The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 38 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Social attitudes modulate automatic imitation
Open accessOverview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
18 Own interpretation · 14 No full text of the sources · 9 Own method · 8 Not checked yet · 7 Own result · 4 No basis given · 2 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pro-social priming produced a larger automatic imitation effect than anti-social priming”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The scrambled-sentence task with the selected words effectively induces pro-social, neutral, or anti-social attitudes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Stimuli
hedgedcorrelationaln = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg, 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“altruistic behavior (van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & van Knippenberg, 2004)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & van Knippenberg, 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that social attitudes have a direct and specific effect on the tendency to imitate behavior without intention or conscious awareness.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The scrambled-sentence task with the selected words effectively induces pro-social, neutral, or anti-social attitudes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that the relationship between mimicry and social attitudes is bidirectional”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The scrambled-sentence task with the selected words effectively induces pro-social, neutral, or anti-social attitudes.
In the paper
“In a study where half the participants were mimicked by a confederate and half were not, participants who were mimicked reported liking the confederate more than those who were not (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Van Baaren and colleagues varied self construal orientation, and found that participants with either a temporarily induced, or chronic, dominant interdependent self construal were more likely to match the behaviors of a confederate than those with an independent self construal (van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, Bouter & van Knippenberg, 2003).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, Bouter & van Knippenberg, 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No other contrasts approached significance.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It has been demonstrated that, when people are not aware that their behavior is being copied, being mimicked increases rapport (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“feelings of closeness (van Baaren, Holland, Karremans & van Knippenberg, 2003)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites van Baaren, Holland, Karremans & van Knippenberg, 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“There is evidence that unconscious mimicry 1 promotes smooth and harmonious social interactions and strengthens social relationships (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999;Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and trust (Bailenson & Yee, 2005)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bailenson & Yee, 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this difference, both sets of studies found an increased tendency to mimic following pro-social priming.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chartand & Bargh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chartrand & Jeffers, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cheng & Chartrand, 2003 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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%).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but this approach inevitably leaves unanswered a number of important questions about the relationship between social attitudes and mimicry”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sterelny, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, they suggest that the mimicry that can be modulated by social attitudes is, not only unconscious, but also beyond intentional control.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result allows one to conclude that pro-social priming may influence not only action selection, but also the on-line control of action.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only a small number of studies have examined the converse relationship -the impact of social attitudes on mimicry.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Stimuli
plaincorrelationaln = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether the criterion correctly defined movement onset in the present experiment was verified by sight for every trial performed by each participant.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > RT Data recording and analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“were all naïve with respect to the purpose of the experiment”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Participants
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Results
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brass, Derrfuss & Cramon 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This kind of attentional hypothesis has been advanced, but not tested, by others.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This criterion was chosen during initial calibration of the equipment as the most effective in discriminating false positives from misses.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > RT Data recording and analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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).”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“however, recent work demonstrates that contextual modulation of imitative behaviors is similar when they are in the laboratory with simplistic tasks such as this one and in more naturalistic environments as social mimicry (VanBaaren 2003; Leighton 2010).”
From To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance (2014) · cites this paper as Leighton 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Automatic imitation has been shown to be modulated by social context cues (see e.g.3–11)”
From Event-related potentials of automatic imitation are modulated by ethnicity during stimulus processing, but not during motor execution (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
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”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
“Pro-social 313.3 (25.3) 351.3 (31.2) Neutral 289.5 (16.7) 315.1 (17.5)Non-social 371.0 (30.4) 385.3 (28.9)”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Abstract
“Participants were primed with pro-social, neutral or anti-social words in a scrambled sentence task.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Discussion
“Response movements were made in the horizontal plane and stimulus postures were presented in the vertical plane.”
§ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press SOCIAL ATTITUDES MODULATE AUTOMATIC IMITATION > Procedure
“The fingers moved upwards during open responses and downwards when closing.Stimulus movements were presented in the lateral plane (left-right), and therefore response movements were orthogonal to stimulus postures.”
Citations
Cites
Journal of experimental psychology: Human Perception and performance
Jong, R. D., Coles, M. G. H., Logan, G. D., & Gratton, G. (1987) · Journal of Sound and Vibration · doi:10.1016/0022-460x(87)90423-8 · Cited by 5,411
The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893 · Cited by 3,674
Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language
Carr, T. H., & Dagenbach, D. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,276
Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481 · Cited by 1,297
On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users' guide to the stop signal paradigm
Logan, G. D. (1994) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 1,115
Facial Reactions to Facial Expressions
Dimberg, U. (1982) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1982.tb02516.x · Cited by 867
Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task.
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00024-x · Cited by 791
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.2000.1225 · Cited by 791
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343 · Cited by 775
Causes and consequences of imitation.
Heyes, C. (2001) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01661-2 · Cited by 684
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- van Baaren RB Holland RW Karremans JC & van Knippenberg A (in press) Increasing interpersonal closeness through mimicry.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ki, C. ‘., & Kim, Y. (2019) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21244 · Cited by 749
The Antecedents and Consequences of Human Behavioral Mimicry
Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754 · Cited by 662
“F or p er so na l u se o nl y. stimulus compatibility measure similar to that used in Leighton et al. (2010), also adding a numerical compatibility manipulation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAutomaticity in social-cognitive processes
Bargh, J. A., Schwader, K., Hailey, S. E., Dyer, R., & Boothby, E. J. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002 · Cited by 408
Chartrand, T. L., & van Baaren, R. (2009) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)00405-x · Cited by 369
Social top-down response modulation (STORM): a model of the control of mimicry in social interaction
Wang, Y., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00153 · Cited by 267
“As participants with different animacy belief kept equivalent highly loaded attention on stimuli (Leighton et al., 2010) and had the identical perceptual inputs, this finding favors the STORM account suggesting that the animacy effect of mimicry are not from low-level domain-general processes, but…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWhere is the love? The social aspects of mimicry
van Baaren, R., Janssen, L., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0057 · Cited by 231
Automatic imitation: A meta-analysis.
Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Desmet, C., Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., De Coster, L., Radkova, I., Deschrijver, E., & Brass, M. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000143 · Cited by 228
“…er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. action goals are often more salient than movement parameters (Bird, Brindley, et al., 2007; Leighton et al., 2010), an alternative hypothesis is also that goal-related actions may drive away attention from the observed movement toward the…”
BackgroundInterpersonal Emotion Transfer: Contagion and Social Appraisal
Parkinson, B. (2011) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00365.x · Cited by 193
The neuroethology of spontaneous mimicry and emotional contagion in human and non-human animals
Palagi, E., Celeghin, A., Tamietto, M., Winkielman, P., & Norscia, I. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.020 · Cited by 192
Social dimension of emotions and its implication for animal welfare
Špinka, M. (2012) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.005 · Cited by 147
“Classical visual signals of fear and rage were described by Darwin (1872) and Lorenz (1963) for dogs and by Leyhausen (1979) for cats while fear pheromones were described later (Fanselow,”
BackgroundThe Control of Mimicry by Eye Contact Is Mediated by Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Wang, Y., Ramsey, R., & de C. Hamilton, A. F. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0845-11.2011 · Cited by 141
“…cognitive and affective processes, such as mindsets (van Baaren et al., 2009), social status (Cheng and Chartrand, 2003), social attitude (Leighton et al., 2010), strategy (Rumiati et al., 2009), intentionality (Massen and Prinz, 2009), rationality (Gergely et al., 2002), and eye contact…”
BackgroundMimicry and automatic imitation are not correlated
Genschow, O., van Den Bossche, S., Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Rigoni, D., & Brass, M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183784 · Cited by 115
Facial mimicry, empathy, and emotion recognition: a meta-analysis of correlations
Holland, A. C., O’Connell, G., & Dziobek, I. (2021) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2020.1815655 · Cited by 114
“As with imitation of other body parts (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), facial mimicry has seen to be particularly elicited when interacting with people who are perceived positively, for whom there is a desire for social affiliation (Leighton et al., 2010; Likowski et al., 2008; *Sims et al., 2012).”
BackgroundAtypical Social Modulation of Imitation in Autism Spectrum Conditions
Cook, J. L., & Bird, G. (2012) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1341-7 · Cited by 111
“Finally participants completed a debriefing questionnaire (Leighton et al. 2010).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationDeep Structures of Collaboration
Chikersal, P., Tomprou, M., Kim, Y. J., Woolley, A. W., & Dabbish, L. (2017) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998250 · Cited by 110
“Alternatively, participants can be primed with a pro-social task [52] before they begin collaborating.”
BackgroundSocial attitudes differentially modulate imitation in adolescents and adults
Cook, J., & Bird, G. (2011) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2584-4 · Cited by 92
“Recently Leighton et al. (2010) demonstrated that unconscious priming of positive social attitudes increases imitative behaviour in adults.”
InfluentialSelf-citationSynchrony and motor mimicking in chimpanzee observational learning
Fuhrmann, D., Ravignani, A., Marshall‐Pescini, S., & Whiten, A. (2014) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep05283 · Cited by 96
Heartfelt imitation: high interoceptive awareness is linked to greater automatic imitation
Ainley, V., Brass, M., & Tsakiris, M. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.010 · Cited by 87
Transforming the mirror: Power fundamentally changes facial responding to emotional expressions.
Carr, E. W., Winkielman, P., & Oveis, C. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0034972 · Cited by 95
“For example, finger imitation is increased by prosocial priming (Leighton et al., 2010), whereas facial mimicry is reduced by outgroup membership (Bourgeois & Hess, 2008), negative attitudes (Likowski et al., 2008), and competition (Weyers et al., 2009).”
Wolves Are Better Imitators of Conspecifics than Dogs
Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086559 · Cited by 87
“Vice-versa, prosocial attitudes lead to increased mimicry in humans [53].”
BackgroundStrategic regulation of mimicry effects by implementation intentions
Wieber, F., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.02.002 · Cited by 83
Who to whom and why: The social nature of emotional mimicry
Heß, U. (2020) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13675 · Cited by 83
Self-other control: a candidate mechanism for social cognitive function
Sowden, S., & Shah, P. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00789 · Cited by 81
“Moreover, priming prosocial attitudes enhances automatic imitation but not a non-imitative control process (Leighton et al., 2010; Cook and Bird, 2011) and engaging in more social interaction appears to improve other social abilities (Hogeveen and Obhi, 2012).”
BackgroundEye contact modulates facial mimicry in 4-month-old infants: An EMG and fNIRS study
de Klerk, C. C. J. M., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., & Southgate, V. (2018) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.002 · Cited by 90
“, 2010), when we have been primed with self-related prosocial stimuli (Leighton et al., 2010; Wang & Hamilton, 2013), and when we have been given the goal to”
BackgroundThe Social Function of Imitation in Development
Over, H. (2020) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-033020-024051 · Cited by 81
Top-down modulation of the perception of other people in schizophrenia and autism
Cook, J. L., Barbalat, G., & Blakemore, S. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00175 · Cited by 86
“For example, Leighton et al. (2010) asked participants to rearrange five words such that they formed a grammatically correct sentence; these sentences either comprised positive social words (e.g., friend, team, assist) or anti-social words (e.g., rebel, obstinate, distrust).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGilboa‐Schechtman, E., & Shachar‐Lavie, I. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00904 · Cited by 76
“For example, priming individuals with prosocial (as opposed to antagonistic) goals generated more mimicking behavior (Leighton et al., 2010).”
BackgroundRauchbauer, B., Majdandžić, J., Hummer, A., Windischberger, C., & Lamm, C. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.007 · Cited by 69
Spengler, S., Braß, M., Kühn, S., & Schütz‐Bosbach, S. (2010) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.014 · Cited by 70
Automatic imitation of pro- and antisocial gestures: Is implicit social behavior censored?
Cracco, E., Genschow, O., Radkova, I., & Braß, M. (2017) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.019 · Cited by 65
Emotional mimicry as social regulator: theoretical considerations
Heß, U., & Fischer, A. H. (2022) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2022.2103522 · Cited by 64
“…can be found when the observed behaviour is effectuated by an avatar (Pan & Hamilton, 2015; Weyers et al., 2006), they are facilitated by social priming (Leighton et al., 2010; van Baaren et al., 2003) and impeded in the presence of outgroups (Rauchbauer et al., 2016; van der Schalk et al., 2011).”
BackgroundEvolution, development and intentional control of imitation
Heyes, C. M. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0049 · Cited by 65
Self-citationCognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others
Hale, J., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.006 · Cited by 63
What Can Imitation Do for Cooperation?
