Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

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
Q

OUTCOMES OF MIMICRY

INTRA PERSONAL

A 
how effect self: 
persuasion (more when mimicked) 
cog style
mood
self construal 
self reg
26
Q

inter: liking and rapport
chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp2)
METHOD

A

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
Q

liking and rapport
chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp2)
RESULTS

A

no gender effect
mimicry=increased “smoothness” rating

3rd person - no sig diff between conditions between interactions
- results due to perception of pps

28
Q

inter : liking and rapport
chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp3) - empathy
METHOD

A

cog perspective taking in empathy - moderate perception-beh link? (non emotional)
confeds shake foot/rub face, avoid eye contact, photo describe task

29
Q

inter: liking and rapport
chatrand and bargh 1999 (exp3) - empathy
RESULTS

A

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
Q

larkin et al 2003 (exp1)
inter: affiliation
METHOD

A

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
Q

larkin et al 2003 (exp 1)
inter: affiliation
RESULTS

A

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
Q

larkin et al 2003 (exp 2)
inter: affiliation
METHOD

A 
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
Q

larkin et al 2003 (exp 2)
inter: affiliation
RESULTS

A

no goal - no diff in mimicry

affiliation goal due to failure: sig increase in food shaking - try to affiliate more

34
Q

inter: prosocial
VanBaaren et al 2004(exp1)
METHOD

A

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
Q

inter: prosocial
VanBaaren et al 2004(exp1)
RESULTS

A

84% in mimic help

48% non mimic help

36
Q

inter: prosocial
VanBaaren et al 2004(exp2)
METHOD

A

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
Q

inter: prosocial
VanBaaren et al 2004(exp2)
RESULTS

A

76% mimicry donate - about 0.79c
43% non mimicry donate - about 0.38c

  • regardless of experimenter

**increases assimilated pro social behaviour

38
Q

Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp1)
METHOD

A

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
Q

Intra: self construal

A

mimicry on how construct/see yourself in relation to others

40
Q

Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp1)
RESULTS

A

mimicry increase interrelated attributions and self other overlap
effect strongest in females

41
Q

Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp2)
METHOD

A

same as exp 1

BUT before finishi - survey request - unpaid (willingness to help)

42
Q

Intra: self construal
ashton-james et al 2007 (Exp2)
RESULTS

A

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
Q

blocking mimicry
oberman et al 2007
method

A

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
Q

blocking mimicry
oberman et al 2007
RESULTS

A

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
Q

blocking mimicry
oberman et al 2007
chewing gum problem

A

chewing uses a lot of orbital muscles BUT isnt constant
may stop chewing to recog face
involved activation and deactivation

46
Q

blocking mimicry
neal and chartrand 2011
exp 1
METHOD

A

botox vs dermal filler on emotion recog
botoc blocks movement, dermal filler allows use
reading mind via eyes test

47
Q

blocking mimicry
neal and chartrand 2011
exp 1
RESULTS

A

sig decrese in recog in botox
reduced muscular feedback

**BUT didnt measure baseline ability

48
Q

blocking mimicry
neal and chartrand 2011
exp 2
METHOD

A

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
Q

blocking mimicry
neal and chartrand 2011
exp 2
RESULTS

A

heightened emotional recog/ability to discern different emotions in face gel>arm gel condition
greater somatosensory feedback in the face

50
Q

joint action

A

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
Q

processes underlyin JA

A

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
Q

Joint Action
Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003
METHOD

A

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
Q

Joint Action
Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003
METHOD
two choice vs go no go

A

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
Q

social facilitation

A

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
Q

ideomotor theory

A

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
Q

spatial compatibility effect

A

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
Q

Joint Action
Sebanz, Knoblich and Prinz 2003
RESULTS

A

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
Q

when and why do we mimic

A 
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
Q

interpersonal outcomes of mimicry

A

liking - chartrand and bargh (smoothness/perspective)
prosocial - van baaren
affiliation - larkin

60
Q

intrapersonal outcomes of mimicry

A

self contstrual - ashton james

NONVERBAL (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions