Nonconscious Mimicry: Its Ubiquity, Importance, and Functionality Tanya Chartrand Duke University

Agenda (3 chapters, plus/minus 2) What do we mimic? (Ubiquity) Why is mimicry important? (Importance) Why do we mimic? (Functionality)

Agenda What do we mimic? Why is mimicry important? Why do we mimic?

What do we mimic? Verbal mimicry: accents, latency to speak, speech rate, and utterance duration, syntax, words and clauses (Bock, 1986; Cappella & Planalp, 1981; Giles & Powesland,1975; Levelt & Keltner, 1982; Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972; Webb, 1969) Facial mimicry (O’Toole & Dubin, 1968; Dimberg, Thunberg and Elmehed, 2000) Emotional mimicry (Lundquist & Dimberg, 1995; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Neumann & Strack, 2000; Friedman and Riggio, 1981) Behavioral mimicry (Sheflen, 1964; Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Reznick, & Rosenthal, 1988; Bavelas, Black, Chovil, Lemery, and Mullett, 1988; LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976)

Empirical Demonstration of Nonconscious Behavioral Mimicry P interacts with 2 confeds, 1 after the other P and Confeds take turns describing what they see in various photographs

Empirical Demonstration of Nonconscious Behavioral Mimicry P interacts with 2 confeds, 1 after the other P and Confeds take turns describing what they see in various photographs C1 shakes foot and C2 touches face throughout session (or vice-versa) Hidden videocamera: Does P shake foot more with foot shaker and touch face more with face toucher?

Amount of mimicry Number of times per min. Chartrand & Bargh (1999)) We explained this using the perception-behavior link. Merely perceiving the other person engage in the behavior is enough to make us do that same behavior ourselves. There could have been other accounts for this, like the mimicry was there because the 2 people were affiliating with each other and they had a sense of rapport. We tried to eliminate an affiliation-based account for this to show that even in minimal conditions, you get mimicry. So we had conditions where the confederates were not likeable. Also the confederates didn’t make eye-contact with the subject and didn’t smile at the subject, and they weren’t talking to each other, there was no direct interaction, just with the experimenter. So minimal conditions, presumably not much affiliation was going on here between the subject and confederates, and yet we still found mimicry. This was initially important for us to demonstrate that it could be a passive perception-behavior thing going on. Affiliation was not necessary for it to occur. Chartrand & Bargh (1999))

Agenda What do we mimic? Why is mimicry important? Why do we mimic?

Why is mimicry important? Nonconscious mimicry: interesting phenomenon only or theoretically important topic for scientific inquiry? Argument for latter: It is associated with many things psychologists (and people) care about Nonconscious mimicry helps us affiliate with others, leads us to like and help others more, brings our attitudes in line with others’, saves cognitive resources, changes self-construal and cognitive processing style, and improves self-regulation.

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport Affiliation goals Pro-social orientation Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport Affiliation goals Pro-social orientation Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation Note: important either because they are triggers of greater nonconscious mimicry, or because they are downstream consequences of mimicry

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport Affiliation goals Pro-social orientation Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation Note: important for social interactions, but also for the individual in non-social ways

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Correlational work (Bernieri, LaFrance, Sheflen) Experimental demonstration* (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Liking and smoothness of interactions Ps interact with one Confederate on photo description task Confederate either mimicked the posture and mannerisms of P or not (between subjects) P reports on ‘exit questionnaire’ how much he/she liked Confed and how smoothly interaction went with Confed

Ratings of confederate and interaction Chartrand & Bargh (1999)

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Correlational work (Bernieri, LaFrance, Sheflen) Experimental demonstration* (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Directly activating goal Feeling different from others Power Social exclusion* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Proportion of time confederate was mimicked Lakin & Chartrand (2003)

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Directly activating goal Feeling different from others (Uldall, Hall, & Chartrand, unpubl.) Power (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) Social exclusion* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Social Exclusion & Mimicry Mental visualization experiment - manipulation of exclusion through Cyberball (Williams et al., 2000) Participant interacts with “new” partner for second experiment – photo description Confederate shook foot throughout Hidden camera recorded participant foot-shaking

Proportion of time confederate was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (unpublished)

Social Exclusion & Mimicry Female only participants Excluded by ingroup (females) or outgroup (males) during cyberball game Then interacted with male or female Confederate in photo description task Does being excluded by ingroup lead to more mimicry than being excluded by outgroup? If so, will they mimic ingroup C more than outgroup C?

