CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 115Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Mimicry and automatic imitation are not correlated

Open access
Genschow, Oliver, van Den Bossche, Sofie, Cracco, Emiel, Bardi, Lara, Rigoni, Davide, Brass, Marcel·2017·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0183784PMC PMC5587324
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is widely known that individuals have a tendency to imitate each other. However, different psychological disciplines assess imitation in different manners. While social psychologists assess mimicry by means of action observation, cognitive psychologists assess automatic imitation with reaction time based measures on a trial-by-trial basis. Although these methods differ in crucial methodological aspects, both phenomena are assumed to rely on similar underlying mechanisms. This raises the fundamental question whether mimicry and automatic imitation are actually correlated. In the present research we assessed both phenomena and did not find a meaningful correlation. Moreover, personality traits such as empathy, autism traits, and traits related to self- versus other-focus did not correlate with mimicry or automatic imitation either. Theoretical implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0183784

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • More recent work showed a greater interference effect for female individuals compared with male individuals, as well as greater error rates for predominantly female samples than male samples.

    “More recent work also showed a greater interference effect for female individuals compared with male individuals (Genschow et al., 2017), as well as greater error rates for predominantly female samples than male samples (Cracco et al., 2018).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Genschow et al., 2017

    The Results section on demographics reports a trend toward a greater interference effect in women than men, but explicitly says the difference was not statistically significant (p = .094). The significant gender differences were for congruency and facilitation effects, so the unqualified interference claim overstates the finding. The error-rate clause cites Cracco et al. (2018), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Automatic imitation comprises both a facilitation effect and an interference effect.

    “Indeed, it is well-established in the literature that automatic imitation comprises both a facilitation and an interference effect (Brass et al., 2000;Cracco et al., 2015;Genschow et al., 2017).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Genschow et al., 2017

  • Because balance between facilitation and interference is well-grounded in the literature, the model is robust under realistic circumstances.

    “Given that such a balance is well-grounded in the literature (Brass et al., 2000;Cracco et al., 2015;Genschow et al., 2017), this indicates that the model is robust under realistic circumstances.”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Genschow et al., 2017

  • More recent behavioural evidence suggests that imitation may not vary as a function of autistic-like traits or empathy, questioning the reliance of imitation inhibition on a distinctly social mechanism.

    “However, more recent behavioural evidence suggests that imitation may not vary as a function of autistic-like traits or empathy, thus questioning the reliance of imitation inhibition on a distinctly social mechanism (Butler et al., 2015;Cracco et al., 2018;Genschow et al., 2017).”

    From The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies (2018) · cites this paper as Genschow et al., 2017

  • The model is robust under realistic circumstances.

    “Thus, in line with Simulation 2, these findings suggests that the model is robust under realistic circumstances (Brass et al., 2000;Cracco et al., 2015;Genschow et al., 2017).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Genschow et al., 2017

    The Results report automatic-imitation effects, and the Introduction discusses how imitation tasks differ in ecological validity. Neither passage evaluates a model or says it is robust under realistic circumstances (searched: the claim’s wording and model/simulation/realistic-circumstances terms). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [38]Dijksterhuis A, Chartrand TL, Aarts H (2005) The relation between perception and motivation In: Bargh JA, editor. Handbook of automaticity. Philadelphia: Psychology Press pp. 207– 222.
  2. [91]Jeffreys H (1961) Theory of probability Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  3. [98]Cohen J (1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Genschow, O., van Den Bossche, S., Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Rigoni, D., & Brass, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Genschow, Oliver
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-09-06
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
e0183784
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0183784
PMC
PMC5587324
OpenAlex
W2751775184
Cited by
115
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
22.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (PZ00P1_168007)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
mimicry, automatic imitation, action observation, reaction time, empathy, autistic traits, personality traits
MeSH terms
Biological Mimicry, Empathy, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Personality, Personality Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Behavior, Socioeconomic Factors

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.

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