Unconscious Mimicry Facilitates Prosocial Behavior

Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication
IMAGINE:
Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication
Tammy Dalley and Michal Willinger
Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya
1

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Living life in peace
You, you may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Sharing all the world
You, you may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will live as one
– John Lennon (1940 – 1980)
2

ABSTRACT
Unconscious mimicry is a phenomenon that involves unaware “copycatting”
of an interaction partner in behavior such as vocal tone, word choice, gesture and
body movements. Studies suggest (van Baaren, 2003; van Baaren, 2004, van Baaren
2009) that unconscious mimicry shares common moderators with empathy as well as
enhancing prosocial behavior such as generosity toward others and likeability of the
“copycat” interaction partner. This review focuses on the known moderators of
unconscious mimicry to reveal deeper individual, social and anatomical connections
between unconscious mimicry and prosocial behaviour, addressing specifically how
this phenomenon may play a role in the supported and necessary and sufficient
conditions of personality change (Rogers, 1992). Through the existence of the five
unconscious moderators (in-group/out-group, affiliation goal, attention, self-construal
and field dependence), the finding of this review suggest that the individual self and
the social self are necessarily regulated into patterns of stability and prosociality under
the unifying condition of unconditional positive regard, a term coined by psychologist
Carl Rogers whose definition requires the existence of the five moderators of
unconscious mimicry, thus providing a basis to understand why empathy, generosity
and prosociality are moderated by the same variables. Briefly we review the
anatomical basis for such regulation and its implication for conscious control of
perceptions of self and other (Porges, 1995; 1998; 2005). This review also
specifically addresses the implications of raising these unconscious moderators into
consciousness, thus beginning a person’s intentional quest toward common goals,
prosocial communication and a positive, integrated notion of self without limitations
of stereotype or identification.
3

Research Question
Carl Rogers writes in one of his more recent papers (Rogers, 1992) about the
environmental conditions necessary for deep changes in personality – holding that
every person is unique and able to become better, and that no behaviour or cycle is
necessarily fixed. The conditions are as follows:
1. Two people in psychological contact.
2. One, presumably the client, in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable, or
anxious.
3. The therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client.
4. The therapist experiences empathic understanding for the client’s internal
frame of reference and endeavours to communicate this experience to the
client.
5. This communication is to the minimal degree necessary.
We seek to unify and explain how deep personality change serves as a mirror
to deep societal change, how empathy, unconscious mimicry, and positive
unconditional regard are the fertile soil in which this change takes place, and to
provide concise anatomical explanations in the human being for mechanisms
underlying these phenomena.
Unconscious mimicry is a subconscious process that has been shown to
facilitate positive self-regard, feelings of affinity toward the “copycat”, and increased
understanding of similarities of the self to other people and objects (Van Baaren et al,
2009). Mimicry can refer to vocal intonation, movement and gesture, facial
4

expression and other subliminal ways in which a person may copy another under the
threshold of conscious awareness. Curiously, identical variables that moderate the
facilitation of unconscious mimicry also facilitate empathy (Van Baaren et al, 2009).
Drawing a link between mimicry, empathy, and the effects of being “copied,” we
followed the path illuminated by this connection to the therapeutic work by Carl
Rogers, who described how an empathic and positive ‘mimicking,’ with the least
amount of communication necessary to maintain both a positive regard and an
empathic stance, is able to dissolve barriers of Self within the client, which block
desired deep personality change (Rogers, 1995).
Literature Review
In-group/Out-group
Among humans, there exists an intrinsic motivation for social inclusion (being
in the “in-group”), attaining of which is necessary for optimal mental health. Research
has revealed the unwanted psychological, behavioural and emotional effects of social
exclusion (being in the “out-group”). In order to be in the in-group, research has
found people to (unconsciously) mimic their interaction partner. Thus, mimicry can
be viewed as an “adaptive response to social exclusion” (Lakin & Chartrand, 2005).
Additionally, it was revealed that people are significantly more likely to
unconsciously mimic an in-group confederate than an out-group confederate (Lakin,
Chartrand & Arkin, 2008). It is therefore evident that a person selectively mimics the
behaviour of those individuals capable of restoring their status within the in-group
(Lakin, Chartrand & Arkin, 2008). Theories exist suggesting that instead of human
tendencies to mimic in-group members being as a result of an innate tendency, there
is the possibility that these in-group biases are a result of racial prejudice as learned
5

