.Instead, explaintheseautomaticcomplementary
hierarchy,
and
and Recent workby Catmur
submissiveness
dominanceautomatically
colleagues(Catmur
triggers
evidenceforthisflexibility
viceversa(Wiggins1982; Tiedens& Fragale2003). etal. 2007, 2008) provides
Tiedens& Fragale(2003) forexamplemanipulated of the mirrorsystem(Catmuret al 2009). In their
of a confederate's study,a trainingparadigmwas introducedwhere
the dominanceor submissiveness
and
observedhow different
versus
wide
couplingswere
types of sensory-motor
narrow)
posture(e.g.
combinations
in
time
over
theparticipant's
responding
(e.g.
trained;
compatible
response
posturechanges
movehand
a
when
movement
a
hand
with
for
automatic
found
evidence
totheconfederate.
observing
They
combinations
werefacedwith ment)and incompatible
whenparticipants
(e.g. respondcomplementarity;
whenobservinga hand
theirown body gradually ing witha footmovement
a dominantconfederate,
were
and unconsciouslytook up less space, whereas movementor vice versa). When participants
of
reversal
a
combinations,
theytendedto extendtheirbodies in space when trainedin incompatible
reacon
a
were
found
effects
thetypicalcompatibility
confederate.
witha submissive
interacting
on
faster
wereactually
tiontimesmeasure;participants
In
trials.
to
incompatible
compatiblecompared
also
effect
the
on
imitation
fMRI,
addition,
corresponding
using
(e) Implicationsfor theorizing
trainAfter
inthemirror
fit occurred
and consequences
How do thesesocialmoderators
incompatible
system.
oftheactionobservation
ofimi- ing,theactivation
on themechanisms
within
thebroadertheories
partsofthe
inthisissue?Atthepresent mirrorsystemweremodulatedby training.
elsewhere
tationpresented
Conceplevel
on a muscular
wereobserved
effects
time,thisquestioncannotbe answeredby empirical tuallysimilar
The
is at best speculative.
data and any theorizing
closingtask.
usingTMS and a handopening-hand
has workedin isolation
fieldofunconsciousmimicry
Relatingthisto the workon humanunconscious
is moderated
thatmimicry
and the finding
is to focuson mimicry
too long.Whatcan be done,however,
his/her
the
of
a
and
to
distill
described
in
this
the research
group),it
target(or
by prioriliking
chapter
to conis also sensitive
and highlight
those aspectsof the data thatneed wouldsuggestthatthissystem
ortaskdemandsareonetypeofcontext,
to theorieson text.Training
an explanation
or maybe of interest
ofthepersonwhomweareabout
butthecharacteristic
in a broadersense.
imitation
context.On a sensory
is surprisingly to mimicis anotherimportant
Firstof all, unconsciousmimicry
in a
in some cases it occursmorethanin others level,the behaviourwe observeis integrated
flexible,
wherea tendency more complexarrayof stimuli:time,place, race,
and thereare evencircumstances
and the like. If the
to act in a complementary
insteadofassimilative
way priorexperience,expectations
actioncoupin thesensoryis revealed.Second,giventhatthe studiesreported mirror
systemis flexible
of
these
then
concerneffects lings,
hereon theconsequencesofimitation
peripheralaspects the sensory
the typeor
we needto be able inputcould be capable of influencing
ofwhichthemimickee
is unaware,
actioncoupling.
ofsensorycode or direction
to explainhow our brainsunconsciously
thatmayhelpto explainhow
A possiblemechanism
'recognize'we are being imitatedor not and how
is providedby
thataffects
ourbrainsin sucha waythatwe become likingof a targetmoderatesmimicry
of a
moreprosocial(or lessin casesofnotlikedtargets). Brasset al. (2009). They describethe function
frontomenot well braincircuit,
In our view,theseaspectsare currently
mainlyofanterior
comprised
on possibleinte- dian cortex(aFMC) and temporoparietal
understood
and thusanysuggestion
junction
self
However,regarding (TPJ),thatplaysa crucialrolein distinguishing
grationis inherently
speculative.
of mimicry,
thereare twotheoriesthat fromother.It is possiblethatsucha system
theflexibility
playsan
and in the conserole both in mimicry
or neurologi- important
(theoretically
providean architecture
more self-other
The
mimicked.
of
in
of
couplings quences being
cally) whichflexibility sensory-motor
the other
mimic
will
more
we
the
we
Associative
occur:
Heyes'
Sequence Learning overlap 'feel',
may
the
more
and
the
&
on
sensorimotor
associations
consequencesof being
positive
(e.g. Heyes
theory
will
be. Futurestudieswill
other
that
HebbianPerspec- mimicked
Bird2007) and Keysers& Perrett's
by
findevidenceforconand
this
idea
to
test
In
needed
Perrett
be
&
tiveon themirror
2004).
system
(Keysers
mechanism
both thesetheories,the mirrorsystemacquiresits nectionsbetweenthiscdifferent-from-me'
forunconscious
responsible
properties
by learnedassociationsbetweensensory andthebrainmechanisms
and itsconsequences.
inputand associatedactions.Whenthereis consistent mimicry
the consequencesof beingimibetweensensoryand motorneurons,in
co-activation
Finally,regarding
time,theseneuronsbecomecapableof mutualacti- tated,thefirstquestionthatneedsto be addressedis
even
vation.When you wave yourhand and you always how our braindetectswe are beingimitated,
Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social sideofmimicryR. van Baaren et al

