Social attitudes modulate automatic imitation

In naturalistic interpersonal settings, mimicry or ‘automatic imitation’ generates liking, affiliation, cooperation and other positive social attitudes. The purpose of this study was to find out whether the relationship between social attitudes and mimicry is bidirectional: Do social attitudes have a direct and specific effect on mimicry? Participants were primed with pro-social, neutral or anti-social words in a scrambled sentence task. They were then tested for mimicry using a stimulus-response compatibility procedure. In this procedure, participants were required to perform a pre-specified movement (e.g. opening their hand) on presentation of a compatible (open) or incompatible (close) hand movement. Reaction time data were collected using electromyography (EMG) and the magnitude of the mimicry / automatic imitation effect was calculated by subtracting reaction times on compatible trials from those on incompatible trials. Pro-social priming produced a larger automatic imitation effect than anti-social priming, indicating that the relationship between mimicry and social attitudes is bidirectional, and that social attitudes have a direct and specific effect on the tendency to imitate behavior without intention or conscious awareness.

[1]  K. Spence.  Experimental studies of learning and the higher mental processes in infra-human primates. , 1937 .

[2]  Martha Davis,et al.  Interaction Rhythms: Periodicity in Communicative Behavior , 1982 .

[3]  G. Dreisbach,et al.  How positive affect modulates cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  G Aschersleben,et al.  Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  L. Phillips,et al.  Positive mood and executive function: evidence from stroop and fluency tasks. , 2002, Emotion.

[7]  Tanya L. Chartrand,et al.  Consequences of automatic goal pursuit and the case of nonconscious mimicry. , 2003 .

[8]  C. Heyes.  Four routes of cognitive evolution. , 2003, Psychological review.

[9]  C. Heyes,et al.  Hand to mouth: automatic imitation across effector systems. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Experience-based priming of body parts: A study of action imitation , 2008, Brain Research.

[11]  S. M. Berger,et al.  Some effects of a model's performance on an observer's electromyographic activity. , 1975, American Journal of Psychology.

[12]  C. Heyes.  Causes and consequences of imitation , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  J. Bailenson,et al.  Digital Chameleons , 2005, Psychological science.

[14]  U. Dimberg.  Facial reactions to facial expressions. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[15]  Vincent M. Reid,et al.  Social Cognition: Development, Neuroscience and Autism , 2008 .

[16]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Nonconscious Mimicry as an Automatic Behavioral Response to Social Exclusion , 2008 .

[17]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .

[18]  M. LaFrance.  Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. , 1979 .

[19]  C. Heyes,et al.  Experience modulates automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[20]  Marianne LaFrance,et al.  Group Rapport: Posture Sharing as a Nonverbal Indicator , 1976 .

[21]  A. van Knippenberg,et al.  It takes two to mimic: behavioral consequences of self-construals. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  M. Brass,et al.  Imitation: is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[24]  J. Bavelas,et al.  "I show how you feel": Motor mimicry as a communicative act. , 1986 .

[25]  C. Heyes,et al.  What Is the Significance of Imitation in Animals , 2000 .

[26]  C. Heyes,et al.  Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  R. Baaren,et al.  Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation , 2003 .

[28]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-student interactions , 1988 .

[29]  C. Heyes,et al.  Automatic imitation of intransitive actions , 2008, Brain and Cognition.

[30]  W. Prinz,et al.  Compatibility between Observed and Executed Finger Movements: Comparing Symbolic, Spatial, and Imitative Cues , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[31]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Using Nonconscious Behavioral Mimicry to Create Affiliation and Rapport , 2003, Psychological science.

[32]  S. Tipper,et al.  Implicit action encoding influences personal-trait judgments , 2007, Cognition.

[33]  D. Mackie,et al.  Positive Mood and the Perception of Variability Within and Between Groups , 2005 .

[34]  A. van Knippenberg,et al.  Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior , 2004, Psychological science.

[35]  M. Brass,et al.  The inhibition of imitative and overlearned responses: a functional double dissociation , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[36]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Self-monitoring without awareness: using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  Marcel Brass,et al.  The inhibition of imitative behavior and attribution of mental states , 2008 .

[38]  W. Prinz,et al.  Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. , 2001, Acta psychologica.