Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

NONVERBAL > mimicry > Flashcards

mimicry Flashcards

1
Q

define mimicry

A

spatially matched behaviour
not copied - unconscious behavioural matching
BUT can eventually become conscious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

types of mimicry

A 
verbal
facial
postural
behavioural 
emotional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

why mimicry

A

to maintain relationships with others
allows us to communicate and bond via non verbals
can become automatised - reinforced by bonding
thought to be evolutionarily rewarding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

chatarand and bargh 1999

chameleon effect define

A

mimicry aids learning vicareosly via the conspecific experience of others
natural to spontaneously copy those around us

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

chatarand and bargh 1999
chameleon effect
METHOD

A

12 consecutive dyadic sessions with predetermined confederates - describe photo to confed
counterbalance mannerisms : rub face or shake foot
smile or not

videod and coded - pps spontaneous adoption o confed mannerisms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

chatarand and bargh 1999
chameleon effect
RESULTS

A

more mimicry of specific action of confed whether or not smiled or made eyecontact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

possible functions of mimicry

A

comprehension via simulation
- improve ability to perform by assimilation
function of social bonding
- make the other person like me

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
METHOD

A

fMRI
expert ballet vs capoeria dancers
observed action that expert in or that not know

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
RESULTS

A

activation in brain to action observation influenced by motor skills - expertise
stronger bold response in mirror neuron areas when observe actions that one is familiar with

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
explanation

A

action observation may recruit mirror areas to the extent that the observed action iss represented in ones personal repetoir of actions
- may code for complete set of action patterns

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
possible underlying mechanisms to explain findings

A
  1. observer brain specialised sstem for understanding action sbased on motor commands necessary to perform the beh (mirror neuron as motor representation without overt movement)
    or
  2. understanding some actions using perceptual and inferential theory building processes used to understand objects and interactions - principles of influence based on visual experience - general knowledge about the observed action
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

calvo-menno et al 2006 follow up
action simulation hyp
METHOD

A

FMRI
male and female ballet dancers
both expert in moves but some moves only specific genders actually perform
dissociate brain response between motoric representation and visual experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

calvo-menno et al 2006 follow up
action simulation hyp
RESULTS

A

levels of motor experience dependent on gender of subject or gender specific actions
mirror neuron activity dependent on processing motoric representation of observed action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

cross, hamilton and grafton 2006

METHOD

A

expert dancers rehearse novel sequences
5 hours per week for 5 weeks
weekly fmri whilst observe or imagine performing sequences that practiced or did not practice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

cross, hamilton and grafton 2006

RESULTS

A

ability to perform progressively increase
interaction between motor experience and ability in parahippocampal cortex (spatial learning), inferior parietal lobe(action obs/simulation) and permotor cortex
**fall within activity of the simulation circuit
increased activation in these areas when observed trained>untrained action
correlate with reported action competency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

keller, knoblich and repp 2007

musicians

A

how does an ensemble predict variable timing of sounds in their music and coordinate?
hyp: internal simulation of ensemble members via practice improve ability to time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

keller, knoblich and repp 2007
musicians
METHOD

A

skilled pianist record one part of several duets

return and play other part to own play or anothers performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

keller, knoblich and repp 2007
musicians
RESULTS

A

pianist sig better at recognising own recording and synchronising to own recording

maintain by simulating concurrent actions of others - anticipate the other parts played and make temporal predictions

  • know own timing and motor beh
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
hyp

A

does mimicry facilitate social reward?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
METHOD

A

fmri - watch vid in first person
confed cross legs, arrange hair, fold hands -
interaction partner mimic or antimimic
prob detect task - report pattern of squares (ensure unconscious)

mimicry: social reward
antimimicry: conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
RESULTS

A

more vmPFC and mOFC activation in mimicry>antimimicry
favours reward based mech - assoc with pos affect and reward expectation
more assimilate closer we feel - higher reported self other overlap with videod confederate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

larkin et al 2008
social bonding and mimicry
social exclusion
METHOD

A

excluded motivated to affiliate, even if low cog resources
- mimicry low cost and low risk
excluded interaction partner in ball game (online)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

larkin et al 2008
social bonding and mimicry
social exclusion
RESULTS

A

exluded mimic more than included

excluded mimic selectively more ingroup than out group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