through culture (Chiao & Mathur, 2010).
Human empathic capacity is vastly limited by many social factors, one of
which being group membership (in-group/out-group). Individual likelihood to mimic
others is closely dependent on ones own level of culturally-learned internal prejudice
(Yabar, Johnson, Miles & Peace 2006). Interestingly, the reverse has been found,
demonstrating the plasticity of this – namely, that mimicking out-group members can
actually counteract the learned cultural values, and thus decrease prejudice and
implicit bias (Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault, 2011). This same study expanded this
finding to conclude that simply mimicking a very limited number of individuals in an
out-group decreased prejudice to the out-group as a whole, inclusive of all members.
Thus, increasing in-group membership among individuals could have detrimental
effects on society as a whole. Identifying with the out-group, thus becoming closer to
becoming in-group interaction partners, was shown to reduce prejudices. More
concretely, it has been shown specifically that mimicking the out-group can reduce
prejudice (Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault, 2011).
A person is motivated to be part of an in-group, simply because it is important
to feel a sense of belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and it is threatening to
feel excluded, as part of the out-group (Williams, 2007).
Neuroscience studies have revealed that although humans have a natural
tendency to be empathic, it is less likely to empathize with a member of the out-group
than the in-group (De Waal, 2008; Decety & Jackson, 2004). For instance, in a study
by Gutsell and Inzlicht (2010), electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings in the
motor cortex revealed that white participants who watched white people perform an
action generated a significant amount of motor activity, however none when
observing the same behaviours by blacks or south Asians. In addition, there is the
6

finding that the neural areas involved in pain are less active when participants
observed pain felt by out-group members as compared to pain felt by in-group
members (Avenanti, Sirigu, & Aglioti, 2010; Xu, Zuo, Wang, & Han, 2009).
Affiliation goal
According to Lakin & Chartrand (2003), a person who desires to identify with
his interaction partner and pay him attention is more likely to mimic him. This is not
dependent on whether the identification process is conscious or unconscious, that is
whether the person was told to identify and pay attention to his interaction partner, or
whether he was primed with affiliation-related words such as partner or team.
Furthermore, one who mimics another is more likely to empathize with his situation
and therefore behave prosocially toward him (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).
The “chameleon effect” holds that people unconsciously mimic their
interaction partner’s mannerisms, postures and gestures (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
Research suggests that as affiliation goals increase, so does social mimicry, which
actually fosters relationships (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng & Chartrand, 2003).
Specifically, in relation to affiliation goals’ connection to social interactions, is the
concept of rapport. Rapport describes the interaction of two people who share similar
patterns of thought, and as a result are in sync and feel as though they relate to one
another (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng & Chartrand, 2003). It has been suggested that
affiliation goals serve as a function to enable mimicry when a desire exists to create
rapport (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).
The “chameleon effect” is necessary in the expression of empathy – it has
been found that those measured to be more empathetic are more likely to demonstrate
the “chameleon effect,” which refers to changing behaviours to match the interaction
7

partner (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
People who like their interaction partners tend to mimic cheek muscles more
than other muscles of the face (McIntosh, 2006). Cheek muscles are innervated by
cranial nerve VII, which project directly to the gustatory centres of the insular cortex,
providing information about similarity of taste and the evaluation of tastes. Research
on moral purity found that the insular cortex is activated not only in the experience of
pleasant physical tastes, but also abstract notions and beliefs that are valued as
pleasant (Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006). Conscious or unconscious mimicry of cheek
muscles indicates that the brain is registering a similarity of the experience of taste,
abstracted or actual, and is therefore enhancing likeability of the interaction partner
based on similarity of attitude and experience.
Similarity of attitude and experience also increases rapport in the anatomical
sense of shared information relevant to goal-pursuit as revealed by eye contact
(Honma, Tanaka, Osada & Kuriyama, 2011). Pupil dilation between interaction
partners is increased only when the participant perceives eye contact is being met, as
opposed to an actual geometrical parallel between pupils. This evidence contributes
to a body of research suggesting that perception is intrinsically linked to the deciding
and implementation of goal-states. Lateralization studies suggest that brain areas
evolved to meet demands of moving the body through space, through inputs from the
left eye, and to identify and focus in on a target, through inputs from the right eye
(Andrew, Tommasi & Ford, 2000). Eye contact between interaction partners focus a
particular direction shown to be relevant to decisions in achieving goals; and by
deducing geometrical patterns, the belief of being regarded in the eyes, and
unconscious mimicry of an interaction partner with whom similar tastes (actual or
abstracted) are shared, two individuals create overlapping models of goal-pursuit
8

(consciously or unconsciously) through syncopation of symbolic (i.e., language) or
environmental cues (Andrew et. al, 2000) (Honma et. al) (Lamb & Jablonka, 2005).
Attention
In the context of this seminar literature review, attention refers to a person’s
lack of obstructions in perceiving another person, thus affecting their level of
mimicry. This applies regardless of whether the mimicker is consciously aware of
their ability to see their interaction partner or whether they are oblivious to this fact.
They simply must be in view without obstruction.
Conscious awareness of mimicry does not need to be in conscious attention in
order to increase a person’s generosity, prosocial behavior, liking and lessening of
negative appraisals of out-group members (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) (van Baaren et.
al, 2004) (Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault, 2010). It is sufficient simply that the person is
in clear ability to perceive the phenomenon in his or her peripheral view. It is actually
better for the interaction to be subtle and outside of conscious awareness in order to
observe a main effect; extreme mimicry intrudes upon prosocial behavior, and in fact
elicits an offended and unhappy reaction, due to feelings of being mocked (van
Baaren, Janssen, Chartrand & Dijksterhuis, 2009). What is required is simply the
ability to perceive the stimulus and a minimum prime of 200-300 milliseconds in
order that it can be registered in the visual system (Cheng & Chartrand, 2004).
In social interaction, there is an unexpected interplay between attention and
mimicry. One aspect of attention, namely eye contact, was found to quickly stimulate
mimicry of hand movements in particular (Wang, Newport & Hamilton, 2010). These
variables play a significant role in the amiability of the interacting partners.
Further studies are necessary to determine the anatomical components of
9

attention and mimicry. On the one hand, while prosocial effects of mimicry are
present with or without conscious awareness, the effect is entirely dependent on
peripheral visual attention. In studies where the participant was unable to see his or
her mimicker, prosocial effects were utterly absent (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003)(van
Baaren et. al, 2004).
Self-Construal
Self-construal refers to the extent to which people construe themselves to be
the same or different from the rest of the group. Referring only to construal within
the in-group, self-construal is ideally kept at balance between sameness and
difference; with too much of either extreme being cause for modified behaviour and
speech (van Baaren et. al, 2009). As with sameness or difference, extreme feelings
either of being unworthy or superior to the group will inhibit mimicry and its
associated prosociality (van Baaren et. al 2009).
Mimicry happens when a person desires affiliation with group members and
wants to appear as part of the in-group, as discussed in previous sections of this text.
Thus, self-construal as a moderator cannot exist entirely on its own. Rather, it is
required to prevent a person’s inhibition of what would otherwise be a situation in
which they would find themselves consciously or unconsciously mimicking others in
their in-group.
Self-construal can function at the individual level to moderate a person’s
emotional reactivity to situations and circumstances (Williams et. al, 2009). It
moderates a person’s ability to regulate himself in order to meet goals, and with
particular relevance to mimicry, regulates the capacity to behave in order to increase
goals of affiliation with others rather than other available behavioural options such as
10

retreat or defence. Because self-construal tends to be an overall style, it can be
conscious (specific to the interaction partner) or unconscious (as a usual mode of
communication with others) (Van Baaren, 2009).
Self-construal is an important concept in the anatomical function of motor
control systems and mechanisms of motor control feedback because the notion of
sameness and difference in terms of brain science is the ability to construe the self as
an object that either merges or is distinctive from other objects (Ingram, Howard,
Flanagan & Wolpert, 2011). Whether the self is considered a component of an overall
function or a way of interacting with an environment, or whether it is considered a
distinct and separate element from the other components of perception, feedback to
the brain to helps make decisions about which motor actions (i.e., behaviour, tone of
speech and gesture) are necessary to achieve concordance with a person’s goals.
A person’s self-construed notion of himself being the same as the group
reduces the uncertainty of his motor actions to the extent that he can confidently
coordinate his behaviours with the others, completely outside of conscious control. In
a motor feedback study, Nagengast, Braun & Wolpert (2010) found that with
increased uncertainty comes increased prudence in adjusting motor behaviors to meet
the goals of a task and will become increasingly coordinated and smooth as
uncertainty is reduced. In addition, Orban & Wolpert (2011) found that smoothness
and coordination is a direct result of decreased certainty as determined by a Baynesian
model of statistical strategy of choice in neural circuitry. In other words, the further
one estimates himself to be construed outside of the group, the greater is his
uncertainty, the more prudent his behaviour and the more strangled and uncoordinated
his social interactions (Ingram et. al, 2011). The neural substrates involved in
interpreting and initiating mimicry in the brain make no distinctions between objects
11

and actual persons – which is why in studies to date, the same mimicry effects can be
seen from still photographs of faces (McIntosh, 2006), from robotics trained to mimic
biological movements (Ingram, Howard, Flanagan & Wolpert, 2010), and machines
designed to coordinate with living participants to simulate the presence or assistance
of a person (Orban & Wolpert, 2011).
Field Dependence
Field dependence refers to a person’s predisposition to consider the
surrounding field of objects, people and how they are related. High field dependence
means that a person highly considers how the function of each object in his
environment interacts with other surrounding objects within his perceptual field.
Conversely, low field independence means that a person considers an object and its
function as separate from its context, taking little or no consideration of how it may fit
in or not fit in with his field of perception (van Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand &
Dijkmans, 2004).
In recent literature, context dependence replaced field dependence as the term
used to describe the overall phenomena beyond the aspect of vision alone (van Baaren
et. al, 2004). Visual field dependence is traditionally measured either by locating an
object embedded in many others. Relevant to cognition, field dependence has been
shown to relate to an overall style of context dependence, where a person sees the
interrelatedness between many objects in an environment or instead focuses on the
purpose and presence of each item separately. People tend to rely on a dependent or
independent style in order to make sense of a context when making decisions in an
environment (van Baaren et. al, 2004).
Thinking in a style of high context dependence means looking to social cues in
12

order to respond, conforming more to what others are doing, and being more easily
influenced by the behaviour of a group (van Baaren et. al, 2004). Van Baaren,
Horgan, Chartrand and Dijkmans (2004) showed in three different studies that not
only does high context dependence increase conscious and unconscious mimicry, but
that it also is bi-directional: mimicking increases context dependence and context
dependence increases mimicry. In addition, the researchers found that mimicry tends
to “smoothen” the social process between interaction partners, where there is greater
ease and certainty about a particular task and how to interact in achieving a goal-state.
High field dependence and mimicry tend to have the most measurable effect
on the person who is being mimicked. Specific measured effects include prosocial
behaviours, increased generosity toward both the mimicker and non-mimickers in the
vicinity, and higher measures of context-dependent cognitive processing (van Baaren
et. al, 2004). Mimicked participants have been shown more often to pick up the
experimenter’s belongings after being dropped, donate money to a charity, report
higher levels of liking their mimicking interaction partners, and exhibit less negative
connotations with mimicking out-group members than non-mimicked participants
(Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) (van Baaren et. al, 2004) (Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault,
2010).
Van Baaren et al (2004) suggest that there is a perception-behavior link that
anatomically describes why being mimicked increases. A mimicker strengthens the
validity of the perception of the mimicked interaction partner that the mimicker’s
behavior is effective in meeting a goal state – and furthermore, studies suggest it is
not necessary for this goal state even to be conscious in the mind of the participant
(Hassin, Bargh and Zimerman, 2009).
13