2387

and
imitate(or complement)
realizeit.Theoretically, is thatwe automatically
thoughwe do notconsciously
this
to
control
we
need
imitated
betweenbeingand notbeing
phenomenon
thedifference
stop
inhibitory
as thepresenceor absenceof (see Van Leeuwenet al in press).The higherlevel
can be conceptualized
forinhibition.
thenmayworkas triggers
compatiblesensoryand motorconcepts.When we moderators
andmotoractivation Alternatively,
itmeansoursensory
areimitated
operatebeforethe
highlevelmoderators
actionis perceivedand exerttheir
eachothermorecomparedto caseswherewe to-be-mimicked
resemble
oftheprocess.
atthebeginning
influence
How thebraindetectsthisand how moderating
arenotimitated.
rolein mimicrucial
a
In sum,socialprocesses
is
our prosocialorientation
affects
thatsubsequently
play
It is
imitation.
of
most
in
most
and
stilla mystery,
types
probably
althoughthe suggestedlinkbetween cry
in
theories
view
this
to
to
start
the
time
now
&
and empathy
theneuralbases ofimitation
integrate
(Preston
Moreemphasis
ofimitation.
themechanisms
de Waal2002; Decety& Jackson
2004) maybe a start- explaining
ofimitacontext
and
circumstances
on
the
Both
et
al.
see
Bastiaansen
ecological
2009).
ing point (also
and
other
will
tion
at
to
share
seem
and
imitation
disciplines
inspire
undoubtedly
empathy
(automatic)
ofsocial
tellus moreaboutthearchitecture
In ultimately
leastfora largepartthesame neuralmechanism.
is a primeexample.
of whichimitation
& Singer(2006) describethe interactions,
De Vignemont
addition,
a
is
whereourempathie In the end, mimicry
ofempathy,
contextual
trulysocial phenomenon
malleability
neededand influence
are
individuals
where
multiple
responseto othersis modulatedby, amongothers,
or
the micro-level
on
focus
we
If
other.
each
factors.
relational
and
individual characteristics
only
lose
we
of
sight
may
Whereasan empathieresponseto a specificpersonis intra-individual
mimicry,
aspects
and emotionalfactorsrelatedto it,
else than a generalassimilative
mindset, of the affective
something
whereis thelove?
and empathy
ofbeingimitated
theconsequences
may hencethetitleofthischapter:
showconsiderable
overlap.
themerefactthatunconBeforeclosing,however,
in APPENDIX A
scious mimicryis so pervasiveand omnipresent
to severalchaptersin this Dependentvariableassimilation.
humansis in itselfrelevant
specialissue.Firstofall,Ferrarietal. (2009) describe
neuronscan
twopossiblemechanisms
bywhichmirror
influencebehaviour;a 'direct' and 'indirect'way.
Accordingto these authors,direct imitation,of
seemsto be an example,
whichunconsciousmimicry
is onlypresentearlyin humandevelopment.
Coming
of perceptioninto
withage, this directtranslation
behaviour
neuronsinfluence
actionis less and mirror
with
odds
to
be
at
seems
this
less directly.
However,
li fis Nk-3 Ew--3
_*_* !
in this
thereviewof studieson unconsciousmimicry
currentchapter.One possible explanationis that
outsideof
unconsciousmimicryoccurs completely
and whenit doesbecomeconscious,people
awareness
The typeof
tendto stop or controlit immediately.
used by Ferrariet al. and thevastmajority
imitation
andcogincognitive
ofstudieson imitation
psychology
is notunawareandis nottestedina
nitive
neuroscience
In youngchildren,
truly
ecologicalvalidsocialcontext.
seemsnot to be
of consciousimitation
thisdisliking
more
research.
needs
this
although
apparent,
aboutthe
Whitenetal. (2009) theorize
In addition,
cultural
cumulative
thatfacilitate
mechanisms
howsimilararethesetwopictures?
learning
and describehow autoin humansand chimpanzees
(notat all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(verymuch)
roleinthisprocess.
maticimitation
playsa fundamental
are capable of imitation,
Whereaschimpanzees
they
whilehuman
itmoreconservatively,
seemto use/apply
imita- REFERENCES
children(and adults)seemto be 'enthusiastic'
lJ.199o
V. & Baudonniere,
thisview,at leastfrom Asendorpf,
tors.Our chaptercorroborates
J. B., Warkentin,
II: Mirrorselfand other-awareness.
Self-awareness
in showingthe omnipresence
the humanperspective
andsynchronie
socialcontingency
awareness,
recognition,
ofmimicry.
121037/00
313-321.
Dev.
imitation.
(doi:10.
32,
Psychol
mimiunconscious
is
whether
A finalpointofconcern
1649.32.2.313)
In
mechanism.
cryis a highlevelorlowlevelautomatic
T. L.,
C. E., van Baaren,R., Chartrand,
itsunconscious, Ashton-James,
stressed
wehaverepeatedly
thischapter,
C. 2007 Mimicryand me:
& Karremans,
J.
J.
Decety,
we haveprenature.Conversely,
and henceautomatic
Soc. Cogn.25,
on self-construal.
theimpactof mimicry
thatseem to be morehigh-level,
sentedmoderators
518-535. (doi:10.1521/SOCO.2007.
25.4.518)
and liking.We thinkit willbe a
suchas self-construal
Bailenson,J. N. & Yee, N. 2005 Digital chameleons:
inimmersive
ofnonverbal
assimilation
high
automatic
majorchallengeto explainhow such seemingly
gestures
interactwiththislow
constructs
level psychological
virtualenvironments.
Psychol.Sci. 16 10, 814-819.
One speculative
01619.x)
levelmotorie
(doi:10.1111/j.l467-9280.2005.
possibility
phenomenon.