OUTCOMES OF MIMICRY

INTER PERSONAL

A

how much like eachother:
liking/rapport
affiliation
prosocial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
OUTCOMES OF MIMICRY | INTRA PERSONAL
``` how effect self: persuasion (more when mimicked) cog style mood self construal self reg ```
26
inter: liking and rapport chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp2) METHOD
manipulated posture variations on liking between interaction partners confeds mirror or neutral to pps during pic describe task no eye contact and confed blind to full hyp pps rate likeability and smoothness of interaction +judged by 3rd person
27
liking and rapport chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp2) RESULTS
no gender effect mimicry=increased "smoothness" rating 3rd person - no sig diff between conditions between interactions - results due to perception of pps
28
inter : liking and rapport chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp3) - empathy METHOD
cog perspective taking in empathy - moderate perception-beh link? (non emotional) confeds shake foot/rub face, avoid eye contact, photo describe task
29
inter: liking and rapport chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp3) - empathy RESULTS
high/low perspective taking and empathetic concerns grouped-no main effect of gender perspective takers mimic more - ability heightens mimicy outside of emotional concern autism - no mimicry as cant take perspective of other person
30
larkin et al 2003 (exp1) inter: affiliation METHOD
subliminal priming in visual acuity task Nonconscious goal to affiliate with primes of “friend”, “partner”, “together” Conscious goal to affiliate : primed in probe detection task-at dot breif non-social words – told that will meet another person (confederate) Or no goal : Didn’t know who or why we mimic Exposure to confederate : Face touching Conscious goal: anticipated interaction Participant covertly videotaped
31
larkin et al 2003 (exp 1) inter: affiliation RESULTS
Nonconscious affiliation goal: M = 14.50 – driving Conscious affiliation goal: M = 13.13 No goal: M = 5.1 Having affiliated bond leads to more mimicry! More direct results
32
larkin et al 2003 (exp 2) inter: affiliation METHOD
``` sub priming goal or no goal 1- online interview - confed on live feed - interact (succcess - no goal) or failure (affiliation goal) 2. face to face interview confed shake food or neutral covert recording ```
33
larkin et al 2003 (exp 2) inter: affiliation RESULTS
no goal - no diff in mimicry | affiliation goal due to failure: sig increase in food shaking - try to affiliate more
34
inter: prosocial VanBaaren et al 2004(exp1) METHOD
verbally describe opinion of 10 30sec ads to experimenter exp mimic position of arms, legs and posture for half the pps experimenter drop pens - time taken in 10 sc window for pps to help
35
inter: prosocial VanBaaren et al 2004(exp1) RESULTS
84% in mimic help | 48% non mimic help
36
inter: prosocial VanBaaren et al 2004(exp2) METHOD
prosocial to interaction partner or assimilate to surroundings? mimic vs non mimic of pps new experimenter vs same experiementer (after ad task - instructed by same or new that can leave after unrelated 2nd task: charity qs and free to donate) - given £2 in change after ad task
37
inter: prosocial VanBaaren et al 2004(exp2) RESULTS
76% mimicry donate - about 0.79c 43% non mimicry donate - about 0.38c - regardless of experimenter **increases assimilated pro social behaviour
38
Intra: self construal ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp1) METHOD
describe magazine ads to mimicry/non confed 20 statements test: "i am.." chose unique attributes(self) or interrelated att (relations to others) + locus of contron (Arron)
39
Intra: self construal
mimicry on how construct/see yourself in relation to others
40
Intra: self construal ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp1) RESULTS
mimicry increase interrelated attributions and self other overlap effect strongest in females
41
Intra: self construal ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp2) METHOD
same as exp 1 | BUT before finishi - survey request - unpaid (willingness to help)
42
Intra: self construal ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp2) RESULTS
mimicry correlate with self construsl (ns) self construal sig increase willingness to help mimicry sig increase willingness to help - non sig when self construal mediates - prosocial beh driven by self construal change
43
blocking mimicry oberman et al 2007 method
control facial muscles - impact ability to recog emotions in others? - mimicry of facial muscles observed to aid understanding chew gum, ben between teeth or pen between lips (C)
44
blocking mimicry oberman et al 2007 RESULTS
muscle activity use increase when chew gum and with pen between teeth - areas assoc with smiling, frowining, fear face **happy - majority of muscles, disgust/fear - mainly orbital bite pen sig impair ability to recog happ faces (uses all muscles) - 60% for other conditions
