CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Action Observation and SynchronizationSocial Robot Interaction and HRISocial and Intergroup Psychology

Social attitudes modulate automatic imitation

Open access
Leighton, Jane, Bird, Geoffrey, Orsini, Caitlin, Heyes, Cecilia·2010·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study tested whether social attitudes directly and specifically modulate automatic imitation. Pro-social priming produced a larger automatic imitation effect than anti-social priming, suggesting a bidirectional relationship between mimicry and social attitudes.

Key findings

  • Priming group affected automatic imitation: ANOVA \(F(2,34)=4.042, p<0.027\); the pro-social group showed a significantly larger automatic imitation effect than the anti-social group, \(F(1,22)=6.148, p<0.022\), with a significant linear trend across groups, \(p<0.008\) (pro-social > neutral > anti-social).
  • Table 2 reports mean RTs: pro-social compatible 313.3 ms vs incompatible 351.3 ms; neutral 289.5 ms vs 315.1 ms; anti-social/non-social 371.0 ms vs 385.3 ms.
  • Debriefing indicated no participant correctly guessed the purpose of either experiment, identified a link between the studies, or identified a theme among the priming words.
  • The authors conclude the effect was direct and specific, not attributable to attention, effector priming, or stimulus enhancement, and that the modulated mimicry was counter-intentional.

Methods

  • Thirty-six healthy right-handed participants (mean age 31.3 years, 20 male) were randomly assigned to pro-social, neutral, or anti-social scrambled-sentence priming.
  • Participants then completed a stimulus-response compatibility automatic imitation task: they made a pre-specified open or close hand response to open or close hand movement stimuli, with compatible and incompatible trials; RT was measured via EMG from the first dorsal interosseus.
  • The automatic imitation effect was calculated as incompatible RT minus compatible RT, and analyzed with ANOVA using priming group as a between-subjects factor and mean RT as a covariate, plus contrasts and a linear trend test.

Limitations

  • Stated: further experiments are needed to establish whether social attitudes modulate mimicry via an inhibitory route, whether the relevant inhibitory mechanisms are task-general or specifically social, and whether the neutral group’s intermediate effect reflects baseline changes in inhibition.
  • Evident: the sample was small (\(N=36\)), and the study used only pro-/anti-social word priming with an isolated hand on a screen rather than live social interaction, limiting generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.001

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 38 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Participants primed with pro-social words exhibited a greater automatic imitation effect than those primed with anti-social words.

    “Pro-social priming produced a larger automatic imitation effect than anti-social priming”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scrambled-sentence task with the selected words effectively induces pro-social, neutral, or anti-social attitudes.
  • Findingown data

    The pro-social priming group showed a significantly greater automatic imitation effect than the anti-social priming group (F(1,22) = 6.148, p < 0.022).

    “Contrasts revealed that the pro-social group showed a significantly greater automatic imitation effect than the anti-social group (F(1,22) = 6.148, p<0.022)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A Friedman test showed significant differences between pro-social, neutral, and anti-social words in how social they were rated (p=.001).

    “A Friedman test indicated significant differences between prosocial, neutral and anti-social words in terms of how 'social' they were judged to be (p=.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In an ANOVA with priming group as a between-subjects factor and mean reaction time as a covariate, there was a significant main effect of priming group on automatic imitation effect (F(2,34) = 4.042, p < 0.027).

    “Automatic imitation effects were examined using ANOVA in which group (pro-social, neutral anti-social) was the between subjects factor, and mean RT was the covariate.A main effect of priming group was found (F(2,34) = 4.042, p<0.027).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    Waitresses who were instructed to mimic their customers received larger tips than those instructed not to mimic.

    “In another study, waitresses who were instructed to mimic their customers received bigger tips than those who were instructed not to mimic (Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg, 2003 source
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant linear trend across the three priming groups (p < 0.008), with the pro-social group showing the largest automatic imitation effect, the neutral group intermediate, and the anti-social group the smallest.

    “there was a significant linear trend across the three groups (p<0.008),indicating that the prosocial group showed the largest automatic imitation effect, followed by the neutral group, with the anti-social group showing the smallest automatic imitation effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No participant correctly guessed the purpose of either experiment, identified a link between the studies, or identified a theme among the priming words.

    “Examination of the questionnaire data indicated that no participant correctly guessed the purpose of either the first or second experiment.Furthermore, no participant correctly identified a link between the studies, or a theme among the words presented in the priming task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other contrasts approached significance.

    “No other contrasts approached significance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    When people are unaware that their behavior is being copied, being mimicked increases their rapport.