(2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9033.003.0020 · Cited by 56
“…experiments examining complex imitation have provided evidence that it involves the same kind of sequence learning processes as non-imitative tasks (Leighton et al. 2010); that these processes do not depend on intention-reading (Leighton et al. 2008); and that they do not show the flexibility one…”
InfluentialThe Mimicry Among Us: Intra- and Inter-Personal Mechanisms of Spontaneous Mimicry
Arnold, A. J., & Winkielman, P. (2019) · Journal of Nonverbal Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10919-019-00324-z · Cited by 63
“Spontaneous mimicry is sensitive to interpersonal cues such as prosociality (Leighton et al. 2010), group membership (Bourgeois and Hess 2008), attitudes (Likowski et al.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the Role of the ‘Self’ in the Social Priming of Mimicry
Yin, W., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060249 · Cited by 58
“[11], which found stronger mimicry following prosocial priming in the same task.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialReduced Mimicry to Virtual Reality Avatars in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Forbes, P., Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2930-2 · Cited by 64
“…of social cues, such as attractiveness of the interaction partner (van Leeuwen et al. 2009), eye-contact (Wang et al. 2010), pro-social priming (Leighton et al. 2010; Wang and Hamilton 2013), and, beliefs about the animacy of the interaction partner (Bird et al. 2007; Castiello et al. 2002),…”
BackgroundRepresentation and Incorporation of Close Others’ Responses
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868315598256 · Cited by 55
To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance
Cross, K. A., & Iacoboni, M. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.027 · Cited by 59
“, 2007) and imitative compatibility effects (Chong et al., 2009; Leighton et al., 2010; Liepelt et al., 2009; Likowski et al., 2008; van Baaren et al., 2003) can bemodulated by attention and contextual factors, to date there is no neurophysiological evidence demonstrating that controlling imitative tendencies (i.”
InfluentialThe Modulation of Mimicry by Ethnic Group-Membership and Emotional Expressions
Rauchbauer, B., Majdandžić, J., Stieger, S., & Lamm, C. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161064 · Cited by 50
“Similar to the Chameleon effect investigated using more naturalistic experimental approaches (for example see [1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14], automatic imitation has also been found to be malleable by socio-affective factors such as social status of the mimickee [15], pro- and antisocial priming [18], eye-contact [19], and val…”
What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?
Ramsey, R. (2018) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.006 · Cited by 51
Gowen, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2012) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0389-5 · Cited by 48
Fujiwara, K., & Yokomitsu, K. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01612-7 · Cited by 55
“Many studies have found that interpersonal co-ordination in social situations is a function of sociality (Bernieri et al., 1988; Leighton et al., 2010; Lumsden et al., 2012; Miles et al., 2011).”
BackgroundResultThe influence of group membership on cross-contextual imitation
Genschow, O., & Schindler, S. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0983-4 · Cited by 47
“However, recent findings suggest that this link may critically depend on social contexts (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin et al., 2008; Leighton et al. 2010b; Wang & Hamilton 2012; Wang & Hamilton 2015).”
BackgroundWhy does Gaze Enhance Mimicry? Placing Gaze-Mimicry Effects in Relation to Other Gaze Phenomena
Wang, Y., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2013) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.828316 · Cited by 48
Raffard, S., Salesse, R. N., Marín, L., Del-Monte, J., Schmidt, R. C., Varlet, M., Bardy, B. G., Boulenger, J., & Capdevielle, D. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep08156 · Cited by 45
Investigating the Relationship between Stable Personality Characteristics and Automatic Imitation
Butler, E. E., Ward, R., & Ramsey, R. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129651 · Cited by 44
“Two of the Big-Five factors of personality, agreeableness and extraversion, have been associated with prosocial behaviours, including empathy [36], cooperative behaviour [37] and altruism [34].”
BackgroundSpreading of healthy mood in adolescent social networks
Hill, E. M., Griffiths, F. E., & House, T. (2015) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1180 · Cited by 45
“Unconscious mimicry enhances social rapport [24], and those feeling positive towards the person with whom they are interacting socially are more likely to mimic, and so build rapport [25], and thus the opportunity for transmission of healthy mood.”
BackgroundMeyer, B. M., Burtscher, M. J., Jonas, K. W., Feese, S., Bert Arnrich, A., Tröster, G., & Schermuly, C. C. (2016) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2016.1189903 · Cited by 54
Group Dynamics in Automatic Imitation
Gleibs, I. H., Wilson, N., Reddy, G., & Catmur, C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162880 · Cited by 40
“In such paradigms, the tendency to imitate others’ actions produces a stimulus-response compatibility effect in which the topographical features of task-irrelevant action stimuli facilitate similar, and interfere with dissimilar, responses [16].”
BackgroundThe imitation game: Effects of social cues on ‘imitation’ are domain-general in nature
Marsh, L. E., Bird, G., & Catmur, C. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.050 · Cited by 39
“Thus far,most theoretical and empiricalwork on the social modulation of imitation assumes that the social features of an interaction have a direct and specific impact on imitation (Cook and Bird, 2011, 2012; Leighton et al., 2010; Rauchbauer et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2011a,b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationGender differences in synchrony: Females in sync during unstructured dyadic conversation
Fujiwara, K., Kimura, M., & Daibo, I. (2019) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2587 · Cited by 44
Observation and imitation of actions performed by humans, androids, and robots: an EMG study
Hofree, G., Ürgen, B. A., Winkielman, P., & Saygın, A. P. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00364 · Cited by 44
“…1995, 2005), fMRI (e.g., Iacoboni et al., 1999), EEG/MEG (e.g., Hari et al., 1998; Järveläinen et al., 2001; Caetano et al., 2007; Kilner and Frith, 2007; Kilner et al., 2009; Neuper et al., 2009), intracranial recordings (Mukamel et al., 2010) and occasionally with EMG (Leighton et al., 2010).”
BackgroundMethodThe influence of Oxytocin on automatic motor simulation
Coster, L. D., Mueller, S. C., T'Sjoen, G. G., Saedeleer, L. D., & Braß, M. (2014) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.08.021 · Cited by 39
Anterior medial prefrontal cortex implements social priming of mimicry
Wang, Y., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsu076 · Cited by 37
“Anterior medial prefrontal cortex implements social priming of mimicry”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Bodily Social Self: A Link Between Phenomenal and Narrative Selfhood
Farmer, H., & Manos Tsakiris, A. (2012) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-012-0092-5 · Cited by 40
“A recent study by Leighton et al. (2010) demonstrated that the effect of social attitudes on mimicry was direct and beyond participants’ control.”
BackgroundYou ≠ me: individual differences in the structure of social cognition
Shaw, D. J., Czekóová, K., Pennington, C. R., Qureshi, A., Špiláková, B., Salazar, M., Brázdil, M., & Urbánek, T. (2018) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1107-3 · Cited by 43
The bright and the dark sides of motor simulation
Panasiti, M. S., Porciello, G., & Aglioti, S. M. (2017) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.05.020 · Cited by 30
“For example, higher interference in the performance has been found when people believe the observed movement to be executed by a human hand compared to a wooden hand with the same perceptual features (Leighton et al., 2010), or after priming (via a Scrambled Sentence Task) with pro-social words compared to non-social…”
Facilitation of action planning in children with autism: The contribution of the maternal body odor
Parma, V., Bulgheroni, M., Tirindelli, R., & Castiello, U. (2014) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.05.002 · Cited by 31
Carr, E. W., & Winkielman, P. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00505 · Cited by 30
Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation
Genschow, O., Westfal, M., Cracco, E., & Crusius, J. (2021) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-021-01526-1 · Cited by 26
Cook, J. L. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.02.007 · Cited by 31
The Effect of Money Priming on Self-Focus in the Imitation-Inhibition Task
Genschow, O., Schuler, J., Cracco, E., Braß, M., & Wänke, M. (2019) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000466 · Cited by 28
“…with money produces rather weak self-focus effects as compared to other manipulations, such as scrambled sentences tasks (Cook & Bird, 2011 ; Leighton et al., 2010 ; Wang & Hamilton, 2013 , 2015 ), word priming tasks (Hogeveen & Obhi, 2011 ), or mirror manipulations and self-referential…”
InfluentialSocial group membership does not modulate automatic imitation in a contrastive multi-agent paradigm
Souter, L. D., Braem, S., Genschow, O., Braß, M., & Cracco, E. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820986528 · Cited by 22
“Email: emiel.cracco@ugent.be Leighton et al., 2010; van Baaren et al., 2003).”
