The Functionality of Spontaneous Mimicry and Its Influences on Affiliation: An Implicit Socialization Account

Abstract

There is a broad theoretical and empirical interest in spontaneous mimicry, or the automatic reproduction of a model’s behavior. Evidence shows that people mimic models they like, and that mimicry enhances liking for the mimic. Yet, there is no satisfactory account of this phenomenon, especially in terms of its functional significance. While affiliation is often cited as the driver of mimicry, we argue that mimicry is primarily driven by a learning process that helps to produce the appropriate bodily and emotional responses to relevant social situations. Because the learning process and the resulting knowledge is implicit, it cannot easily be rejected, criticized, revised, and employed by the learner in a deliberative or deceptive manner. We argue that these characteristics will lead individuals to preferentially mimic ingroup members, whose implicit information is worth incorporating. Conversely, mimicry of the wrong person is costly because individuals will internalize “bad habits,” including emotional reactions and mannerisms indicating wrong group membership. This pattern of mimicry, in turn, means that observed mimicry is an honest signal of group affiliation. We propose that the preferences of models for the mimic stems from this true signal value. Further, just like facial expressions, mimicry communicates a genuine disposition when it is truly spontaneous. Consequently, perceivers are attuned to relevant cues such as appropriate timing, fidelity, and selectivity. Our account, while assuming no previously unknown biological endowments, also explains greater mimicry of powerful people, and why affiliation can be signaled by mimicry of seemingly inconsequential behaviors.

The Mimicry Among Us: Intra- and Inter-Personal Mechanisms of Spontaneous Mimicry

“…However, it is also clear that individuals' imitative behaviors are influenced by the social context in which the interaction occurs. Spontaneous mimicry is sensitive to interpersonal cues such as prosociality (Leighton et al 2010), group membership (Bourgeois and Hess 2008), attitudes (Likowski et al 2008), competition (Weyers et al 2009), empathy level (Sonnby-Borgstrom 2016), and desire for affiliation (for theoretical elaboration, see Kavanagh and Winkielman 2016). As a result, recent theories of facial mimicry suggest that it is substantially dependent on higher-level processes such as goals, appraisals, and meaning-making (Fischer and Hess 2017;Hess and Fischer 2013).…”

Emotional Empathy and Facial Mimicry for Static and Dynamic Facial Expressions of Fear and Disgust

“…There is ongoing debate over whether facial mimicry and emotional empathy are associated phenomena (Hatfield et al, 1992; McIntosh, 2006). Some investigators have proposed that facial muscle activity provides proprioceptive information, and that facial expressions can influence internal emotional experiences (Hess and Fischer, 2014).…”

Observed but Never Experienced – Vicarious Learning of Fear Under Ecological Conditions

“…Additionally, in order to create a more naturalistic situation, we recruited pairs of friends, considering the evolutionary value of learning from highly familiar others. It has also been suggested that ingroup members' feelings are highly informative and often used for learning about emotional valence of things (Kavanagh & Winkielman, 2016). Moreover, it has been shown that interpersonal liking increases emotional mimicry (McIntosh, 2006), which is yet another factor involved in emotional contagion (Olszanowski et al, 2019), and that learning from an ingroup demonstrator is more efficient compared to an outgroup one .…”

“…Additionally, in order to create a more naturalistic situation, we recruited pairs of friends, considering the evolutionary value of learning from highly familiar others. It has also been suggested that ingroup members' feelings are highly informative and often used for learning about emotional valence of things (Kavanagh & Winkielman, 2016).…”