Transcript Mimicry - Homepages | The University of Aberdeen

Interpersonal Mimicry:
The Chameleon Effect
Lecture 6:
Interpersonal Mimicry
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror
neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653-670.
Lakin, J.L., Jefferis, V.E., Cheng, C.M., & Chartrand, T.L.
(2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for
the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145-162.
The Importance of Social Interaction
Why do we seek to form connections with others?
What makes a social exchange successful?
Living in Groups:
The Need to Belong
• group dynamics (2-200 members, Lewin, 2003)
food, mates, predators, shelter, offspring
survival, reproduction
•
gaining a valuable edge
interpersonal harmony
group cooperation
affiliation
avoiding ostracism
• non-verbal behaviours that support group harmony
imitation
Automaticity Returns
“it might be easier to affiliate with group members if a repertoire of
nonverbal behaviors exists and can be utilized for this purpose without
excessive planning or thought.”
Lakin et al. (2003, pp. 146-147)
Types of Mimicry
conscious
non-conscious
So What Exactly Do We Mimic?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
accents (Giles & Powesland, 1975)
speech rates (Webb, 1969)
speech rhythms (Cappella & Panalp, 1981)
facial expressions (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977)
moods (Neumann & Strack, 2000)
posture (Bernieri, 1988)
mannerisms (Bavelas et al., 1988)
idiosyncratic movements (Bavelas et al., 1987)
The Emergence of Mimicry
• automatic mimicry of facial expressions is
hardwired, emerging in the first month of life
(Meltzoff & Moore, 1983)
• by 9 months of age, infants can mimic abstract
emotional expressions (e.g., anger, joy – see
Termine & Izard, 1988)
Mimicry Among Adults
Chartrand & Bargh (1999, Expt 1)
• participants interacted with 2 confederates
(discussing photographs)
½ - confederate shook her foot
½ - confederate touched her face
• what did the participants do?
mimicked the specific mannerisms of
their
interaction partner (but without
awareness
of having done so)
• so why does such ‘automatic’ mimicry occur?
Mimicry and Rapport
• mimicry = nonverbal indicator of group rapport
(i.e., liking, closeness & understanding)
• posture sharing in classroom settings gives an
indication of interpersonal rapport (LaFrance,
1979, 1982)
• mimicry serves as an important communicative
tool (Bavelas et al., 1987, 1988)
“I like you!”
Does Mimicry Create Rapport?
Chartrand & Bargh (1999, Expt 2)
• participants performed task (photo description)
with a confederate.
• confederate either mimicked the participant’s
mannerisms or produced non-descript
movements.
• compared to those who were not mimicked,
participants who were imitated reported greater
liking for the confederate and believed the
interaction had been notably smooth and
harmonious.
Mimicry and Increased Rapport
Jefferis, van Baaren, & Chartrand (2003)
• participant and confederate take turns asking
questions:
‘personal’ (relationship with parents)
‘impersonal’ (university major).
• throughout the interaction the confederate shook
her foot (how much mimicry occurred?).
• mimicry only increased throughout the
interaction when the exchange was personal.
• sharing information enhances rapport which is
expressed through increased mimicry
(mimicry/rapport cycle).
Consequences of Mimicry
• If mimicry creates interpersonal connections
(e.g., rapport, liking), what are the behavioural
consequences of imitation?
• Does imitation make people behave in a
particularly pro-social manner?
helping
tipping
The Return of the Clumsy Experimenter
van Baaren et al. (2004)
• participants take part in a task with an
experimenter who either mimics the
participant’s mannerisms or produces nondescript movements.
• clumsy experimenter then knocks over some
pens – is she offered any help?
• participants who were previously mimicked
were more likely to offer assistance picking up
the pens.
And Your Tips for Free
van Baaren et al. (2003)
• customers in a restaurant were greeted by a
waitress (confederate) who either:
repeated the order (verbal mimicry)
mere understanding (control)
• number and size of tips?
• mimickers were more likely to receive a tip and
their tips were larger (2.97 vs. 1.76 Dutch
guilders).
A Desire to Affiliate:
The Goal of Belonging
• the need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
“the belongingness hypothesis is that human being
have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at
least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive,
and significant interpersonal relationships.”
