Behavioral Mimicry

1. Behavioral Mimicry Tanya Chartrand Duke University

2. Nonconscious mimicry • Mimicry is ubiquitous • What is mimicked? Facial expressions, moods and emotions, speech patterns and accents, motor movements including postures, gestures, mannerisms (i.e., “behavioral mimicry”) • Most often occurs automatically and without conscious awareness or intent

3. Nonconscious mimicry • Often linked with prosociality, especially affiliation, rapport, and helping behavior

4. Recent Findings • Mimicry is used as affiliation tool • Mimicry helps us understand others’ emotions • We have implicit expectations for amount of mimicry • Mimicry makes us misattribute others’ attributes to the self • Behavioral mimicry may be based in the mirror system

5. Recent Findings • Mimicry is used as affiliation tool • Mimicry helps us understand others’ emotions • We have implicit expectations for amount of mimicry • Mimicry makes us misattribute others’ attributes to the self • Behavioral mimicry may be based in the mirror system

6. Mimicry as tool to affiliate • We nonconsciously mimic more when we have a goal to affiliate with someone

7. Mimicry as tool to affiliate • We ncsly mimic more when we have a goal to affiliate with someone • We are told to get along with someone or primed with goal to affiliate (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003) • Someone has power over us (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) • We feel different from others (Uldall et al) • Social exclusion?

8. Social Exclusion & Mimicry • Mental visualization experiment – Cyberball task (Williams et al., 2000) • Ps either excluded or not

9. Included

10. Excluded

11. Social Exclusion & Mimicry • Mental visualization experiment – Cyberball task (Williams et al., 2000) • Ps either excluded or not • Participant interacts with “new” partner for second experiment – photo description

15. Social Exclusion & Mimicry • Mental visualization experiment – Cyberball task (Williams et al., 2000) • Ps either excluded or not • Participant interacts with “new” partner for second experiment – photo description • Confederate shook foot throughout • Hidden camera recorded participant foot-shaking

16. Proportion of time confederate was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (2008, Psych Science)

17. 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?

18. Social Exclusion & Mimicry Proportion of time C was mimicked

19. Social Exclusion & Mimicry Proportion of time C was mimicked Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin (2008, Psych Science)

20. Summary • We mimic more when we have a goal to affiliate • This is a nonconscious tool in our repertoire to build rapport with others • However, the mimicry boost is selective and functional • Helps to regain status within threatened group • This is a smart system

21. Recent Findings • Mimicry is used as affiliation tool • Mimicry helps us understand others’ emotions • We have implicit expectations for amount of mimicry • Mimicry makes us misattribute others’ attributes to the self • Behavioral mimicry may be based in the mirror system

22. How do we understand the emotions of others?

23. Embodied account of emotion perception • Step 1: people subtly and unconsciously mimic each other’s facial expressions • Step 2: these muscle contractions generate an afferent facial feedback signal to the brain • Step 3: people use this feedback to reproduce and thus understand a perceived expression’s emotional meaning • First 2 steps well-established, 3rd step not clear • Neurological disorder studies mixed (Moebius, guillane-barre) • Temporarily preventing mimicry leads to deficits (Oberman et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2009; Stel & van Knippenberg, 2008), but could be CNS involved too (can’t attribute to lack of afferent feedback)

24. Study 1: Botox • Tested emotion perception accuracy in 32 patients 2 weeks after received Botox or Restylane injections for wrinkle reduction • Botox paralyzes muscles, therefore afferent facial feedback dampened (doesn’t cross blood barrier, so doesn’t act on CNS) • Completed the Reading the Mind in the eyes test (RMET) • Patients with autism and amygdala damage show deficit on this test

25. Reading the mind in the eyes test

26. Botox study results Neal & Chartrand, 2012, SPPS

27. Study 2: Enhancing afferent feedback • Created resistance in response to facial muscle contractions • Applied facial mask (Stel & van Knippenberg 2008) • ½ Ps: to lower forehead, brow and area surrounding eyes • ½ Ps: to inside arm • Completed RMET • RMVT • Modular arithmetic questions sensitive to variations in working memory (test for load, distraction, etc)

28. Accuracy on tests

29. Accuracy on tests Neal & Chartrand, 2012, SPPS

30. Summary • Facial mimicry appears to be a critical part of understanding the emotions of others • When afferent feedback from mimicry is reduced, we show impaired accuracy • When feedback is increased, we show heightened accuracy

31. Recent Findings • Mimicry is used as affiliation tool • Mimicry helps us understand others’ emotions • We have implicit expectations for amount of mimicry • Mimicry makes us misattribute others’ attributes to the self • Behavioral mimicry may be based in the mirror system

32. Implicit Expectations for amount of mimicry • We have a good implicit sense of how much mimicry we should deploy in various situations • Other side: do we also have an implicit sense of how much we should be mimicked by others in various situations? • If so, what happens if those “expectations” are violated? • Can it impact regulatory resources (attempts to engage self-control)?

33. Mimicry and Self-Control • Ps mimicked or not by confederate in photo description task • 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

34. Mimicry and Self-Control • Ps mimicked or not 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

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

37. Mimicry and Procrastination • Ps either mimicked or not 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 Or…. or

38. Practicing Math Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)

39. Why does mimicry affect self-control? • Does mimicry replenish resources? OR • Does antimimicry deplete resources?

40. Why does mimicry affect self-control? • Ps either mimicked, not mimicked, 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 non-mimicked ps • control condition will diagnose driver of effect

41. Eating Cookies

42. Eating Cookies Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)

43. Can mimicry impair self-control? • So far, interactions are ones where lots of mimicry is expected (default) • What about interactions where less mimicry typically takes place? Mimicry would violate implicit expectation • Cross-race interactions • eye contact, standing distance, smiling, and blinking (Dovidio et al., 1997; Fazio et al.,1995) • Hand & body movement (Richeson & Shelton, 2003) • Mimicry (Yabar et al., 2006)

44. Can mimicry impair self-control? • Half Ps are White and half are Non-White • All ps either mimicked or not by White confederate • DV: Stroop Interference • Prediction: • White mimicked Ps would show less interference than non-mimicked Ps • Effect would be reversed for Non-White Ps Blue Red Green

45. Stroop Interference Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)

46. Stroop Interference Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)

47. Can mimicry impair self-control? • So far, interactions are ones where lots of mimicry is expected (default) • What about interactions where less mimicry typically takes place? • Cross-race interactions • Differences in Power • Those with power may expect to be mimicked more than those without power (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003)

48. Can mimicry impair self-control? • Ps assigned to be either “leader” or “worker” in interaction with Confederate • Ps mimicked or not by confederate • Dv: Stroop Interference • Prediction: • Leaders will do better if mimicked than not mimicked • Workers will do better if not mimicked than mimicked

49. Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)

50. Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel (2010, JPSP)