Running head: INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
Stageverslag:
Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry
in 4-to-6-Year Old Children
Nina van den Broek (s4120361)
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Honours Programma
Docent: Marijke Kok
1
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
2
Voorwoord
Het afgelopen half jaar heb ik samen met mijn stagebegeleidster Johanna van Schaik,
PhD student verbonden aan het Donders Center for Cognition en het Baby Research Center,
een onderzoek opgezet en uitgevoerd. Ik heb gekozen voor een stage bij een
onderzoeksinstelling, omdat mijn interesse al de gehele opleiding uitging naar onderzoek,
maar ik niet wist of ik dit in de praktijk net zo leuk zou vinden als dat het in theorie leek.
Johanna deed en doet onderzoek naar mimicry bij kinderen en dit trok direct mijn aandacht,
aangezien ik erg geïnteresseerd ben in de sociaal-cognitieve ontwikkeling van kinderen. Het
afgelopen half jaar heb ik samen met haar een onderzoek opgezet en uitgevoerd om te
ontdekken of jonge kinderen mimicry laten zien, en of dit beïnvloed wordt door sociale
dynamieken. Nadat we dit onderzoek hadden uitgevoerd, heb ik er een onderzoeksverslag
over geschreven. Ik heb ervoor gekozen om dit verslag in het Engels te schrijven, aangezien
dat me veel oplevert met het oog op het schrijven van de bachelor scriptie in het buitenland en
de Engelstalige Research Master die ik graag na volgend jaar zou willen volgen. Het
onderzoeksverslag wil ik nu graag aan u presenteren, aangevuld met een logboek, de vooraf
gestelde doelen, een nawoord en het beoordelingsformulier van Johanna van Schaik. Ik hoop
dat u net zoveel plezier beleeft tijdens het lezen als dat ik heb beleefd tijdens het gehele
onderzoeksproces!
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
Abstract
Unlike the adult mimicry literature, few studies have investigated mimicry during
development. The current study was twofold: the first part investigated whether
young children demonstrate mimicry and the second part investigated whether
young children’s mimicry is sensitive to social dynamics. Forty 4-to-6 year old
children observed four types of behaviors (i.e. yawning, head-wiggling, mouthrubbing, and cheek-scratching) performed by models in videos. Based on the
minimal group paradigm ‘color’, the observed model was either an ingroup model
(same color) or outgroup model (different color). Results indicate that children
carried out the behaviors more often while watching the behavior videos than
during the baseline (Z(39) = -2.29, p = .01). Moreover, results indicate that
ingroup models are mimicked more than outgroup models (Z(39) = -1.81, p =
0.037). Future research should investigate live-interaction social manipulation
paradigms affecting children’s mimicry. More research is necessary, but the
current study is an important step in investigating the development of mimicry’s
sensitivity to social dynamics.
3
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
4
Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry
in 4-to-6-Year Old Children
Human mimicry has been the focus of research in different disciplines such as
communication, neuroscience, and social, clinical, and developmental psychology. Its impact
is vast, as mimicry has been suggested to be a critical part of human social interactions
(Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009). However, research in children’s mimicry is often neglected,
resulting in a lack of knowledge about the formation mechanisms of mimicry. Therefore,
research should focus on the development of mimicry.
Mimicry can be defined as unintentionally adopting an interaction partner’s behavior
(van Baaren, Janssen, Chartrand, & Dijksterhuis, 2009). Research suggests that mimicry
occurs unconsciously; mimicry occurs without the mimicker’s or mimickee’s awareness
(Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Moody & McIntosh, 2011). Additionally, mimicry can be
manifested in different forms, such as verbal, facial, emotional, and behavioral (van Baaren et
al., 2009). The focus in the present report will be on mimicry of behaviors. For example, an
individual might unconsciously scratch his or her cheek after observing their interaction
partner performing this behavior.