Discussion
Self Regulation and Unconscious Mimicry
The moderators of unconscious mimicry anatomically fall under the control of
the vagal nerve complex, a bundle of axons regulating the brain and heart by a dual
feedback system enabling us to maintain complex emotional states of excitation,
awareness and calm (Porges, 1995;1998). In mammals, the myelinated vagus nerve
can rapidly regulate cardiac output to align with the environment through feedback
from cranial nerves that regulate sociability through the mechanisms of facial
expression and vocalization (Porges, 2005). The vagal complex receives BA3b inputs
from SSI and SSII from observed intentions of others (Decety & Jackson, 2004) and
provides a direct anatomical link between unconscious or conscious mimicry and the
unifying variable behind what makes this conscious affiliation possible, unconditional
positive regard. In enlisting a consciousness of positive regard toward the Other, we
activate regulation through our facial and vocal patterns (Porges, 1995; 1998; 2010)
that foster communication, mimicry (Decety & Jackson, 2004) and affiliation (Van
Baaren, 2009).
A healthy use of the tertiary vagal complex in mammals promotes a
parasympathetic response to social interaction and communication (Porges, 2010).
The high demand for oxygen from a highly adapted and sophisticated autonomous
nervous system provided the evolutionary pressure necessary for a communicative
feedback system between face, voice, brain and heart (Porges, 1995). In present day,
scientific knowledge of this system provides the potential for positive, healing
psychological experiences (Rogers, 1995) between the individual and his social
environment catalysed by the increasingly available studies of phenomena such as
unconscious mimicry (Van Baaren, 2009). Polyvagal therapy offers the exciting
14

promise of direct stimulation and conscious control of the vagal complex in order to
bring the awareness intentionally into a place of parasympathetic activation,
eliminating the need to conserve cognitive resources (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) in
asinine strategies such as stereotypes or cumbersome, permanent identifications of the
self within particular categorizations that expressly inhibit open social
communications.
Conclusion
If one adopts an attitude of unconditional positive regard toward himself and
those around him, not only will he tend to unconsciously mimic, but he will also
receive the benefits of unconscious mimicry that include increased empathy and
generosity toward others, enhanced feelings of positive self-regard and decreased
perception of differences between himself and his surrounding environment. Studies
to date have provided evidence that five major categories of moderators are
responsible for determining when unconscious mimicry will occur, and are curiously
the same moderators as other studied phenomenon such as empathy.
Unconditional positive regard works to achieve the conditions of the five
moderators by the following: First, ingroup/outgroup distinctions are eliminated,
because there is no longer a group for a person enlisting this tool – there is only
congruence with the self in terms of positiveness and ability to maintain this positivity
unconditionally; Second, self-construal, in order to be unconditionally positive,
requires access to positive working models of the universe and the self’s relation to it
that are neither too arrogant nor too self-detrimental; Third, if we combine the two
elements of an unconditionally positive self-construal, and the elimination of
distinctions of in-groups and out-groups, then we have created a set of conditions in
15

which a person’s relationship to his environment is necessarily high in field
dependence. In other words, if my self-view is neither selfless nor full of ego, and my
group is the human beings around me who I regard as unconditionally good, then I
have no choice but to see myself interdependently with my surroundings, thus
resulting in high field dependence; Fourth, in terms of attention, only aspects relevant
to positive and unconditional dimensions are validated in the rostral hippocampus and
are otherwise eliminated in error detection in the dorsal anterior cingulate processing
phase, where a person is rightfully keeping their regard unconditionally positive;
Fifth, affiliation goal serves to be the ultimate inhibition or disinhibition of this
behavioural set once brought to consciousness – do you want to befriend this person,
or don’t you? Therefore, affiliation goal becomes the mediator of the other four
moderators of whether or not mimicry and its associated social benefits occur.
One account for the existence of social disorder in today’s society is due to a lack of
common goals and heightened prejudice towards others (Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault,
2011). Within interactions between members of society, there exist differing levels of
these moderators. We suggest that it is important to understand the impact of these
moderators on the presence of mimicry in order to attempt to use them as tools in the
conscious, intentional quest towards the increase of commonality of goals,
preventing chaos and violence, and promoting greater empathy between individuals
(Inzlicht, Gutsell & Legault, 2011). We believe that perhaps in the future it will be
possible to extend societal conscious awareness of these phenomena toward the
facilitation of healthy self-regulation in social communications.
Word Count: 3,839 (title page and Imagine song lyrics excluded)
16