4 I

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2388

R. van Baaren et al

Social sideofmimicry

L. 2002 Behavioral
and stigmatization.
Bandura,A. 1962 Social learningthroughimitation.In
Johnston,
mimicry
Nebraskasymposium
on motivation
Soc. Cogn.20, 18-35. (doi:10.152l/soco.20.
(ed. M. R. Jones).
1.18.20944)
ofNebraskaPress.
D. 2004 Demystifying
socialcogniLincoln,NE: University
Keysers,C. & Perrett,
tion:a Hebbianperspective.
Trends
Bastiaansen,
J. A. C. J.,Thioux,M. & Keysers,C. 2009
Cogn.Sci. 8, 501in emotions.
Phil Trans.R.
Evidenceformirror
507. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.005)
systems
Soc.B 364,2391-2404. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0058) Kuhn,M. H. & McPartland,
T. S. 1954An empirical
invesP. & Hess,U. 2008 The impactofsocialcontext
Am. Sociol.Rev. 19, 68-76.
Bourgeois,
tigationof self-attitude.
on mimicry.
Biol Psychol77, 343-352. (doi:10.1016/j.
(doi:10.2307/2088
175)
11.008)
T. L. 2003 Using nonconscious
Lakin,J. & Chartrand,
biopsycho.2007.
H. & Prinz,W.2001Movement
obserbehavioralmimicryto create affiliation
and rapport.
Brass,M., Bekkering,
execution
in a simpleresponse
vationaffects
movement
Sci.14,334-339.(doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481)
Psychol.
task. Acta Psychol.106, 3-22. (doi:10.1016/S0001- Leighton,
Socialattitudes
J.,Bird,G. & Heyes,C. Submitted.
modulate
automatic
imitation.
6918(00)00024-X)
S. 2009 Inhibition
ofimita- Lieberman,
D. 2000 Getanyone
todo anything
andnever
Brass,M., Ruby,P. & Spengler,
feel
R. Soc.B
Phil.Trans.
andsocialcognition.
tivebehaviour
secretsto predict,control,
powerless
again: psychological
andinfluence
situation.
NewYork,NY: SaintMartin's
364,2359-2367. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0066)
every
Press.
M. B. 1991The socialself:on beingthesameand
Brewer,
Bull. 17, Likowski,K. U., Schubert,T. W, Fleischmann,B.,
at thesame time.Pers.Soc. Psychol.
different
Positive
475-482. (doi:10.1177/0146167291
175001)
J.& Volk,A. Submitted.
Landgraf,
effects
ofmimiM. Submitted.
Mimitotheingroup.
M., Uebel,J.& Tomasello,
cryarelimited
Carpenter,
in 18-month-olds.
L. 1998Help,I needsomebody:
behavior
cryincreases
prosocial
Macrae,C. N. & Johnston,
automatic
actionand inaction.Soc. Cogn.16, 400-417.
Catmur,C, Walsh,V. & Heyes,C. 2007 Sensorimotor
the human mirrorsystem.Curr. Massen, C. & Prinz,W. 2009 Movements,actionsand
learningconfigures
tool-use actions: an ideomotorapproach to imitaBiol.17, 1527-1531.(doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.006)
tion.Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B 364, 2349-2358. (doi:10.
Catmur,C, Gillmeister,H., Bird, G., Liepelt, R.,
1098/rstb.2009.0059)
Brass,M. & Heyes,C. 2008 Throughthelookingglass:
sensori- Meltzoff,
A. 1990 Foundations
fordeveloping
a conceptof
activation
counter-mirror
following
incompatible
in relating
self:theroleofimitation
selfto otherand the
Eur.J.Neurosci.
motorlearning.
28, 1208-1215.(doi:10.
valueofsocialmirroring,
socialmodeling,
andself-practice
1111/j.1460-9568.
2008.06419.x)
in infancy.
In Theselfin transition
(eds D. Cicchetti&
Catmur,C, Walsh,V. & Heyes, C. 2009 Associative
M. Beeghly),pp. 139-164. Chicago: University
of
in thedeveloptheroleofexperience
sequencelearning:
R.
Press.
Phil.
Trans.
and themirror
mentofimitation
Chicago
system.
T. 2003 Comparison
Soc. B 364,2369-2380. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0048) Mussweiler,
processesin socialjudgeRev.110,
ment:mechanisms
and consequences.
M. K. 1996 Featurememory
B. L. & Johnson,
Psychol.
Chalfonte,