Literature overview
Adult behavior mimicry has been investigated many times. For example, Chartrand
and Bargh (1999) showed that participants who interacted with either foot-shaking or facerubbing confederates were more likely to carry out the modeled behaviors than the nonmodeled behaviors. None of the participants were aware of the behaviors carried out by the
confederates nor their own replication of these behaviors, demonstrating the unconscious
occurrence of mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Furthermore, Bavelas, Black, Chovil,
Lemery, and Mullett (1988) investigated adult behavior mimicry. In their experiment,
participants were told a story about attending a crowded Christmas party, and described
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
5
ducking to avoid being run into by another person. As the experimenter was telling the story,
she ducked to her right, demonstrating the exact movement she used. A videotape revealed
that the listeners tended to duck to their left, mimicking the movement of the storyteller. Both
findings showed adult behavior mimicry. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) labeled this
phenomenon the chameleon effect, as individuals match their behavior to their interaction
partner to blend in with their social environment.
Moreover, this behavior mimicry in adults has a social function. In another study of
Chartrand and Bargh (1999), confederates mimicked the participants’ behaviors or carried out
neutral mannerisms. Afterwards, the participants were asked to rate their liking of the
confederate and the smoothness of the interaction. The results indicate that participants who
were mimicked liked their interaction partner better than participants who were not mimicked
(Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Once again, none of the participants noticed that the confederate
had been replicating their behaviors. Moreover, results of a study of McIntosh (2006) indicate
that both preexisting and manipulated liking led to more mimicry. Both findings show that
mimicry ‘binds and bonds’ people together, serving as a social glue (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, &
Chartrand, 2003). Finally, the social function of mimicry is demonstrated in a study where
videotaped female participants viewed videotapes of female confederates who rubbed their
faces while describing a picture (Yabar, Johnston, Miles, & Peace, 2006). Participants showed
more mimicry of a member of the ingroup (same religion) than of a member of the outgroup
(different religion). These results indicate that mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup
effects.
Unlike the adult mimicry literature, few studies have investigated mimicry during
development. Yet, mimicry is found in young children. In a study using a video-based
paradigm, 3-year-old children observed behaviors (e.g. yawning and laughing) performed by a
model (van Schaik, van Baaren, Bekkering, & Hunnius, in press). Results indicate that
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
6
children carried out the behaviors more often while watching the behavior videos than during
the baseline. It is likely that young children adopt an interaction partner’s behavior, just like
adults, but more research is necessary due to a dearth of research.
Finally, social functions of mimicry are not found in young children. Van Schaik and
colleagues (in press) did not find differences in mimicry with a helper-hinder paradigm. The
helper and hinderer manipulations were intended to elicit feelings of liking and disliking,
respectively, but no significant differences between the conditions were found (van Schaik et
al., in press). However, the lack of a social manipulation effect might have been caused by the
type of paradigm. The paradigm could have been ineffective, as the children might not have
generalized the models’ helping or hindering behaviors to the extent that they perceive the
models as nice or mean. Another paradigm might have caused a social manipulation effect on
mimicry.
One such paradigm is the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970) eliciting an ingroupoutgroup effect. In this paradigm, children are assigned to ‘minimal’ groups, such as color,
which leads to intergroup bias. Dunham, Baron, and Carey (2011) randomly assigned 5-yearold children to colors and made them engage in tasks involving judgments of unfamiliar
ingroup (same color) and outgroup (different color) children. Results indicated ingroup
preferences on explicit and implicit measures, such as resource allocation and attitude. Adult
studies have already found that mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects (e.g. Yabar et
al., 2006) and this paradigm is therefore likely to cause more ingroup mimicry than outgroup
mimicry in children.
Research aims and hypotheses
In the present study, young children’s mimicry and young children’s sensitivity to
ingroup-outgroup effects are investigated. In order to do so, we devised a video-based
experiment including a baseline, behavior stimuli and a preference measure session. Because
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
7
videos are used successfully in adult mimicry studies (e.g. Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Moody
& McIntosh, 2011), we presented the behavior stimuli through videos to ensure that all
children saw the same behaviors. The current experiment addressed two research questions.
The first research question was: do young children show mimicry? Due to a dearth of
research, it is necessary to examine whether a range of young children unconsciously replicate
observed behaviors, just like adults (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). We selected 4-to-6-yearold children, as previous research already indicated that 3-year-old children show mimicry
(van Schaik et al., in press). By doing so, we are able to track the development of mimicry in
young children after the age of 3. We included a baseline measure to compare natural
behavior rates with rates elicited by observed behaviors (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). It is
likely that young children adopt an interaction partner’s behavior, just like adults. Therefore,
we expected that children would demonstrate higher behavior rates after having observed the
behaviors than during the baseline.
The second research question was: is children’s mimicry sensitive to ingroup-outgroup
effects? Investigation of social dynamics in children gains insight in the origin of social
dynamics in adults and the necessary social skills needed to perform mimicry. To investigate
social dynamics in children’s mimicry, ingroup-outgroup effects are created based on a priori
preference of color. This paradigm is likely to make children like ingroup (same color)
members more than outgroup (different color) members. This effect makes it suitable as a
social manipulation paradigm (Dunham et al., 2011), as adult studies have already found that
mimicry is sensitive to liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) and ingroup-outgroup effects (Yabar
et al., 2006). Therefore, we expected that children mimic ingroup members more than
outgroup members. Moreover, we expected that children have an explicit preference for
ingroup members over outgroup members during an explicit preference measure, due to an
ingroup-outgroup effect.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
8
Methods
Participants
Forty-three children participated in this study (25 boys, aged 49 to 80 months (M =
64.8, SD = 8.1)). They were recruited from a kindergarten in the south of the Netherlands.
Signed consent forms were obtained for participation from the parents. Three children were
excluded, due to not wanting to watch the videos (n = 1) and not meeting the inclusion
criterion of having attended to at least 50% of the behavior videos (n = 2). The final sample
consisted of 40 children (23 boys, aged 49.0 to 80.0 months (M = 65.1, SD = 8.0)).
Stimuli
Four behavior stimulus videos (average duration 7 seconds), performed by two models
wearing blue and yellow clothes, from the experiment of van Schaik and colleagues (in press)
were used. The first two, non-manual, behaviors were yawning (Figure 1a.) and moving the
head from side to side (head-wiggling, Figure 1b.). The second two, manual, behaviors were
rubbing the fingertips back and forth across sealed lips (mouth-rubbing; Figure 1c.) and using
the fingertips to scratch the cheek (cheek-scratching; Figure 1d.). The behavior movies were
presented in a pseudo-randomized order; the same behavior was never shown two times in a
row and the same model was never shown three times in a row.
Figure 1. Still frames of the four behavior clips, depicted with both models. The four behavior
types: yawning (a.), head-wiggling (b.), mouth-rubbing (c.), and cheek-scratching (d.)
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
9
Procedure
The children were seated in front of a computer screen with a webcam (Microsoft
Lifecam, version 3.22.270.0) on top of it. The children were asked to choose their favorite
color out of the colors blue and yellow, and pieces of paper in these colors were present to
visualize the colors and to ease the decision. After the selection of the color, the piece of
paper in the chosen color stayed on the table and the other piece of paper was put away.
Subsequently, they got to wear a vest in the color they chose and were able to watch
themselves in a mirror, to heighten their feelings of belonging to their ingroup. The only
instructions given then were to listen to the recording of the voice that was coming from the
computer. Upon conclusion, the kindergarten was given a storybook and a play game for
participating in the experiment.
Design
The experiment consisted of four parts: the selection of the participants’ favorite color,
the baseline, the behavior videos, and the preference measure. The experiment was performed
using Presentation® software (Version 0.70, www.neurobs.com).
First, the participants were seated in front of the computer and webcam. Subsequently,
they chose their favorite color out of the colors blue and yellow and got to wear a vest in this
color (Figure 2.1 and 2.2). The only instructions given then were to listen to the recording of
the voice that was coming from the computer.
Second, before the baseline, a recording of a voice in Dutch said: “You belong to the
blue/yellow [dependent on their ingroup color] team, great! Now, you can collect a lot of
points for your team!”. The children were instructed by a recording of the same voice in
Dutch that different kinds of fruits would be presented on the screen, and that they had to say
‘strawberry’ if they saw a strawberry. The game functioned as the baseline (Figure 2.3, 120
seconds) and the participants’ natural rate of the four behaviors were later measured.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
10
Third, pictures of the two models were presented in a randomized order by the same
voice. The model wearing a shirt in the same color was referred to as a member of the same
team (the ingroup) and the model wearing a shirt in a different color was referred to as being a
member of a different team (the outgroup). Subsequently, the behavior videos (Figure 2.4)
were presented. Each participant was randomly assigned to two ingroup behaviors: one
manual and one non-manual behavior. The remaining two behaviors were outgroup behaviors.
Ingroup behaviors were performed by the same-colored model and outgroup behaviors were
performed by the different-colored model. Each of the four behaviors was presented six times,
resulting in 24 behavior videos in total.
Finally, a preference measure (Figure 2.5) was used to measure participants’ explicit
attitude towards the ingroup and outgroup model. Participants were told by the voice they
would see the two pictures of the two models again. They were asked the following questions
in a randomized order by the voice: ‘Who do you like more?’, ‘Who would you like to play
with?’, and ‘Who would you like as a teacher?’. The voice instructed the participants to point
at one of the two models. Together, the selection of the color, the baseline, the behavior
videos and the preference measure lasted approximately nine minutes.
Figure 2. The order of events during the experiment.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
11
Coding
The children’s behavior was coded using ELAN Linguistic Annotator (4.3.3,
http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands; Lausberg & Sloetjes, 2009). The coding scheme, with a few adjustments, of
van Schaik et al. (in press) (Appendix A) was used to code the children’s behavior. The coder
was blind to condition and the order of stimulus presentation.
Behavioral Measures
The baseline and behavior videos period were separated; the baseline consisted of the
duration of fruitgame and the behavior videos period was defined as starting when the first
behavior video started and ending after the last behavior video. Behaviors that occurred
during the behavior videos period, but before the first attended behavior video of that type
were excluded. Per participant, it was counted how often each behavior was carried out and
rates were calculated separately for the baseline, the videos period, the ingroup behaviors, and
the outgroup behaviors. The rates were calculated using the specific behavior count divided
by the specific duration in minutes that the screen was attended.
Planned Analyses
First, two control comparisons were run. It was checked whether attention towards the
ingroup videos and outgroup videos differed. If this would be the cause, the ingroup-outgroup
effect could result from more input of the ingroup videos than the outgroup videos. However,
participants attended the ingroup and outgroup videos equally during the videos period.
Additionally, it was checked whether the behavior rates were normally distributed. However,
behavior rates were not normally distributed. Therefore, non-parametric tests were used to
address the research questions. First, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test compared the baseline
rates with the videos rates, addressing the first research question ‘do young children show
mimicry?’. Second, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test compared the ingroup rates with the
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
12
outgroup rates, addressing the second research question ‘is children’s mimicry sensitive to
ingroup-outgroup effects?’. Finally, Chi Square Tests were used to reveal whether children
explicitly chose their ingroup model over their outgroup model during the preference
measures. As all hypotheses were directional, all tests report a p-value based on a one-tailed
alpha level of .05.
Results
Mimicry effect
First, the hypothesized difference between the baseline rate and videos period rate was
tested to investigate whether young children show mimicry. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test
revealed a significant difference between the baseline rate and the videos period rate. Children
carried out the behaviors significantly more often during the behavior videos period (M = 0.39
behaviors per minute, SE = 0.11) than during the baseline (M = 0.17 behaviors per minute, SE
= 0.06; Z(39) = -2.29, p = .01; Figure 3).
0,6
*
Behaviors / Minute
0,5
0,4
Baseline
0,3
Videos period
0,2
0,1
0
Baseline
Videos period
Figure 3. Mean total behavior rates, differentiated for the baseline and videos period. Error
bars indicate one standard error above and below the mean; *p < 0.05.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
13
Ingroup-outgroup effect
Second, the hypothesized difference between the ingroup rates and the outgroup rates
was tested to investigate whether young children’s mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup
effects. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test revealed a significant difference between the
ingroup rate and the outgroup rate during the videos period. Children carried out the ingroup
behaviors significantly more often during the videos period (M = 0.31 behaviors per minute,
SE=0.10) than outgroup behaviors (M = 0.14 behaviors per minute, SE = 0.05; Z(39) = -1.81,
p = 0.037; Figure 4).
0,5
*
Behaviors / Minute
0,45
0,4
0,35
0,3
Outgroup
0,25
Ingroup
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
Outgroup
Ingroup
Figure 4. Mean ingroup and outgroup behavior rates during the videos period. Error bars
indicate one standard error above and below the mean; *p < .05.
Preference measure
Third, it was tested whether children explicitly chose their ingroup model over their
outgroup model during the preference measures. A Chi Square Test revealed that children did
not choose their ingroup model over their outgroup model for the third question (‘Who would
you like as a teacher?’;
(1) = 0.002, p = .61). However, Chi Square Tests revealed a
marginally significant association between condition and answer for the first question (‘Who
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
do you like more?’;
14
(1) = 3.01, p = .08; Figure 5). Moreover, a significant association
between condition and answer was found for the second question (‘Who would you like to
play with?’;
(1) = 7.82, p = .006; Figure 5); the children whose ingroup color was yellow
more often reported wanting the play with the yellow model than the children whose ingroup
color was blue, and vice versa for the children with blue as their ingroup color.
45
40
†
*
Frequency
35
30
Outgroup
answer
25
20
Ingroup
answer
15
10
5
0
Like
Play
Teacher
Figure 5. Explicit ingroup and outgroup preferences, differentiated for the three preference
measure questions; *p < .05, †p < .10
Discussion
First, this study aimed to identify mimicry in 4-to-6-year old children. In
correspondence with the expectations, the results of the current study indicate that 4-to-6-year
old children show mimicry. The children carried out the behaviors (i.e. yawning, headwiggling, mouth-rubbing, and cheek-scratching) more often during the behavior videos period
than during the baseline. This finding is in line with previous adult studies (e.g. Chartrand &
Bargh, 1999). Moreover, the results of the current study are corresponding with a study
indicating that 3-year-old children show mimicry (van Schaik et al., in press). It is likely that
young children show a chameleon effect when observing behaviors performed by models to
blend in with their social environment, just like adults.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
15
Second, this study investigated whether young children’s mimicry is sensitive to social
dynamics. In accordance with the expectations, the results of the current study indicate that 4to-6-year old children’s mimicry is sensitive to social dynamics. Ingroup-outgroup effects
based on a priori preference of color were created to influence the social dynamics and
children carried out the ingroup behaviors significantly more often during the videos period
than outgroup behaviors. This finding is corresponding with previous adult studies that
indicate that adults’ mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects (Yabar et al., 2006) and
liking (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; McIntosh, 2006).
A previous study indicated that 3-year-old children’s mimicry is not sensitive to social
dynamics. The results of the current study, however, indicate that 4-to-6-year old children’s
mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects. A possible explanation for this discrepancy
is that mimicry’s is the social identity development theory (Nesdale, 2004). This theory
postulates that 4-to-6-year-olds get motivated by identity development and positive
differentiation to be primarily oriented toward the in-group and attempts to positively
differentiate it from out-groups. Therefore, it might be that the sensitivity of mimicry to social
factors develops during childhood as an effect of identity development and positive
differentiation.