References
Andrew, R., Tommasi, L. and Ford, N. (2000). Motor control by vision and the
evolution of cerebral lateralization. Brain and Language, 73, 220-235.
Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010). Racial bias reduces empathic
sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology, 20, 1018-22.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529.
Chartrand, T. L., Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-
behaviour link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Pschology, 76(6), 893-910.
Cheng, C. & Chartrand, T. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using
mimicry as a non-conscious affiliation strategy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(6), 1170-1179.
Chiao, J. Y., Mathur, V. A. (2010). Intergroup empathy: How does race affect
empathic neural responses? Current Biology, 20, 478-480.
De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of
empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300.
Decety, J., Jackson, P. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, 71-100.
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced
mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 41–845.
Hassin, R., Bargh, J. & Zimerman, S. (2009). Automatic and flexible: The case of
non-conscious goal pursuit. Social Cognition, 27(1), 20-36.
17

Honma, M., Tanaka, Y., Osada, Y. & Kuriyama, K. (2011). Perceptual and not
physical eye contact elicits pupillary dilation. Biological Psychology,
available online doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.09.015.
Ingram, J., Howard, I., Flanagan, J. & Wolpert, D. (2011). A single-rate context
dependent learning process underlies rapid adaptation to familiar object
dynamics. PLOS Computational Biology, 7(9), 2-16.
Inzlicht, M., Gutsell, J. N., Legault, L. (2010). Mimicry reduces ration prejudice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using non-conscious behavioural mimicry to
create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334-9.
Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., Chartrand, T. (2003). The chameleon effect
as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of non-conscious
mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 27, 461-8.
Lakin, J.L., & Chartrand, T.L. (2005). Exclusion and nonconscious behavioral
mimicry. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 279–295).
New York: Psychology Press.
Lakin, J., Chartrand, T., & Arkin, R. (2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious
mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion.
Psychological Science, 19, 816-822.
Lamb, M. & Jablonka, E. (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions. MIT Press: Boston,
Massachusetts.
McIntosh, D. (2006). Spontaneous Facial Mimicry, liking and emotional contagion.
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 37(1), 31-42.
Nagengast, A., Braun, D. & Wolpert, D. (2010) Risk-sensitive optimal feedback
18

control accounts for sensorimotor behavior under uncertainty. PLOS
Computational Biology, 6(7), 2-15.
Orban, G. & Wolpert, D. (2011). Representations of uncertainty in sensorimotor
control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21, 1-7.
Porges, Stephen. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications
of our evolutionary heritage. Psychophysiology, 32, 301-318.
Porges, Stephen. (1998). Love: An emergent property of the mammalian autonomic
nervous system. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 8, 837-861.
Porges, Stephen. (2003). The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social
behaviour. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 503-513.
Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Rogers, C. 1992. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic
personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6),
827-832.
Van Baaren, R., Janssen, T., Chartrand, T. & Dijksterhuis, A. 2009. Where is the
love? The social aspects of mimicry. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 364, 2381-2389.
Van Baaren, R., Horgan, T., Chartrand, T. & Dijkmans, M. (2004). The forest, the
trees and the chameleon: Context dependence and mimicry. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 453-459.
Wang, Y., Ramsey, R. & Hamilton, A.F. (2011). The control of mimicry by eye
contact is mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 31(33), 2-4.
Wang, Y., Newport, R., Hamilton, A. F. d. C. (2010). Eye contact enhances mimicry
of intransitive hand movements. Biology Letters, 7(1), 7-10.
19

Williams, L., Bargh, J., Nocera, C. & Gray, J. (2009). The Unconscious Regulation
of Emotion: Non-conscious goals modulate emotional reactivity.
Xu, X., Zuo, Z., Wang, W., & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain? Racial group
membership modulates empathic neural responses. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 29, 8525–29.
Yabar, Y., Johnson, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry:
Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 30, 97–113.
Zhong, C. and Liljenquist, K. Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and
physical cleansing (2006). Science, 313, 1451-1452.
20

Unconscious Mimicry Facilitates Prosocial Behavior

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (7)

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a Unconscious Mimicry Facilitates Prosocial Behavior

Similar a Unconscious Mimicry Facilitates Prosocial Behavior (13)

Último

Último (20)

Unconscious Mimicry Facilitates Prosocial Behavior