    “It has been demonstrated that, when people are not aware that their behavior is being copied, being mimicked increases rapport (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    When people are unaware that their behavior is being copied, being mimicked increases their feelings of closeness.

    “feelings of closeness (van Baaren, Holland, Karremans & van Knippenberg, 2003)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van Baaren, Holland, Karremans & van Knippenberg, 2003 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Unconscious mimicry fosters smooth and harmonious social interactions and strengthens social bonds.

    “There is evidence that unconscious mimicry 1 promotes smooth and harmonious social interactions and strengthens social relationships (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999;Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source
    • cites Lakin & Chartrand, 2003 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    When people are unaware that their behavior is being copied, being mimicked increases their trust.

    “and trust (Bailenson & Yee, 2005)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bailenson & Yee, 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The automatic imitation task indexes mimicry, such that any response time difference between compatible and incompatible trials is attributable to the match between observed and executed actions.

    “Therefore, the automatic imitation task provides an index of mimicry: any difference in response time between compatible and incompatible trials is attributable to the relationship (matching or non-matching) between the observed and executed actions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both the present and prior naturalistic studies found an increased tendency to mimic following pro-social priming.

    “Despite this difference, both sets of studies found an increased tendency to mimic following pro-social priming.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Previous research has not examined whether the mimicry that social attitudes modulate can occur counter to intention.

    “However, previous research in this area has not examined whether the mimicry that can be modulated by social attitudes is automatic in another important sense; whether it can occur even when it is counter to the participant's intention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Being mimicked promotes pro-social behavior, and mimicry has been suggested to be a non-conscious tool to facilitate social interactions.

    “Previous research has shown that being mimicked promotes pro-social behavior (e.g.Chartand & Bargh, 1999), and consequently it has been suggested that mimicry is a non-conscious tool that individuals use instinctively to facilitate social interactions with others (Chartrand & Jeffers, 2003, Cheng & Chartrand, 2003, Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chartand & Bargh, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Chartrand & Jeffers, 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Cheng & Chartrand, 2003 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Trials with incorrect responses and reaction times below 100 ms or above 1000 ms were excluded from analysis to remove trials where participants did not attend to the movement stimulus.

    “To remove trials in which participants did not attend to the movement stimulus, incorrect responses (e.g.hand open when close was required, 0.05%) were excluded from the analysis, as were all RTs smaller than 100 ms and greater than 1000 ms (0.05%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The naturalistic approach leaves important questions about the relationship between social attitudes and mimicry unanswered.

    “but this approach inevitably leaves unanswered a number of important questions about the relationship between social attitudes and mimicry”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Positive bidirectional feedback between social attitudes and mimicry likely facilitates day-to-day social interactions and has played an important role in the evolution of human cooperation.

    “In either case, it is likely that positive, bidirectional feedback between social attitudes and mimicry, not only facilitates day-to-day social interactions, but has played an important role in the evolution of human cooperation (Sterelny, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sterelny, 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mimicry that can be modulated by social attitudes is unconscious and beyond intentional control.

    “In addition, they suggest that the mimicry that can be modulated by social attitudes is, not only unconscious, but also beyond intentional control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The order of open versus close response blocks was counterbalanced across participants.

    “Whether the participants opened their hand or closed their hand in the first block was determined prior to the start of the experiment and was counterbalanced across subjects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Positive mood, associated with pro-social attitudes, can impair inhibitory control (Stroop performance), increase distractibility, and impair self-other distinction.

    “Positive mood, which is associated with prosocial attitudes, can lead to poor performance on Stroop inhibition tasks (Phillips, Bull, Adams & Fraser, 2002), increased distractibility (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004), and impairment of the ability to distinguish self from others (Stroessner, Mackie & Michalsen, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Phillips, Bull, Adams & Fraser, 2002 source
    • cites Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004 source
    • cites Stroessner, Mackie & Michalsen, 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Pro-social priming may influence both action selection and the on-line control of action.

    “This result allows one to conclude that pro-social priming may influence not only action selection, but also the on-line control of action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The observed effect cannot be attributed to effector priming or stimulus enhancement.

    “Furthermore, the effect that we observed could not have been non-specific: due to a tendency to move the same body part (effector priming), or to touch the same object (stimulus enhancement), as the model, rather than to produce the same body movements as the model (mimicry or imitation).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The cognitive mechanisms mediating this kind of mimicry are relatively low-level and do not depend on complex processing of a wide range of social stimuli.

    “This, in turn, implies that the cognitive mechanisms mediating this kind of mimicry are relatively low-level; that they do not depend on complex processing of a wide range of social stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Only a small number of studies have examined how social attitudes affect mimicry.