Furthermore, the results of the preference measure indicate that children have an
explicit preference towards their ingroup. They significantly wanted to play more with the
ingroup model than the outgroup model, and they marginally liked the ingroup model more
than the outgroup model. This is in correspondence with the experiments of Dunham et al.
(2011) indicating that 5-year-old children marginally to significantly prefer their ingroup over
their outgroup on both implicit and explicit measures. The children of the current experiment
did not prefer their ingroup model over their outgroup, however, when they were asked who
they would like as a teacher. It is possible, though, that children do not see their teacher as an
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
16
ingroup, as most teacher are strict and try to maintain order in class. In conclusion, it is likely
that 4-to-6-year old children have the tendency to implicitly and explicitly bind and bond with
individuals that belong to their ingroup.
The findings of this study highlight directions for future research. Children’s mimicry
is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects, but it is unclear whether other social manipulations
have a similar effect on mimicry. Moreover, it is unclear whether children younger than the
age of 4 are sensitive to social dynamics based on any social manipulation paradigm. Finally,
live interactions are necessary to allow real-life affiliation; a possible limitation of the current
study is that the video presentation of the models prevented participants from interacting with
the models, possibly preventing a real-life affiliation towards them. Therefore, future research
should investigate live-interaction social manipulation paradigms affecting children’s
mimicry, as they gain insight in the development of children’s real-life sensitivity to social
dynamics in mimicry.
In conclusion, this study identified mimicry in 4-to-6-year old children. Moreover, this
study is the first to identify a social effect on young children’s mimicry based on ingroupoutgroup effects. More research is necessary, but the current study is an important step in
investigating the development of mimicry’s sensitivity to social dynamics.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
17
References
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery. C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function
in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communication.
Human Communication Research, 14, 275-299
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link
and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910.
Chartrand, T. L. & van Baaren, R. B. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 41, 219-273.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations
in children. Child development, 82, 293-811.
Lakin J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create
affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334-339.
Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon effect
as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145–162.
Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN
system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 41, 841-849.
McIntosh, D. N. (2006). Spontaneous facial mimicry, liking and emotional contagion. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 37, 31–42.
Moody, E. J., & McIntosh, D. N. (2011). Mimicry of dynamic emotional and motor-only
stimuli. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 679-686.
Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett &
F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–246). London: Psychology
Press.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
18
Van Baaren, R., Janssen, L., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2009). Where is the love?
The social aspects of mimicry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,
364, 2381-2389.
Van Schaik, J.E., van Baaren, R., Bekkering, H., & Hunnius, S. (in press). Evidence for
nonconscious behavior-copying in young children. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N.
Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry:
Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30,
97–113
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
19
Appendix A
Yawn:
Cheek Scratch
Mouth Rub
Head Wiggle
Target Region
Mouth
Cheek and/or forehead
and/or neck
Mouth and chin
Head-axis
Requirements
Target Region
Lips are parted,
breath in is visible
Mouth must be closed
when action is started
Head moves (earshoulder), must move
head from full left/right to
center at least once
Actor Region
Front or back of fingers