45
blocking mimicry oberman et al 2007 chewing gum problem
chewing uses a lot of orbital muscles BUT isnt constant may stop chewing to recog face involved activation and deactivation
46
blocking mimicry neal and chartrand 2011 exp 1 METHOD
botox vs dermal filler on emotion recog botoc blocks movement, dermal filler allows use reading mind via eyes test
47
blocking mimicry neal and chartrand 2011 exp 1 RESULTS
sig decrese in recog in botox reduced muscular feedback **BUT didnt measure baseline ability
48
blocking mimicry neal and chartrand 2011 exp 2 METHOD
impact of muscular feedback in ace gel restriction - tight but can move and feel movement more vs gel on arm (c) tak: mind in eyes, voice or arithemetic (c)
49
blocking mimicry neal and chartrand 2011 exp 2 RESULTS
heightened emotional recog/ability to discern different emotions in face gel>arm gel condition greater somatosensory feedback in the face
50
joint action
planned coord behaviour driven by representations which specify the outcomes of joint action and the individuals role role Agents plan actions in relation to desired outcomes and/or others’ actions
51
processes underlyin JA
aim to coord towards a common goal: 1. Shared task representations (same representation of the goal) – know overall goal and the task each of us mst do to complete it 2. Joint perceptions (same understanding and ability to simulate the task, pay attention together)
52
Joint Action Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003 METHOD
social simon task images of fingers pointing - red or green ring red : left hand green: right hand point congruent, incongruent or neutral to the response that must be made on own or with task partner pairs: one respond to red, one respond to green - share rep two choice or go no go
53
Joint Action Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003 METHOD two choice vs go no go
two choice: respond to colour go no go: respond to colour and congruency go: other’s actions might not be represented at all - not affect one’s own actions. social facilitation predicts a general effect of the other’s presence - should be faster in groups. ideomotor theory predicts a specific effect of the other’s presence - other’s actions are represented in a functionally similar way as one’s own - performance similar to the two-choice in the group - spatial compatibility effect`
54
social facilitation
the presence of others can affect individual performance simple task performance is facilitated, whereas complex task performance is impaired mere presence of others elevates drive levels (Zajonc, 1965). social facilitation effects are not moderated by the specific actions carried out by others others leads to similar effects as when a group of individuals engages in the same actions
55
ideomotor theory
redict that the specific actions of others can selectively affect one’s own actions, as observed in mimicry Observing an event that regularly resulted from one of one’s own actions induces a tendency to carry out this action. Thus, perceiving events produced by others’ actions should activate the same representational structures that govern one’s own planning and control of these actions
56
spatial compatibility effect
one carries out a spatial two-choice response to a relevant stimulus feature (e.g. color) that is presented along with an irrelevant spatial stimulus feature. The basic finding is that responses are faster when there is an overlap between the irrelevant stimulus dimension and the response, and slower when the two conflict. spatial compatibility effects are only observed in two-choice and not in go-nogo RT tasks, in which only one stimulus requires a response
57
Joint Action Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003 RESULTS
same go-nogo task is performed differently depending on whether one acts alone or with agent performing a complementary action. The predictions from social facilitation theory were not confirmed evidence supporting ideomotor theory: RTs in the joint go-nogo condition were faster on compatible than on incompatible trials, just as in the two-choice condition action at the other’s disposal was represented and subject to automatic response activation by the irrelevant stimulus dimension
58
when and why do we mimic
``` chartrand and bargh( info exchange ) calvo-merrino et al (cappoerat and ballet / mandf) cross and hamilton (5hrs/5wks) keller (pianist - ensemble) kuhn - social reward larkin - social exclusion ```
59
interpersonal outcomes of mimicry
liking - chartrand and bargh (smoothness/perspective) prosocial - van baaren affiliation - larkin
60
intrapersonal outcomes of mimicry
self contstrual - ashton james

NONVERBAL (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions