mimicry Flashcards
define mimicry
spatially matched behaviour
not copied - unconscious behavioural matching
BUT can eventually become conscious
types of mimicry
verbal facial postural behavioural emotional
why mimicry
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
chatarand and bargh 1999
chameleon effect define
mimicry aids learning vicareosly via the conspecific experience of others
natural to spontaneously copy those around us
chatarand and bargh 1999
chameleon effect
METHOD
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
chatarand and bargh 1999
chameleon effect
RESULTS
more mimicry of specific action of confed whether or not smiled or made eyecontact
possible functions of mimicry
comprehension via simulation
- improve ability to perform by assimilation
function of social bonding
- make the other person like me
calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
METHOD
fMRI
expert ballet vs capoeria dancers
observed action that expert in or that not know
calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
RESULTS
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
calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
explanation
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
calvo-menno et al 2005
action simulation hyp
possible underlying mechanisms to explain findings
- 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 - 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
calvo-menno et al 2006 follow up
action simulation hyp
METHOD
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
calvo-menno et al 2006 follow up
action simulation hyp
RESULTS
levels of motor experience dependent on gender of subject or gender specific actions
mirror neuron activity dependent on processing motoric representation of observed action
cross, hamilton and grafton 2006
METHOD
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
cross, hamilton and grafton 2006
RESULTS
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
keller, knoblich and repp 2007
musicians
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
keller, knoblich and repp 2007
musicians
METHOD
skilled pianist record one part of several duets
return and play other part to own play or anothers performance
keller, knoblich and repp 2007
musicians
RESULTS
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
kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
hyp
does mimicry facilitate social reward?
kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
METHOD
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
kuhn et al 2010
social bonding and mimicry
RESULTS
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
larkin et al 2008
social bonding and mimicry
social exclusion
METHOD
excluded motivated to affiliate, even if low cog resources
- mimicry low cost and low risk
excluded interaction partner in ball game (online)
larkin et al 2008
social bonding and mimicry
social exclusion
RESULTS
exluded mimic more than included
excluded mimic selectively more ingroup than out group
OUTCOMES OF MIMICRY
INTER PERSONAL
how much like eachother:
liking/rapport
affiliation
prosocial
OUTCOMES OF MIMICRY
INTRA PERSONAL
how effect self: persuasion (more when mimicked) cog style mood self construal self reg
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
inter: prosocial
VanBaaren et al 2004(exp1)
RESULTS
84% in mimic help
48% non mimic help
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
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
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)
Intra: self construal
mimicry on how construct/see yourself in relation to others
Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp1)
RESULTS
mimicry increase interrelated attributions and self other overlap
effect strongest in females
Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp2)
METHOD
same as exp 1
BUT before finishi - survey request - unpaid (willingness to help)
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
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)
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
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
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
blocking mimicry
neal and chartrand 2011
exp 1
RESULTS
sig decrese in recog in botox
reduced muscular feedback
**BUT didnt measure baseline ability
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)
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
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
processes underlyin JA
aim to coord towards a common goal:
- Shared task representations (same representation of the goal) – know overall goal and the task each of us mst do to complete it
- Joint perceptions (same understanding and ability to simulate the task, pay attention together)
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
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`
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
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
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
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
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
interpersonal outcomes of mimicry
liking - chartrand and bargh (smoothness/perspective)
prosocial - van baaren
affiliation - larkin
intrapersonal outcomes of mimicry
self contstrual - ashton james