    “only a small number of studies have examined the converse relationship -the impact of social attitudes on mimicry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    A pilot study was conducted to verify the semantic relationship between the target words and the attitudes they were intended to prime.

    “Prior to the experiment a pilot study was carried out to verify the semantic relationship between the target words and the attitudes we intended to prime.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The criterion for defining movement onset was verified by visual inspection for every trial of every participant.

    “Whether the criterion correctly defined movement onset in the present experiment was verified by sight for every trial performed by each participant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were naïve to the purpose of the experiment.

    “were all naïve with respect to the purpose of the experiment”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Among romantic couples, the amount of rapport they feel correlates with the amount of mimicking during their interactions.

    “Some early research suggested that among romantic couples there is a correlation between the amount of rapport they feel with each other and the amount of mimicking that takes place during their interactions (Bernieri, 1988;see LaFrance, 1979see LaFrance, , 1982;;LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976 for related work).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bernieri, 1988 source
    • cites LaFrance, 1979 source
    • cites LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    No participant was aware of the type of priming they received or that the study purpose was to examine automatic imitation and its relationship with social attitudes.

    “Therefore, we can conclude that no participant was aware of the type of priming they had received or that the purpose of the study was to examine automatic imitation and its relationship with social attitudes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Susceptibility and resistance to automatic imitation depend on inhibitory mechanisms that distinguish one's own actions from observed actions.

    “Brass and colleagues have argued that susceptibility and resistance to automatic imitation depend on inhibitory mechanisms that allow one's own actions to be distinguished from the observed actions of others (Brass, Derrfuss & Cramon 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brass, Derrfuss & Cramon 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    A debriefing questionnaire was used to check whether participants had guessed the purpose of the experiment.

    “Following the second block of trials, participants were asked to complete a debriefing questionnaire designed to ascertain whether participants has guessed the purpose of the experiment (see Appendix 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mimicry and social attitudes form a positive feedback loop in which pro-social attitudes generate mimicry and mimicry further increases positive social attitudes.

    “By confirming that the relationship is bidirectional, and that the effect of pro-social attitudes on mimicry is both direct and specific, the present study suggests that mimicry and social attitudes are part of a positive feedback loop in which pro-social attitudes generate mimicry, and mimicry further increases positive social attitudes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An attentional hypothesis for the effect of social attitudes on mimicry has been proposed but not tested.

    “This kind of attentional hypothesis has been advanced, but not tested, by others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The response onset criterion was selected during initial calibration as the most effective for discriminating false positives from misses.

    “This criterion was chosen during initial calibration of the equipment as the most effective in discriminating false positives from misses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Social attitudes can modulate mimicry of body movements in a minimal social context, not only in naturalistic social interactions.

    “Therefore, the findings suggest that social attitudes can modulate mimicry of body movements, not only in the rich context of naturalistic social interactions, but also in a minimal social context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have shown that mimicry is automatic in that participants do not report awareness of the model's focal behavior, an intention to mimic, or awareness that they mimicked.

    “Previous studies have shown that this kind of mimicry is automatic in the sense that, in post-test interviews, participants do not report awareness of the model's focal behavior (e.g.foot shaking, face rubbing), an intention to mimic, or awareness that they mimicked the model's behavior in the course of the experiment (e.g.Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The scrambled-sentence task with the selected words effectively induces pro-social, neutral, or anti-social attitudes.

    “Three versions of the scrambled-sentence test were constructed: One was intended to prime the pro-social attitude, another the anti-social attitude and a third was intended to prime neither attitude (the neutral priming condition).”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 34) = 4.042reported p < .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(2,34) = 4.042, p < .027”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 6.148reported p < .022 · recomputed p = .021

    “F(1,22) = 6.148, p < .022”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table 2 names a priming group not used in the study

    Minor

    The study specifies pro-social, neutral, and anti-social groups, but Table 2 labels its third group "Non-social" rather than anti-social.

  • The stated movement planes are reversed

    Minor

    The procedure describes upward and downward response movements and lateral stimulus movements, whereas the note assigns the horizontal plane to responses and the vertical plane to stimuli.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. van Baaren RB Holland RW Karremans JC & van Knippenberg A (in press) Increasing interpersonal closeness through mimicry.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Leighton, J., Bird, G., Orsini, C., & Heyes, C.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bird, Geoffrey
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
905-910
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.001
OpenAlex
W2010996155
Semantic Scholar
ba343637f90a5f17474799c1cc40bf78d4e37f31
Cited by
181
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
automatic imitation, mimicry, social attitudes, stimulus-response compatibility, electromyography, reaction time, interpersonal liking, affiliation, cooperation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review