BackgroundSTORMy Interactions: Gaze and the Modulation of Mimicry in Adults on the Autism Spectrum
Forbes, P., Wang, Y., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1136-0 · Cited by 28
Automatic imitation in a rich social context with virtual characters
Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00790 · Cited by 25
“Others have added social priming before a hand action imitation task (Leighton et al., 2010; Wang and Hamilton, 2013).”
BackgroundMethodComplexity of animal breeding choice making
Collado, D., Byrne, T. J., Díaz, C., & Amer, P. R. (2018) · Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · doi:10.1111/jbg.12360 · Cited by 26
Mimicking and anticipating others’ actions is linked to Social Information Processing
Genschow, O., Klomfar, S., d’Haene, I., & Braß, M. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193743 · Cited by 28
Contingency and contiguity of imitative behaviour affect social affiliation
Dignath, D., Lotze-Hermes, P., Farmer, H., & Pfister, R. (2017) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0854-x · Cited by 21
“Reponses were faster when the observed irrelevant movement was congruent with the to-be performed movement, compared to a situation in which the observed and the to-be performed movement were incongruent (see also Brass et al. 2000; Catmur 2017; for other effector systems than fingers, see; Bach and Tipper 2007; Digna…”
Parkinson, B. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108696234 · Cited by 32
Hayes, S. J., Roberts, J. W., Elliott, D., & Bennett, S. J. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0037200 · Cited by 23
At face value: Categorization goals modulate vigilance for angry faces
van Dillen, L. F., Lakens, D., & van den Bos, K. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.002 · Cited by 23
Antecedents and Consequences of Mimicry: A Naturalistic Interaction Approach
Kurzius, E., & Borkenau, P. (2015) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1990 · Cited by 23
EPS Prize Lecture: Cognitive underpinnings of social interaction
Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.973424 · Cited by 25
Stein, J. (2023) · Journal of Nonverbal Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10919-023-00424-x · Cited by 23
“…mimicry is typically seen as a behavior of high cross-cultural generalizability (e.g., Lakin et al., 2003; Nielsen & Tomaselli, 2010), even though its specifics might, again, be modulated by several contextual and sociocultural factors (e.g., Leighton et al., 2010; van Baaren et al., 2009).”
BackgroundThe influence of prosocial priming on visual perspective taking and automatic imitation
Newey, R., Koldewyn, K., & Ramsey, R. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198867 · Cited by 19
“A handful of studies have explored the effects of prosocial priming on automatic imitation [18, 19, 20].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHofree, G., Ruvolo, P., Reinert, A., Bartlett, M. S., & Winkielman, P. (2018) · Frontiers in Neurorobotics · doi:10.3389/fnbot.2018.00014 · Cited by 19
“Furthermore, people show reduced mimicry reactions to individuals that are disliked, belong to out-groups, or have different goals (McIntosh, 2006; Bourgeois and Hess, 2008; Likowski et al., 2008; Leighton et al., 2010).”
BackgroundAutomatic imitation does not predict levels of prosocial behaviour in a modified dictator game
Galang, C. M., & Obhi, S. S. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103022 · Cited by 16
Status and Power Do Not Modulate Automatic Imitation of Intransitive Hand Movements
Farmer, H., Carr, E. W., Svartdal, M., Winkielman, P., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151835 · Cited by 17
“[6,82]), which requires participants to pay greater attention to the observed hand action by making the start of that action the cue for participants to move.”
BackgroundSelf-categorization as a basis of behavioural mimicry: Experiments in The Hive
Neville, F., Drury, J., Reicher, S. D., Choudhury, S., Stott, C., Ball, R., & Richardson, D. C. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241227 · Cited by 15
“In terms of explaining the source effects on mimicry that we did find for the ‘Maze’ and ‘Fidget’ tasks, these findings further support the argument that mimicry is not passive and automatic [5, 21, 39, 59-63].”