Social Exclusion & Mimicry Proportion of time C was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (under revision)

Social Exclusion & Mimicry Proportion of time C was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (under revision)

Social Exclusion & Mimicry Proportion of time C was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (under revision)

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Directly activating goal Feeling different from others Power Social exclusion* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Feeling close to others in general* Helping others Mediated by self-construal?* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

General pro-social orientation Ps mimicked or not Study 1 DV: “How close do you feel to others in general?” (1-7 scale) Study 2 DV: seating distance from unknown other Prediction: if mimicry leads to general prosocial orientation that goes beyond dyad, mimicked Ps should feel closer to generalized other

“How close do you feel to people in general?” Seating distance from unknown other (# chairs) (Ashton-James, van Baaren, Chartrand, & Decety, in press)

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Feeling close to others in general* Helping others (van Baaren et al., 2003, 2004) Mediated by self-construal?* (Ashton-James, van Baaren, Chartrand, & Decety, in press) Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mediated by self-construal Participants mimicked or not Complete 20-statement test (“Who am I?”; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) Asked to fill out extra survey without pay Prediction: mimicry will lead to interdependent self-construal and more helping, and former will mediate latter

Self-construal mediates effect of mimicry on pro-social behavior interdependent self-construal .41* .38* mimicry helping .45* .21*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Feeling close to others in general* Helping others Mediated by self-construal?* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Attitudes become more similar (Bailenson & Yee, 2005) Even when guard is up (Tanner, Ferraro, Chartrand, Bettman, under review) Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Attitudes become more similar Even when guard is up Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style (van Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand, & Diekmans, 2004) Mood (van Baaren et al., in press) Self-regulation*

Mimicry and Self-Regulation Self-regulation = attempts to actively alter one’s own states and responses (Ran’s EP) e.g., avoiding temptations, maintaining concentration, physical stamina, overriding responses, making difficult decisions Hypothesis: Well-coordinated mimicry will leave people with relatively more resources to carry out a subsequent self-regulatory task Poorly coordinated mimicry will leave people with relatively fewer resources to carry out a subsequent self-regulatory task If mimicry is well coordinated between the confederate and the participant in the picture description task, the participant will be left with relatively more resources for The subsequent self-regulatory task. If mimicry is poorly coordinated between the confederate and the participant, the participant will have fewer resources for

Mimicry and Self-Regulation Ps mimicked or anti-mimicked by confederate Then engage in “Operation” game where they try to remove small objects from holes without touching the metal sides Prediction: those mimicked would perform better than those anti-mimicked

Self-regulation on “Operation” game Pieces removed (p = .007) Number of errors (p = .10) Finkel, Campbell, Brunell, Burke, Chartrand, & Dalton (2006)

Mimicry and Procrastination Ps either mimicked or antimimicked by confederate Ps study for upcoming math test in presence of “time-wasters” Dv: time spent practicing math problems Prediction: Mimicked Ps practice more than anti-mimicked Ps manipulate both affect regulation and mimicry and then measure performance on a self-regulatory task. This allows us to compare the effect of mimicry to the effect of affect regulation. We wanted to make this comparison because affect regulation has been shown to affect subsequent self-regulation in many studies. Rubic’s cube, several current popular magazines (e.g., Cosmopolitan, Maxim, and National Geographic), and a hand-held Tetris video game.

Practicing Math Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (under review) As we predicted, participants who were mimicked spent more time practicing for the math test than participants who were antimimicked. Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (under review)

Why does mimicry affect self-regulation? Does mimicry replenish resources? Well coordinated interaction leaves people with more regulatory resources than they started with, thereby improving performance on a self-regulatory task (Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson et al., 2005) OR Does antimimicry deplete resources? Disrupting automatic process makes interaction consume more self-regulatory resources and impairs performance on a self-regulatory task (Finkel, Campbell, & Brunell, in press; cf. Keltner & Haidt, 2001) So, we found evidence that antimimicry depletes people relative to mimicry. This is a really interesting finding because it suggests that something as subtle as an interaction partner’s hand and body movements can go on to affect people’s self-regulatory functioning Our first study documented the basic effect, and our second study goes on to explore why this effect occurs. Is it mimicry replenishing people, or is it antimimicry depleting people?

Why does mimicry affect self-regulation? Ps either mimicked, antimimicked, or interact with confederate through a divider Ps complete “taste-perception” test Dv: grams of cookies consumed Prediction: Mimicked ps would eat fewer grams of cookies than antimimicked ps control condition will diagnose driver of effect To figure out what’s driving it, we introduced a control condition. In this control condition, participants complete the picture description task with a divider in between them and the confederate. Because they have absolutely no visual cues from the confederate, behavioral mimicry cannot occur. Participants are randomly assigned to the mimicry condition, antimimicry condition, or the divider condition. Following this, they are put in a separate room and told that they are going to complete a taste perception test. ……

Eating Cookies Dalton et al. (under review) ON the Y axis is cookie consumption, so higher numbers indicate poorer self control. We replicated the results of the previous study: participants in the mimicry condition showed better self regulation than participants in the antimimicry condition by eating fewer cookies in the taste test. If mimicry is building peoples’ resources, then the control condition will look like the antimimicry condition. There will be no cost to having antimimicry compared to having no behavioral cues. On the other hand.. If antimimicry is depleting peoples’ resources, then the control condition will look like the mimicry condition. Being mimicked will have no benefit over having no mimicry – it will be the presence of poorly coordinated mimicry that hurts performance. Dalton et al. (under review)