472-489. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.l
and bindingin youngand olderadults.Mem.Cogn.24,
10.3.472)
403-416.
Preston,S. D. & de Waal, F. B. M. 2002 Empathy:its
andproximate
bases.Behav.BrainSci.25, 1-72.
ultimate
effect:
T. L. & Bargh,J.A. 1999The chameleon
Chartrand,
link and social interaction. Prinz,W. 1990 A commoncodingapproachto perception
the perception-behavior
between
and action
and action.In Relationships
perception
J. Pers.Soc. Psychol.76, 93-910. (doi:10.1037/0022(eds O. Neumann& W Prinz)pp. 167-201. Berlin,
3514.76.6.893)
T. L. & VanBaaren,R. B. 2009Humanmimicry.
Germany:
Verlag.
SpringerChartrand,
Adv.Exp.Soc. Psychol.
Stel, M., van Baaren, R., Blascovich,J., McCall, C,
architecture
P. L. 2004 The functional
Pollmann,M. H., van Leeuwen, M., Mastop, J.,
Decety,J.& Jackson,
and
of human empathy.Behav. Cogn. Neurosci.Rev. 3,
Mller,B. C. N. & Vonk,R. Submitted.
Mimicry
is itreally
thatsimple?
71-100. (doi:10.1177/1534582304267187)
liking:
F. & Singer,T. 2006 The empathiebrain: Suzuki,N., Takeuchi,
de Vignemont,
Y, Ishii,K. & Okada,M. 2003 Effects
of echoicmimicry
usinghummedsoundson human
Cogn.Sci. 10, 435-441.
how,whenand why?Trends
Communication
interaction.
40,
Speech
computerspeech
(doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008)
559-573. (doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00180-2)
P. F., Bonini,L. & Fogassi,L. 2009 Frommonkey
Ferrari,
mirror
neuronsto primatebehaviours:
possible'direct' Tiedens,L. Z. & Fragale,A. R. 2003 Powermoves:comin submissiveand dominantnonverbal
and 'indirect'pathways.Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B 364,
plementarity
behavior.J. Pers.Soc. Psychol84, 558-568. (doi:10.
2311-2323. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0062)
A. G., McGhee,D. E. & Schwartz,
1037/0022-3514.84.3.558)
J.K. L. 1998
Greenwald,
T. Submitted.Optimal
in implicitcognition: Uldall,B., Hall, C. & Chartrand,
Measuringindividualdifferences
andmimicry.
distinctiveness
Test.J. Pers.Soc. Psychol.
the ImplicitAssociation
74,
T.L.,De Bouter,
R.B.,Maddux,W.W,Chartrand,
vanBaaren,
1464-1480.(doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464)
A. 2003 It takestwoto mimic:
Ethnicity-based C. & van Knippenberg,
Heider,J.D. & Skowronski,
J.J.Submitted.
of self-construals.
behavioral
andthechameleon
J. Pers.Soc.
consequences
effect.
similarity
14.84.5.
association
Psychol.84, 1093-1102. (doi:10.1037/0022-35
Heyes,C. M. & Bird, G. 2007 Mirroring,
Founand thecorrespondence
1093)
problem.In Sensorimotor
& Performancevan Baaren,R. B., Holland,R. W, Kawakami,K. & van
Attention
dationsof HigherCognition,
A. 2004a Mimicry
andpro-social
behavior.
XXII. (eds P. Haggard,Y. Rossetti& M. Kawato),
Knippenberg,
Press.
UK: OxfordUniversity
PsycholSci. 15, 71-74. (doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.
pp. 461-479. Oxford,
H.,
01501012.x)
Iacoboni,M., Woods,R. P., Brass,M., Bekkering,
T. L. &
G. 1999 Corticalmechan- van Baaren,R. B., Horgan,T. G., Chartrand,
Mazziotta,
J.C. & Rizzolatti,
isms of human imitation.Science286, 2526-2528.
Dijkmans,M. 20046 The forest,the treesand the
chameleon:
andmimicry.
context-dependency
(doi:10.1126/science.286.5449.2526)
J.Pers.Soc.
and
R. E. 2000 Culture,
control,
86,453-459. (doi:10.1037/0022-35
Psychol
14.86.3.453)
Ji,L., Peng,K. & Nisbett,
Van Leeuwen,M. L., Van Baaren,R. B., Martin,D.,
intheenvironment.
ofrelationships
J.Pers.Soc.
perception
14.78.5.943)
78,943-955.(doi:10.1037/0022-35
Dijksterhuis,A. & Bekkering, H. In press.
Psychol.
Phil. Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social sideofmimicryR. van Baaren et ai