Front or back of
fingers or hand
Requirements
Actor
Fingers are bent and
making scratching
movements
Flattened fingers are
moving across target
Optional
Additions
Eyes closed, cover
mouth with hand
(also code as
Mouth Rub)
Hand can be near or
touching face already
Hand can be near or
touching face already
Shoulders move
Exclusion
Criteria
Stick out tongue;
finger or hand in
mouth = end of
action
Finger or hand in mouth
= end of action
Finger or hand in
mouth = end of action
Movement cannot
originate from hips or
back
Measured from till
First frame in
which (ff) lips part
- ff lips are closed
ff hand touches face - ff
hand lifted from face (if
it stays lifted for >1sec)
ff hand touches face ff hand lifted from face
(if it stays lifted
for >1sec)
ff head axis tilted - ff head
axis straight (if straight
for >1 sec)
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
20
Logboek
Periode
Omschrijving Activiteit
Tijd
December
Kennismaking met Johanna, kennismaking met het onderwerp,
20 uur
en januari
literatuurstudie
Februari
Bedenken en concretiseren van het onderzoeksdesign,
30 uur
literatuurstudie, presentaties voorbereiden en geven over het
onderzoeksdesign aan de onderzoeksgroep
Begin
Het onderzoek voorbereiden, het maken van een audioscript en
maart
praktische zaken regelen zoals vestjes kopen, beltraining volgen,
25 uur
ouders bellen en mailen
Eind maart Pilots voorbereiden en uitvoeren
April
Het eerste deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek voorbereiden en uitvoeren
20 uur
20 uur
op de basisschool
Mei
De filmpjes van het eerste deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek coderen
30 uur
met ELAN en de eerste analyses uitvoeren
Begin juni
Het tweede deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek voorbereiden en uitvoeren 20 uur
op de basisschool
Eind juni
De filmpjes van het tweede deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek coderen
40 uur
met ELAN en analyses bedenken en uitvoeren
Juli
Het onderzoeksverslag schrijven
40 uur
Alle
Stagebegeleiding vanuit het Honours Programma: stagebegeleiding
20 uur
perioden
met Marijke, stageverslag schrijven, presentaties voorbereiden,
geven en bijwonen
Totaal
265 uur
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
21
Doelen
De doelen die ik in het begin van de stage heb opgesteld, zullen schuingedrukt
vermeld worden. Daarbij zal ik aangeven in hoeverre ik deze doelen bereikt heb.
1. Het belangrijkste doel dat ik voor mezelf wil opstellen, is het voor mezelf duidelijk krijgen
of ik onderzoek doen leuk vind. Ik wil namelijk graag de Research Master Behavioral Science
gaan volgen na mijn bachelor PWO, en het volgen van deze stage lijkt me perfect om erachter
te komen of ik onderzoek doen leuk vind.
Dit doel is zeker volbracht. Ik ben erachter gekomen dat onderzoek doen echt iets voor mij is
en dat ik het echt als mijn ambitie zie om de Research Master te gaan volgen en om later
binnen een onderzoeksinstelling te gaan werken. Ik vind het heerlijk om na te denken over
verklaringen en het beloop van fenomenen, en door onderzoek te doen kun je dit te weten
komen. Ook vind ik het prettig dat alles in detail perfect moet zijn, wat goed past bij mij
omdat ik erg perfectionistisch ben. Al met al ben ik erg blij dat ik deze stage heb gelopen
omdat ik nu zeker weet dat ik de Research Master wil doen.
2. Een tweede doel is het zonder angst durven afstappen op mensen die ik nog niet ken op het
einde van de stage. Ik had voor ik naar de universiteit kwam moeite met het op mensen
afstappen die ik nog niet kende. Ik ben hier sinds het begin van de universiteit al flink in
gegroeid, maar ik hoop dat ik dat door middel van het lopen van stage helemaal kwijtraak,
aangezien je wordt gedwongen contact op te nemen met mensen die je niet kent.
Ik heb veel geleerd wat betreft het met minder angst op iemand die ik net ken durven
afstappen. Ik heb contact opgenomen met de directrice van het Baby Research Center (BRC)
om te vragen of ik bij het BRC stage mocht komen lopen, ik heb veel scholen gemaild om te
vragen of we ons onderzoek daar mochten uitvoeren en ik heb veel ouders gebeld om te
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
22
vragen of we hun kinderen mochten testen voor de pilots. Echter, ik denk dat dit doel nog
steeds niet compleet volbracht is. Zo heb ik nog steeds wel een beetje zenuwen en kijk ik er
nog steeds wel een beetje tegenop als ik contact op moet nemen met iemand die ik nog niet
ken, maar gelukkig ben ik er al wel in gegroeid. Ik hoop dat ik door de positieve ervaringen
die ik met deze stage heb opgedaan, in de toekomst nog meer kan groeien wat betreft het in
contact komen met mensen die ik nog niet ken.