Eating Cookies Dalton et al. (under review) The results of the control condition strongly suggest that the difference in self regulation between the mimicked and antimimicked participants is being driven by a depleting effect of antimimicry rather than a replenishing effect of mimicry. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Total participants = 30 Mimicry effect = F(1, 28) = 5.23, p < .05. Contrasts: Control vs. antimimic = .03 Mimic vs. antimimic = .07 Dalton et al. (under review)

Can mimicry impair self-regulation? Assumed that mimicry = coordination Could antimimicry = coordination? Cross-race interactions eye contact, standing distance, smiling, and blinking (signals negative arousal & tension; Crosby et al., 1980; Dovidio et al., 1997; Fazio et al.,1995) Hand & body movement (Richeson & Shelton, 2003) Mimicry? mimicry is so pervasive a strategy in the effective coordination of social interactions that its absence is significantly disruptive and costly to self-regulation. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Did we use the right control condition? Shockley, Santana & Fowler (2003). So far we’ve assumed that mimicry means good coordination. But what if a category of social interaction has evolved in such a way that coordination entails a different set of underlying behaviors? What if a social interaction is typically characterized by antimimicry? In these interactions, we would predict a reversal in the effect of mimicry versus antimimicry on regulatory depletion, whereby the presence of mimicry rather than antimimicry would be disruptive and therefore costly to self regulation. One category of social interactions where mimicry might not be the norm is cross-race interactions. A substantial empirical literature suggests that cross-race and same-race interactions are characterized by a number of subtle but pervasive differences in nonverbal behaviors, including eye contact, standing distance, smiling, and blinking (a sign of negative arousal and tension) We speculated that mimicry might also differ in cross race vs. same race interactions. If mimicry is not the norm for coordinating cross race interactions, then being mimicked in a cross race interaction should be highly depleting, and being antimimicked should preserve resources. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Richeson and Shelton (2003) looked specifically at differences in body movements and gestures in cross-race and same-race interactions and reported that White participants moved their bodies and hands less and looked around the room less when interacting with a Black experimenter compared to a White experimenter, regardless of participants’ racist tendencies. Although not conceptualized as mimicry, Richeson and Shelton’s results provide a stunning indication that spontaneous behavioral mimicry is probably quite modest in cross-race interactions.

Can mimicry impair self-regulation? Half Ps are White and half are Non-White All ps either mimicked or anti-mimicked by White confederate Dv: Stroop Interference Prediction: White mimicked Ps would show less interference than antimimicked Ps Effect would be reversed for Non-White Ps we followed Richeson & Shelton (2003) and used response times to the series of Xs as individual baseline response time in the Stroop Task. We then subtracted reaction times for control trials from reaction times for mismatched trials to yield a measure called Stroop interference, Individuals would also differ in the speed at which they can respond to all stimulus types. To control for this variation, we used response times to the series of Xs as individual baseline response time in the Stroop Task. We then subtracted reaction times for control trials from reaction times for mismatched trials to yield a measure called Stroop interference.

Stroop Interference Dalton et al. (under review)

Stroop Interference Dalton et al. (under review) As we predicted, we found a reversal of the effect when we looked at cross race interactions. In cross race interactions, it is mimicry that disrupts self regulation and antimimicry that keeps self regulation intact. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Total participants = 41 Interaction: F(1, 36) = 15.57, p < .001. Contrasts: Whites in mimicry vs. antimimicry: F(1, 36) = 4.02, p < .05; Nonwhites in mimicry vs. antimimicry: F(1, 36) = 12.05, p < .001 Dalton et al. (under review)

Attention as mechanism? Divided attention task Photo description task (while mimicked or not) Signal detection task (animal versus non-animal words): 30 of 300 trials were animal words Measured accuracy (d’): zscore of false alarm – zscore of hit rate Prediction: no mimicry should be associated with more attention (worse performance on signal detection)

Performance on signal detection task Discrimination index (d’) Note: pattern holds for first 2 minutes of task

Mimicry is important for… Liking and rapport* Affiliation goals* Pro-social orientation* Persuasion Cognitive processing style Mood Self-regulation*

Agenda What do we mimic? Why is mimicry important? Why do we mimic?

Why do we mimic? 1. mimicry as communication 2. mimicry as a passive and automatic response (perception-behavior link) 3. mimicry from an evolutionary perspective 4. merging old with new: mimicry translates neural responses into social responses

Thanks to Claire Ashton-James John Bargh Jim Bettman Clara Cheng Amy Dalton Rosie Ferraro Eli Finkel Terry Horgan Jessica Lakin Will Maddux Rob Tanner Brian Uldall Rick van Baaren