The Effect of Money Priming on Self-Focus in the Imitation-Inhibition 					Task

Genschow, Oliver; Schuler, Johannes; Cracco, Emiel; Braß, Marcel; Wänke, Michaela

doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000466

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This gave us 80% power to detect an effect size of dz = 0.57 with an alpha error probability of α = .05 (two-tailed). This effect size roughly corresponds to a recent meta-analysis on the influence of social moderators on automatic imitation (Genschow, Schuler, et al, 2019), which yielded an effect size of dz = 0.58. Participants' age ranged from 18 to 25 (M = 18.88; SD = 1.56).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

Similarity and automatic imitation

Genschow¹,

Cracco

Verbeke³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals automatically imitate a wide range of different behaviors. Previous research suggests that imitation as a social process depends on the similarity between interaction partners. However, some of the experiments supporting this notion could not be replicated and all of the supporting experiments manipulated not only similarity between actor and observer, but also other features. Thus, the existing evidence leaves open whether similarity as such moderates automatic imitation. To directly test the similarity account, in four experiments, we manipulated participants’ focus on similarities or differences while holding the stimulus material constant. In Experiment 1, we presented participants with a hand and let them either focus on similarities, differences, or neutral aspects between their own hand and the other person’s hand. The results indicate that focusing on similarities increased perceived similarity between the own and the other person’s hand. In Experiments 2 to 4, we tested the hypothesis that focusing on similarities, as compared with differences, increases automatic imitation. Experiment 2 tested the basic effect and found support for our prediction. Experiment 3 and 4 replicated this finding with higher-powered samples. Exploratory investigations further suggest that it is a focus on differences that decreases automatic imitation, and not a focus on similarities that increases automatic imitation. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

Similarity and automatic imitation

Genschow¹,

Cracco

Verbeke³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a counter-point, however, it should be noted that a small but increasing number of studies have used more robust methods (e.g., larger sample sizes, multiple experiments, pre-registration) and show evidence for social modulation (e.g., Genschow et al, 2020). Such studies are an encouraging sign for the field, although they stop short of providing evidence that the effects rely on a social or specialised mechanism.…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Reform Is Requiredmentioning

confidence: 99%

RamseyWard_top_down_challenges

Ramsey¹,

Ward²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studying social modulation of cognitive processes holds much promise for illuminating how, where, when and why social factors influence how we perceive and act in the world, as well as providing insight into the underlying cognitive mechanisms. This is no small objective; it reflects an ambitious programme of research. At present, based on the modal theoretical and methodological approach, we suggest that several challenges exist to achieving such lofty aims. These challenges span an overreliance on a simplistic dichotomy between “top-down” and “bottom-up” modulation, a lack of specificity about mechanisms that renders clear interpretations difficult, and theories that largely test against null hypotheses. We suggest that these challenges present several opportunities for new research and we encourage the field to abandon simplistic dichotomies and connect much more with existing research programmes such as semantics, memory and attention, which have all built diverse research platforms over many decades and that can help shape how social modulation is conceptualised and studied from a cognitive and brain perspective. We also outline ways that stronger theoretical positions can be taken, which avoid comparing to null hypotheses, and endorse methodological reform through fully embracing proposals from the open science movement and “credibility revolution”. We feel that by taking these opportunities, the field will have a better chance of reaching its potential to build a cumulative science of social modulation that can inform understanding of basic cognitive and brain systems, as well as real-life social interactions and the varied abilities observed across the Autism Spectrum.

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that a focus on the self (relative to others) reduces automatic imitation Genschow, Schuler, et al, 2019;Hogeveen & Obhi, 2011;Leighton et al, 2010;Spengler et al, 2010;van Baaren et al, 2003;Wang & Hamilton, 2013). Based on this finding, Spengler et al (2010) speculated that belief in free will "might help counteract predominant imitation-driven behavior" (p. 105).…”

Section: Potential Reasons For the Null Findingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Imitation and interindividual differences: Belief in free will is not related to automatic imitation

Westfal¹,

Crusius²,

Genschow³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that individuals have the tendency to automatically imitate each other and that such imitative behavior is fostered by perceiving intentions in others’ actions. That is, past research has shown that perceiving an action as internally driven enhances the shared representation of observed and executed actions increasing automatic imitation. An interpersonal factor that increases the perception that a behavior is internally driven is belief in free will. Consequently, we hypothesized that the more individuals believe in free will, the more they automatically imitate others. To test this prediction, we conducted two high-powered (total N = 642) and preregistered studies in which we assessed automatic imitation with the imitation-inhibition task. Contrary to our predictions, belief in free will did not correlate with automatic imitation. This finding contributes to current findings challenging the assumption that automatic imitation is modulated by interindividual differences. Further theoretical implications are discussed.

show abstract

The Effect of Money Priming on Self-Focus in the Imitation-Inhibition Task

Cited by 26 publications

References 82 publications

Similarity and automatic imitation

Similarity and automatic imitation

RamseyWard_top_down_challenges

Imitation and interindividual differences: Belief in free will is not related to automatic imitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About