Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and a Free & Equal World
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and a Free & Equal World

1,279
views

Published on

Tammy Dalley and Michal Willinger present the phenomenon of unconscious mimicry (copying another person without realizing it) and how it may hold the key to creating an equal and peaceful world.

Tammy Dalley and Michal Willinger present the phenomenon of unconscious mimicry (copying another person without realizing it) and how it may hold the key to creating an equal and peaceful world.


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,279
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication IMAGINE: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication Tammy Dalley and Michal Willinger Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya 1
  • 2. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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 Imagine all the people 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 Imagine all the people 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
  • 3. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 4. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 5. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 6. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 7. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 8. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 9. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication (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
  • 10. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 11. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 12. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 13. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 14. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 15. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 16. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 17. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 18. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 19. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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
  • 20. Imagine: Unconscious Mimicry and Social Communication 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