3. Een ander doel is het binnen een maand goed kunnen plannen van de stage met de andere
vakken. Omdat er best wat druk ons als Honoursstudenten komt te staan, wordt iedereen
gedwongen om goed te kunnen plannen. Zo moet de stage op een juiste manier worden
ingepland tussen de Bachelor vakken zodat beiden niet onder elkaar lijden. Dit is erg nuttig
voor mijn master en werk later, aangezien je binnen een onderzoek ook goed moet kunnen
plannen.
Gelukkig ben ik binnen een zeer korte tijd erg goed geworden in het plannen van de uit te
voeren taken. Het lijkt erop dat hoe hoger de druk is die op mij staat, hoe effectieve en
efficiënter ik werk. Het was natuurlijk niet altijd gemakkelijk om alles op tijd af te krijgen,
maar ik heb nog steeds al mijn vakken met een bovengemiddeld cijfer kunnen afronden en ik
heb ook mijn stage naar wens kunnen uitvoeren.
4. Daarnaast zou ik graag aan het eind van de stage beter willen zijn in analysetechnieken.
Dit is belangrijk tijdens het doen van een onderzoek en daarom zal ik deze technieken nu,
maar ook zeker in de toekomst tijdens de RM, nodig hebben.
Ik kan ook zeggen dat ik dit doel volbracht heb. Ik heb vooral veel geleerd over nonparametrische testen, aangezien onze data erg scheef verdeeld was. Ik vond het prettig om
hier meer over te leren, aangezien we hier in de opleiding weinig tot niets over leren. Dit is nu
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
23
net wat ik zo leuk vind aan het Honours Programma; je gaat net even een stapje verder dan
het reguliere curriculum en je leert dat niet alles in de praktijk werkt zoals het in de boeken
beschreven staat. Gelukkig had ik bij Academische Vaardigheden 2 al veel geleerd over
parametrische testen, dus het reguliere curriculum en het Honours Programma vulden elkaar
mooi aan.
5. Ten slotte zou ik graag aan het eind van de stage met minder zenuwen in het Engels willen
presenteren. Ik zal mijn stage op een goede manier kunnen presenteren, met minder zenuwen
naar het buitenland gaan en de sollicitatie van de RM zelfverzekerder doorlopen.
Aangezien ik succesvol in het Engels mijn onderzoeksdesign heb mogen presenteren aan de
onderzoeksgroep van het BRC, heb ik meer vertrouwen gekregen in het presenteren in het
Engels. Ik vond het ondanks de zenuwen erg leuk om te doen en gelukkig kreeg ik positieve
reacties van de onderzoekers. De zenuwen zullen de volgende keer dat ik in het Engels moet
presenteren natuurlijk nog niet helemaal verdwenen zijn, aangezien ik ze zelfs nog heb als ik
in het Nederlands moet presenteren, maar ik zal zeker zelfverzekerder voor het publiek staan
dan zonder deze stage ervaring.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
24
Nawoord
Al met al was dit een van de meest leerzame processen uit mijn academische carrière.
Ik voel me bevoorrecht dat ik deel mocht nemen aan het eerste jaar van het Honours
Programma en de ervaringen van de stage stage zullen me een grote voorsprong gaan geven
tijdens de uitvoering van de bachelor scriptie in het buitenland en de sollicitatieprocedure van
de Research Master. Daarbij gaat dan ook mijn dank uit naar iedereen die het Honours
Programma mede mogelijk maakt. Ten slotte wil ik in het bijzonder Johanna van Schaik
bedanken voor haar opvallend open houding, constructieve feedback, positieve mentaliteit,
vertrouwen en kennis. Johanna was een van de eerste personen die het gelukt is om mijn
prestaties echt tot een hoger niveau te tillen en hier ben ik haar erg dankbaar voor.
INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN
Beoordelingsformulier stagebegeleidster
25