(1995, p. 497)
• goal to affiliate
conscious vs. non-conscious
Priming Affiliation
Lakin & Chartrand (2003)
• is basic mimicry enhanced by the desire to affiliate?
• participants interact with confederate while
performing a task:
conscious goal (co-operate, get along)
non-conscious goal (subliminal priming –
affiliate, friend, together)
no goal (control)
• goal-primed participants produced more mimicry
than their colleagues in the control condition.
Who Mimics?
Are some people more prone to mimicry than others?
Are there important cultural differences in mimicry?
Do particular life experiences influence the tendency to imitate?
Individual Differences and Mimicry:
Empathy (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999, Expt 3)
• Perspective Taking (adopting/understanding the
viewpoint of others – basic component of
empathy – Davis, 1983).
• participants who score high on perspective
taking are more likely to mimic the behaviour of
others.
• understanding promotes affiliation
Culture and Mimicry:
van Baaren et al. (2003)
• Power of Self Construal (Markus & Kitayama,
1991)
independent or interdependent?
• people with interdependent self-construals (i.e.,
Japanese) displayed more nonconscious
mimicry than people with independent selfconstruals (i.e., Americans)
Personal Experiences and Mimicry:
Ostracism
• consequences of social exclusion
increased conformity (Williams et al., 2000)
enhanced cooperation (Ouwerkerk et al.,
2005)
attention to detail (Pickett & Gardner, 2005)
• does ostracism increase mimicry?
covert attempts at affiliation (low cost)
renewed rejection unlikely
functional strategy
Ostracism and Mimicry:
(Lakin et al. (2008)
• Phase 1 - participants allegedly play Cyberball
with other people:
inclusion condition
exclusion condition
• Phase 2 – photo description task with
confederate (foot shaker)
• excluded participants displayed more mimicry
than included participants.
Mimicry:
Underlying Mechanisms
• Two Main Frameworks
sensorymotor approach (Hommel & Prinz, 1997)
ideomotor approach (James, 1890)
• Sensory-Motor Framework
perception and action - independent
stimulus-response mappings
correspondence problem
• Ideomotor Framework
common representational format (perception/Action)
seeing and doing
A Case of Finger Moving
Brass et al. (2000, 2001)
• participants view finger movements (upwards & downwards)
and move their own finger either in upward direction or
downward direction on every trial (i.e., stimulus-response
selection not required)
• predictions
sensory-motor approach (matching = mismatching)
ideomotor approach (matching < mismatching)
• results demonstrated RT advantage for responses identical to
the stimuli, supporting the ideomotor account
Neural Mechanisms:
Monkey See, Monkey Do
• Mirror Neurons
first observed in the ventral premotor area F5 of
macaque monkeys, mirror neurons increase their
rate of firing when the animal performs a goaldirected action (e.g., grasping an object) and
when the animal watches someone else
perform the action (Rizzolati et al., 1996).
• it is as if the monkey is observing its own action
reflected in a mirror, hence the term ‘mirror neuron’s
(Gallese et al., 1996)
Mirror Neurons:
Flexibility
• Strictly Congruent Mirror Neurons (1/3)
neurons that fire during the observation of
exactly the same action they code motorically.
• Broadly Congruent Mirror Neurons (2/3)
neurons that fire during the observation of an
action achieving the same goal or logically
related to the action they code.
Thus, mirror neurons provide the encoding flexibility that
social interaction demands (performance of
coordinated, cooperative and complimentary
behaviours - not simply imitation)
Mirror Neurons:
Goal-Directed Action
•
mirror neurons do not fire when either the object or hand are
presented in isolation (Rizzolatti et al., 1996)
•
mirror neurons continue to fire when the completion of
actions is occluded (Umilta et al., 2001).
•
Mirror neurons fire to the sound of an action (Keysers et al.,
2002) - coding intentions?
Mirror Neurons:
Why?
•
functional significance of mirror neurons
person understanding
problem of other minds
argument from analogy
knowing me, knowing you
mapping self (body & mind) to understand others
• remaining issues
mirror neurons and imitation
theory of mind (empathy, person understanding)
Summary
Things Worth Knowing
1.
2.
Process and consequences of imitation.
Role of mirror neurons in person perception.
Next Week
1. The Self.