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…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
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