Executive functioning& imitation:increasingworking
imitation.
behavioral
loadfacilitates
Neuropsychobgia.
memory
Whiten, A., McGuigan, N., Marshall-Pescini, S. &
Hopper, L. M. 2009 Emulation, imitation,over-imitation and the scope of cultureforchild 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.
moderates
In preparation.Virtualmimicry:
implicit
prejudice
theeffects
ofmimicking.
Wiggins,J. S. 1982 Circumplexmodels of interpersonal
behaviorin clinical psychology.In Handbookof research
in clinicalpsychology
methods
(eds P. C. Kendall & J. N.
183-221.
New
York,NY: Wiley.
Butcher)pp.

2389

Witkin,H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. 1981 Cognitivestyles,

essence,and origins:field dependenceand field independence.

New York,NY: InternationalUniversityPress.

Witkin,H. A., Oltman,P. K., Raskin,E. & Karp, S. A. 1971
A manualfor the embedded
figurestests.Palo Alto, CA:
ConsultingPsychologistsPress.
Witkin,H. A., Goodenough, D. R. & Oltman, P. K. 1979
currentstatus.J. Pers.Soc.
Psychologicaldifferentiation:
Psychol.37, 1127-1145. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.
1127)
Yabar, Y, Johnston,L., Miles, L. & Peace, V. 2006 Implicit
behavioral mimicry:investigatingthe impact of group
membership.J. NonverbalBehav. 30, 97-113. (doi:10.
1007/s109 19-006-0010-6)

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B (2009)

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions