Summary of:
Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The Chameleon Effect: The Perception-Behavior Link
and Social Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910.
Summary by Antú Schamberger and Julia Fehrenbach
For Dr. Mills’ Psych 452 class, Fall, 2008
Introduction
Humans are quiet good at imitating others. Imitation has always been seen as an
intentional, goal directed action. For example, mimicry is a helpful way in which to learn other’s
skills. However, recent studies show that there is an unintended purpose to social perceptions in
social behavior. This brings about the chameleon effect, which refers to the unconscious mimicry
of the posture, mannerisms and facial expressions of one’s interaction partner. This effect
demonstrates how one’s behavior can change passively and unintentionally to match that of
others in their current social environment.
Perception and behavior play a huge role in imitation. William James’ principle of
ideomotor action states that simply thinking about a behavior increase the tendency to engage in
that behavior. Many researchers have used this principle in their studies of how humans are
affected by other’s actions. Carver et al. predicted that perceiving a hostile behavior would
activate one’s hostile interpretive schema and hostile behavioral schema, so that the simple act of
interpreting the hostile behavior would make one more likely to behave in a hostile manner.
It is important to point out that if perceptions of behaviors are automatic then direct
environmental causation of social behavior would be produced in a two step process. The first
step would involve effortless and non-conscious guided perceptions and interpretations of social
behaviors. The second step would entail the perceptions activating the corresponding behavioral
representations. For example, some research has shown that stereotypes of social groups become
activated automatically when a simple perception of a distinguishing characteristic of that group
is shown.
The next point that it brought up by the author is that if perceptions mediate the
ideomotor effect of the environment on behavior then a study should find assimilation effects on
behavior with category priming and contrast effects on behavior with exemplar priming.
Dijksterhuis, Spears, et al. (1998) confirmed this idea with priming their subjects with either
professor or supermodel and having the participants primed with professor give more correct
answers to a knowledge test than those participants primed with supermodel. Also, when the
participants were given specific exemplars of the professor or supermodel the opposite pattern
was obtained. This meant that there was a contrast effect on behavior just like the theory had
predicted. It is also seen through other studies that the more contact a person has with another,
the stronger and more automatic the perceptions are and the stronger and more likely the
behaviors are to ensue.
There are three basic lines of research on behavioral coordination. One of them is
rhythmic synchrony that has included work on the synchronization between the speech and body
movements of two interaction partners. Another research line is that of facial mimicry, which has
been focused on neonates’ mimicry of adult facial expressions. The last research type is the one
that is most similar to the chameleon effect and consists of behavior matching, which occurs
when people mimic behavior patterns by adopting similar postures and body configurations.
There are also three faults that all the previous research has. First, there has not been a baseline
or control group with which to compare the amount of mimicry observed. Without these
measures a researcher can not determine whether the results occur more often than chance would
predict. Second, there is no test for the minimal conditions under which behavior matching
would occur because if the perception behavior link is the mechanism behind behavior matching
then the results should occur even with pairs that are strangers. Finally, there these previous
studies were correlation and did not manipulate the postures and mannerisms of either the
participants.
The first experiment had the purpose of providing an experimental test of the existence of
non-conscious mimicry of behavioral mannerisms in a way that first, determined whether it
occurred at greater than chance levels; second, to test whether it occurred among strangers when
no affiliation goal was operating; third, so that the researchers could manipulate mannerisms and
behaviors of interaction partners, while having confederates so that they could also determine the
direction of causality; lastly, to test for a chameleon type change in behavior as a function of the
behavior of the current interaction partner.
The second experiment’s goal was to test whether behavior matching did in fact increase
liking and therefore create a sense of smoother interactions between the participants. The
authors’ hypothesis that automatic effects of perception on behavior served as adaptive functions
was part of a larger research question that traced the downstream consequences of a variety of
unconscious reactions to the social environment. Specifically, experiment 2 wanted to test to
what extent postures similarity affected liking when there was not any overarching interpersonal
goal held by the participants towards each other.
The third experiment was focused more on the results of the first two experiments. The
authors predicted that the reason that those participants with a great tendency to take the
perspective of others had a great social functioning and compassion for others. This was because
the participants engaged in more behavioral mimicry. Basically, experiment 3 examined the
resulting issues by testing whether individual differences in empathy co-vary with individual
difference in the chameleon effect.
Methods
Experiment 1:
Overview
Students participated in two sessions. Session 1 consisted of a ten minute interaction with
one other participant that was a confederate (C1). During the session they took turns describing
various photographs. Then in session 2 the participant repeated the task with a second
confederate (C2).
Participants
There were thirty-nine male and female students. 14 of the students had a confederate
that smiled and shook his or her foot and a second confederate did not smile and rubbed his or
her face instead.
Apparatus and materials
Two male and two female assistants served as experimenters and confederate, rotating in
roles. The experiment room had one chair for the experimenter at the front of the room behind a
desk where the materials and stimuli where kept. Participants were videotaped throughout both
sessions by means of a video camera on a shelf in the corner of the room.
Procedure
The experimenter brought the participant into the room and sat them down. Then they left
the room to get some “necessary” papers for the experiment. During this time the participant was
taped so as to have baseline data on what their bodily movements and facial expressions were
before interacting with the confederate. The experimenter then brought in the confederate and
they started to describe the photographs. The confederates had a script for selected pictures that
they already knew they were going to get to describe. When they were done describing all the
photographs the experimenter took the confederate to “another” session and brought in another
confederate to do the same task over again with different pictures. When that session was over
the participant was asked to sign consent and video release forms and debriefed on the
experiment.
Experiment 2:
Overview
Students participated in one 15 minutes session with a confederate. During the session
they both described photographs. The confederates either mirrored the behavioral mannerisms of
the participants (mimicry condition) or where neutral towards the participants (control
condition). When the session was over the participants where asked to fill a questionnaire that
asked them first, to report on how much they liked the confederate and second, how smoothly the
interaction had gone.
Participants
There were seventy-eight students that participated. Thirty-seven of them were in the
mimicry condition and thirty-five of them in the control condition.
Apparatus and materials
Same as for experiment 1.
Procedure
Same as for experiment 1.
Experiment 3:
Participants
There were fifty-five students that participated.
Apparatus and materials
Same as experiment 1.
Procedure
Same as experiment 1, except that the confederate rubbed his or her face and shook their
feet. Also, after the session of describing photographs the participant was asked to fill out a
Davis’ Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) questionnaire. The IRI includes a subscale for
empathic concern, which represents the emotional concern for others facet of empathy. Some
sample items include, “When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his/her shoes’
for a while.”
Results
Experiment 1:
Interjudge reliability Results:
For the number of times smiling, the reliability for the three ratings (BL= baseline before the
interacting with the confederates, C1 [T1] = time spent with confederate 1, C2 [T2] =Time spent
with confederate 2) ranged from r = .79 to 1.00, with the mean r = .89. For number of times
participants rubbed their face, the interjudg reliabilities ranged from r = .33 to .60, mean r = .50.
All reliabilities were significant at p < .001.
For both smiling and behavioral measures an ANOVA was conducted on the amount of
times the action occurred per minute. For facial expressions, as predicted, there was a significant
effect of confederate expression, F (1, 34) = 20.31, p < .001. The participant smiled more times
per minute than the smiling confederate (M = 1.03) than with the neutral confederate (M = .36),
suggesting that the participant did indeed mimic the facial expressions of the confederates.
For the behavior measures, there was no main effects for confederate behavior—foot
shaking and face rubbing— (F < 1) or participant behavior (p > .25). The predicted interaction
between the two was, reliable, F (1, 34) = 9.36, p = .004. The chameleon effect hypothesis
predicted that participants would engage in the behavior measures more in the presence of the
confederate engaging in the behavior over the confederate not engaging in the behavior. The
results showed that indeed the participants rubbed their face more times in the presence of the
face-rubbing confederate than when with the foot-shaking confederate, F (1, 34) = 5.71, p < .025
and shook their foot more times when with the foot shaking confederate than with the rubbing
confederate, F (1, 34) = 3.76, p = .06. The results suggest that individuals passively take on the
mannerisms and facial expressions of those around them without the reason or intention of doing
so.
The study also compared how much participants engaged in the key behavior with the
nonsmiling confederate with how much they engaged with the smiling confederates. The
repeated measure ANOVA conducted the number of times the action occurred within a minute.
There was a significant effect of confederate behavior F (1, 34) = 4.16, p = .05. The participants
performed the action more times with the nonsmiling confederate doing the key behavior (M =
.56) than with the smiling, apparently friendly confederate doing the behavior (M= .40).
The study was also conducted with the foot shaking and face rubbing behaviors. There
were no significant main effects for confederate expression across the two behaviors being
mimicked or a significant interaction) Fs < 1). This suggests that the study was no goal
dependent.
Discussion
Psychologists have examined and done much research on nonconscious mimicry, but have not
thouroughly examined the mechanisms in which the phenomena occurs. Through the study, the
perception-behavior link is argues that there is an existence between nonconscious connections
when perceiving an action done by another and more likely engaging in that same action or
behavior—otherwise associated with as the chameleon effect.
In Experiment 1, the analyses revealed that the behavioral mimicry indeed showed
significant effects that facial expressions and behavioral mannerisms were increased when
interacting with another. The study has revealed that when a person’s behavior is predetermined
and standardized so it is evident who is mimicking whom, conclusions can be drawn about a
casual directional relationship of the chameleon effect. The study has been able to disregard any
third variables from affecting the experiment. The study also has shown how individual
behavior naturally adapts to changes in social environment settings in order to successfully blend
into the specific setting they are introduced to. The study found this was indeed the case when
there is no objective goal to affiliate or begin a relationship with the other. The chameleon effect
occurred just as many times with the non-smiling, no eye contact confederates as the ones who
were instructed to smile and make eye contact.
Experiment 2:
Liking and smoothness as a function of being mimicked results:
The study predicted that those who were in the experimental conditions would report that the
participants 1) found the confederate more likeable 2) would have smoother interactions with the
confederate. After conducting a MANOVA- multivariate analysis of variance conducted on
likeness and smoothness variables on mimicking the results showed that as predicted, there was
an overall effect on mimicking across the two dependent measures, F (2,69) = 3.47, p = .04. The
effect was not moderated by type of dependent measure, interaction F < 1. The separate
univariate tests conducted on the liking and smoothness ratings, reported liking the confederate
more (M = 6.62) than did those in the control condition (M= 5.91), F (1, 70) = 5.55, p = .02. The
participants also stated that the interaction went more smoothly (M=6.67) than those in the
controlled condition (M = 6.02), F (1, 70) = 4.08, p = .05. Thus, providing the first
demonstration that mimicry causes a greater liking and more smooth, harmonious interaction.
There appeared to be no difference in the ways the confederates behaved towards the
participants in the mimicry versus the non-mimicry conditions outside of the mimicry
manipulation in the experiment.
Only 1 out of 37 participants in the mimicking condition noticed that the confederate had
similar mannerisms as those participants, however, that participant did not interpret it as
mimicry.
Discussion:
Based on the findings from Experiment 1, the experiments of the study wishes to further
assess whether the chameleon effect serves the adaptive function of fostering liking between
people and creating a more smooth, harmonious interaction. The results of Experiment 2 indeed
confirmed that participants who mimicked confederates viewed the interaction as going more
smoothly and liked the confederate more than those of the controlled condition.
Experiment 3
Interjudge Reliability Results
The reliability between the two judges was very high; for the number of times participants
rubbed their face, r = .97, and for the number of times they shook their foot, r = .82, both
significant at p < .001. Ratings between the two judges were averaged to form a single rating for
face rubbing and foot shaking. The ratings were divided by seconds.
The perspective taking was hypothesized that individuals who are high perspective-takers
nonconsciously mimicked the confederates to a great extent. The high perspective participants
were classified in a mean of N = 28 and low perspective participants N = 22. As predicted,
across the two types of mimicking, F (1, 48) = 3.85, p = .05. The main effect was not moderated
by an interaction with type of behavior (face rubbing vs. foot shaking), p > .20. High perspective
takers rubbed their face (M = 1.30) and shook their foot (M = 0.40) more times per minute than
did low perspective takers (M = .85 and .29). The results supported the hypothesis that those
who have a higher perspective tendency are more likely to engage in mimicry behavioral
activity.
When examining empathetic concern, the researchers discovered that there was no main
effect of empathetic concern across the two types of mimicking, F < 1, nor was there an
interaction between empathetic concern and type of behavior (face rubbing vs. foot shaking), F <
1.
Discussion:
The goal of the third experiment was to test for personality variables. We found that
there is a link among perspective taking and social skills, empathy towards others, and
compassion towards others. The high perspective takers may potentially be better at
nonconsciously guiding social interactions and behaving in ways that smooth interactions among
people. The ways in which they do it is mimicry mannerisms.
General Discussion
The study hypothesized that those who frequently take the perspective of interaction partners
mimicked the mannerisms of a confederate to a greater extent than did those who less often take
the perspective of others, as would be expected in social- perceptual activity mediated the effect.
Other neuropsychological studies have also examined and proved the idea that the effect of
perception on behavior is an automatic process that doesn’t depend on conscious choices. In
fact, neuroscientists have found research showing that patients with aphasia, aprazia, mental
retardation, brain damage to consciously self-regulate also behaved in such mimicry and
repetition. The perception-behavioral link is an example of how environment can influence ones
behavior without awareness, intent or control. It increases the likelihood of behaving similarly to
others in the current environment. This process can both alert us what is beneficial and harmful
in the environment we live in, and can automatically affect a person’s mood. These behaviors
allow an individual to react in an appropriate manner in a nonconscience mechanism.
If research is continued, it is hoped that researchers will extend to larger, more
complex group settings to continue their knowledge and understanding of the chameleon effect.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Chameleon Effect - unconscious mimicry of the posture, mannerisms and facial
expressions of one’s interaction partner
B. Principle of Ideomotor - action states that simply thinking about a behavior increase
the tendency to engage in that behavior
C. Research on Behavioral Coordination
1. Rhythmic Synchrony - synchronization between the speech and body
movements of two interaction partners
2. Facial Mimicry - has been focused on neonates’ mimicry of adult facial
expressions
3. Behavior Matching - occurs when people mimic behavior patterns by adopting
similar postures and body configurations
D. Faults of Previous Research
1. No baseline or control group with which to compare the amount of mimicry
observed
2. No test for the minimal conditions under which behavior matching would occur
3. Only correlation and did not manipulate the postures and mannerisms of either
the participant
E. Experiments
II. METHODS
A. Experiment 1
1. Two sessions of ten minutes with a confederate
2. Thirty-nine male and female students
B. Experiment 2
1. One session of fifteen minutes with a confederate
2. Seventy-eight male and female students
C. Experiment 3
1. Fifty-five male and female students
III. RESULTS
A. Experiment 1
1. Results indicated a significant effect of confederate facial expression, F (1, 34)
= 20.31, p < .001. The participant smiled more times per minute than the
smiling confederate (M = 1.03) than with the neutral confederate (M = .36),
suggesting that the participant did indeed mimic the facial expressions of the
confederates.
2. Results indicated that participants rubbed their face more times in the
presence of the face-rubbing confederate than when with the foot-shaking
confederate, F (1, 34) = 5.71, p < .025 and shook their foot more times when
with the foot shaking confederate than with the rubbing confederate, F (1, 34)
= 3.76, p = .06.
B. Experiment 2
1. Thus, providing the first demonstration that mimicry causes a greater liking and
more smooth, harmonious interaction.
2. There appeared to be no difference in the ways the confederates behaved
towards the participants in the mimicry versus the non-mimicry conditions outside
of the mimicry manipulation in the experiment.
C. Experiment 3
1.The results supported the hypothesis that those who have a higher perspective
tendency is more likely to engage in mimicry behavioral activity.
2. No main effect of empathetic concern across the two types of mimicking, F <
1, nor was there an interaction between empathetic concern and type of
behavior (face rubbing vs. foot shaking), F < 1.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Experiment 1
1. The analyses revealed that the behavioral mimicry indeed showed significant
effects that facial expressions and behavioral mannerisms were increased
when interacting with another.
2. The study has revealed that when a person’s behavior is predetermined and
standardized so it is evident who is mimicking whom, conclusions can be
drawn about a casual directional relationship of the chameleon effect.
3. The study has shown how individual behavior naturally adapts to changes in
social environment settings in order to successfully blend into the specific
setting they are introduced to.
4. The chameleon effect occurred just as many times with the non-smiling, no
eye contact confederates as the ones who were instructed to smile and make
eye contact.
B. Experiment 2
1. The results of Experiment 2 indeed
confirmed that participants who mimicked confederates viewed the interaction as
going more smoothly and liked the confederate more than those of the controlled
condition.
C. Experiment 3
1. The high perspective takers may potentially be better at nonconsciously guiding
social interactions and behaving in ways that smooth interactions among people.
The ways in which they do it is mimicry mannerisms.
D. General Discussion
1. The study hypothesized that those who frequently take the perspective of
interaction partners mimicked the mannerisms of a confederate to a greater
extent than did those who less often take the perspective of others, as would
be expected in social- perceptual activity mediated the effect.
2. The study’s conclusion is that the effect of perception on behavior is an
automatic process that doesn’t depend on conscious choices.
3. The perception-behavioral link is an example of how environment can
influence ones behavior without awareness, intent or control. It increases the
likelihood of behaving similarly to others in the current environment.
4. This process can both alert us what is beneficial and harmful in the
environment we live in, and can automatically affect a persons mood. These
behaviors allow an individual to react in an appropriate manner in a
nonconscience mechanism.
5. If research is continued, it is hoped that researchers will extend to larger, more
complex group settings.
Critical Review
1. Three things that we found interesting and informative about the article
a. People who are high perceiver takers are more likely to engage in non-conscious
mimicry behaviors more often. The article suggests that this is do to people with
higher social perception have greater skills in social interaction.
b. People who had a more smooth interaction and liked the confederate more tended
to mimic the bodily movements and behaviors more frequently. The people that
did not think the interaction was smooth or did not find the confederate likable
tended to mimic the other person less often.
c. Mimicry is a mechanism for learning to adapt and succeed in environments. The
article stressed how evolutionary it is beneficial to mimic people who have
survival skills. Not only is the behavior demonstrated by infants, but is continued
throughout ones lifespan nonconsciously.
2. Three things that we noted as a concern within the article
a. The article’s beginning focus was primarily other researchers studies and less
about their own experiment and potential findings.
b. The discussion did not extrapolate on other potential research projects to further
examine their hypothesis. They did not suggest ways to make their study stronger
or were inviting of other research to continue the study.
c. The sample was psychology students from NYU that had to do for course
requirement. From an evolutionary standpoint, the study could be more
representative of the general United States population. For future studies, a
potential experiment would also examine cross-cultural behaviors.
Test Questions
1. What were three mechanisms that the confederates used in the study when talking to the
participants?
a) shaking of the foot, scratching of the face, smiling
b) shaking of the foot, rubbing of the face, smiling
c) tapping on the desk, crossing arms, scratching of the face
d) tapping on the desk, scratching of the face, rubbing the face
2. What were the confederates and participants describing to each other?
a) photos
b) colors
c) shapes
d) paintings
3. What is the chameleon effect?
a) conscious mimicry of mannerisms and facial expressions of one’s interaction partner
b) unconscious mimicry of mannerisms and facial expressions of one’s interaction
partner
c) understanding what the other individual is thinking
d) desiring the other person to approve of you
4. Were all three experiments hypothesis found to be true?
True/False
5. Mimicry does not cause greater liking or smoothness of social interaction?
True/False
6. There was a significant main effect of empathetic concern across the two mimicking
behaviors.
True/False
Answers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
B
A
B
True
False
False