Examining the impact of control condition design in mimicry–liking link research : how motor behavior may impact liking

StatusVoR
Simple item page
cris.lastimport.scopus2025-08-02T03:15:04Z
dc.abstract.enMimicry is an automatic imitation of an interacting partner’s behaviors. The most frequently researched consequence of being mimicked is liking. Yet there is little research on whether specific design of control conditions (i.e., variable behavior of the confederate across conditions) may affect study results. In this study, we compared the classical mimicry group with four control conditions: (i–ii) a confederate sits still or makes random movements (common in mimicry research), (iii) confederates receive no instructions regarding their nonverbal behavior (rarely observed in mimicry studies), and a condition that we created, in which (iv) a confederate makes atypical motor movements. Participants (N = 538) were interviewed by confederates, while the confederates’ behavior varied across conditions during the interviews. They mimicked the participants’ nonverbal behaviors (mimicry condition), sat still (no-movement condition), made random nonverbal movements unrelated to the participants (responsiveness condition), made repetitive body and object movements (repetitive behavior condition), or participated in the interview without any further instructions (double-blind condition). The confederate’s behavior influenced liking: χ2 (4) = 40.7, p < 0.001, ε2 = 0.07. Participants liked the confederates more when the latter mimicked them than when they sat still (p < 0.001) or made repetitive movements (p = 0.008), but not when the confederates made random movements, and when they only engaged in the conversation (p > 0.5). There were also differences between the no-movements condition (i) and the responsiveness condition (p = 0.003), (ii) and the double-blind condition (p < 0.001). Because the two classical control con-ditions are treated interchangeably in mimicry studies, more attention should be paid to the methodological aspects of mimicry research. Additionally, a mini-metaanalysis was conducted.
dc.affiliationDepartment of Social and Cross-Cultural Psychology
dc.affiliationWydział Psychologii i Prawa w Poznaniu
dc.contributor.authorTrzmielewska, Weronika
dc.contributor.authorDuras, Jakub
dc.contributor.authorJuchacz, Aleksandra
dc.contributor.authorRak, Tomasz
dc.date.access2025-06-20
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-20T07:35:33Z
dc.date.available2025-06-20T07:35:33Z
dc.date.created2025-04-09
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstract<jats:p>Mimicry is an automatic imitation of an interacting partner’s behaviors. The most frequently researched consequence of being mimicked is liking. Yet there is little research on whether specific design of control conditions (i.e., variable behavior of the confederate across conditions) may affect study results. In this study, we compared the classical mimicry group with four control conditions: (i–ii) a confederate sits still or makes random movements (common in mimicry research), (iii) confederates receive no instructions regarding their nonverbal behavior (rarely observed in mimicry studies), and a condition that we created, in which (iv) a confederate makes atypical motor movements. Participants (N = 538) were interviewed by confederates, while the confederates’ behavior varied across conditions during the interviews. They mimicked the participants’ nonverbal behaviors (mimicry condition), sat still (no-movement condition), made random nonverbal movements unrelated to the participants (responsiveness condition), made repetitive body and object movements (repetitive behavior condition), or participated in the interview without any further instructions (double-blind condition). The confederate’s behavior influenced liking: χ2(4) = 40.7, p &lt; 0.001, ε2 = 0.07. Participants liked the confederates more when the latter mimicked them than when they sat still (p &lt; 0.001) or made repetitive movements (p = 0.008), but not when the confederates made random movements, and when they only engaged in the conversation (p &gt; 0.5). There were also differences between the no-movements condition (i) and the responsiveness condition (p = 0.003), (ii) and the double-blind condition (p &lt; 0.001). Because the two classical control conditions are treated interchangeably in mimicry studies, more attention should be paid to the methodological aspects of mimicry research. Additionally, a mini-metaanalysis was conducted.</jats:p>
dc.description.accesstimeafter_publication
dc.description.additionalnone
dc.description.issue4
dc.description.physical351–378
dc.description.versionfinal_published
dc.description.volume27
dc.identifier.doi10.18290/rpsych2024.0019
dc.identifier.issn2451-4306
dc.identifier.issn1507-7888
dc.identifier.urihttps://share.swps.edu.pl/handle/swps/1528
dc.languageen
dc.pbn.affiliationpsychologia
dc.rightsCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.rights.questionYes_rights
dc.share.articleOPEN_JOURNAL
dc.subject.enmimicry
dc.subject.eninterpersonal liking
dc.subject.enexperimental conditions
dc.subject.enmethodology
dc.subject.ensystematic review
dc.subject.enmetaanalysis
dc.swps.sciencecloudsend
dc.titleExamining the impact of control condition design in mimicry–liking link research : how motor behavior may impact liking
dc.title.journalRoczniki Psychologiczne
dc.typeJournalArticle
dspace.entity.typeArticle