ResultAutomatic imitation is reduced in narcissists but only in egocentric perspective-takers
Bukowski, H., & Samson, D. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103235 · Cited by 16
Intentional synchronisation affects automatic imitation and source memory
Cross, L., Atherton, G., & Sebanz, N. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-79796-9 · Cited by 16
Affiliation motivates children’s prosocial behaviors: Relating helping and comforting to imitation
Torréns, M. G., & Kärtner, J. (2018) · Social Development · doi:10.1111/sode.12357 · Cited by 16
Challenges and opportunities for top-down modulation research in cognitive psychology
Ramsey, R., & Ward, R. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103118 · Cited by 14
Emotions affect the recognition of hand gestures
Vicario, C. M., & Newman, A. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00906 · Cited by 14
“In fact, several previous works (Pratto and John, 1991; MacKay et al., 2004; Most et al., 2005; Ihssen et al., 2007) have shown that rapidly presented emotional pictures (as in the current study) interfere with performance in detecting other stimuli, probably because this type of presentation…”
BackgroundRauchbauer, B., Pfabigan, D. M., & Lamm, C. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30926-4 · Cited by 15
Top-down social modulation of interpersonal observation–execution
Roberts, J. W., Bennett, S. J., & Hayes, S. J. (2015) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0666-9 · Cited by 13
“Previous work has demonstrated that automatic imitation (Leighton et al., 2010; Cook & Bird, 2011; Wang et al., 2011) and naturalistic behavioural mimicry (van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter, & van Knippenberg, 2003) is enhanced following a pro-social prime compared to an anti-social prime.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEmbodiment of emotion and its situated nature
Carr, E. W., Kever, A., & Winkielman, P. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.30 · Cited by 20
Imitation and interindividual differences: Belief in free will is not related to automatic imitation
Westfal, M., Crusius, J., & Genschow, O. (2021) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103374 · Cited by 13
“Previous research has shown that a focus on the self (relative to others) reduces automatic imitation (Brass et al., 2009; Brass & Spengler, 2009; Genschow, Schuler, et al., 2019; Hogeveen & Obhi, 2011; Leighton et al., 2010; Spengler et al., 2010; van Baaren et al., 2003; Wang & Hamilton, 2013).”
BackgroundVerbal social primes alter motor contagion during action observation
Sparks, S., Douglas, T., & Kritikos, A. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1113304 · Cited by 11
“In contrast to Cook and Bird (2012) and Leighton et al. (2010), however, the word primes did not alter initiation time, possibly due to differences in paradigm.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialAutomatic imitation remains unaffected under cognitive load.
Ramsey, R., Darda, K. M., & Downing, P. E. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000632 · Cited by 10
Influence from representations of others’ responses: social priming meets social influence
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2016) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.012 · Cited by 10
When and Why Mimicry is Facilitated and Attenuated
Stel, M., van Dijk, E., & van Baaren, R. B. (2016) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12269 · Cited by 10
The Tree of Social Cognition: Hierarchically Organized Capacities of Mentalizing
Malle, B. F. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51890-5_17 · Cited by 11
Copying You Copying Me: Interpersonal Motor Co-Ordination Influences Automatic Imitation
Shaw, D. J., Czekóová, K., Chromec, J., Mareček, R., & Brázdil, M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084820 · Cited by 10
“group, team, friend) relative to non-social word stimuli [35] [36] [37] validate such an approach (see [2]).”
BackgroundShaw, D., Czekóová, K., & Porubanova, M. (2016) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-016-0814-x · Cited by 10
Priming from Others' Observed or Simulated Responses
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2014) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.184 · Cited by 9
“Notably, this effect is enhanced by priming participants with prosocial words such as friend or cooperate, and reduced by priming antisocial words such as selfish (Leighton et al., 2010).”
BackgroundTop‐down and bottom‐up processes during observation: Implications for motor learning
Roberts, J. W., Bennett, S. J., Elliott, D., & Hayes, S. J. (2012) · European Journal of Sport Science · doi:10.1080/17461391.2012.686063 · Cited by 12
“This was demonstrated in recent behavioural (Leighton, Bird, Orsini, & Heyes, 2010 ; Wang, Newport, & Hamilton, 2011 ) and neurophysiological (Wang, Ramsey, & Hamilton, 2011 ) experiments, which manipulated social cues/primes.”
Winkielman, P., Carr, E. W., Chakrabarti, B., Hofree, G., & Kavanagh, L. C. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107587595.009 · Cited by 9
Imitation in one's own presence: No specific effect of self-focus on imitation
Khemka, D., Ahmadilari, N., Bird, G., & Catmur, C. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103194 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Leighton, J., Bird, G., Orsini, C., & Heyes, C.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bird, Geoffrey
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 905-910
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
