The effect of mimicry on helpfulness

This is my first literature review done while studying at University of Amsterdam.

Mimicry, the ability to copy others’ behaviours and mannerisms, is an essential part of human social interactions. It manifests in everyday situations, from mirroring conversational postures to repeating verbal instructions. Mimicry helps us connect with others and show shared understanding (Carpenter et al. 2013). This phenomenon fosters social cohesion and cooperation, which are crucial for societal functioning (Fischer-Lokou et al. 2011). Such prosocial behaviours often manifest as helpfulness – defined as the voluntary willingness to assist others without expectation of direct reward – which has been linked to positive social outcomes and our survival (Silva, 2009). Researching mimicry further helps us understand how it helps people bond socially and promotes cooperation.

Previous research has established foundational connections between mimicry and social behaviour. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) explored the “chameleon effect,” demonstrating that unconscious mimicry of others’ postures and mannerisms enhances interpersonal liking and bonding. Building on this, Maddux et al. (2008) showed that mimicry could facilitate positive outcomes even in negotiations, with mimicked participants showing greater willingness to make compromise and respond positively with requests. A person who is more eager to positively comply with request is considered helpful. For instance, in employment negotiations, both parties seek mutual positive outcome – the candidate requires career opportunity while the employer needs workforce. Maddux et al.’s (2008) findings suggest that mimicry can facilitate this mutual exchange of help through enhanced cooperation and compromise.

While these previous studies established connections between mimicry and social outcomes, the direct effect of mimicry on helpfulness remains unclear. This literature review addresses the question: What is the direct effect of mimicry on helpfulness? Finding an answer to this question is crucial both scientifically and socially, as it may reveal fundamental behavioural mechanisms (Van Baaren et al. 2004). While Chartrand and Bargh (1999) demonstrated mimicry’s effect on liking, and Maddux et al. (2008) showed its impact on mutual agreement and cooperation, neither study specifically examined whether being mimicked makes people more helpful. Based on existing research, this literature review hypothesizes that mimicry has a direct positive effect on helpfulness.

To examine this effect, three key studies are analysed across various age groups and social settings. Carpenter et al. (2013) investigated mimicry’s effect on helpfulness in infants. Van Baaren et al. (2004) studied the effect of mimicry among undergraduate students in a laboratory environment. Fisher-Lokou et al. (2011) extended the research to naturalistic settings, examining whether mimicked individuals demonstrated helpfulness toward others not involved in the original mimicry interaction. Together, these studies provide a comprehensive view of how mimicry influences helpfulness across human development and social contexts.

Research descriptions

Carpenter et al. (2013) studied whether being mimicked affects helpfulness in infants. The study included 48 infants, all 18 months old, with an equal split of boys and girls. The experiment was conducted in a testing room. Infants were randomly assigned to two conditions: in “the same-experimenter condition”, the experimenter played with the infants and later needed help; in “the different-experimenter condition”, the experimenter played with the infants, left the room, and another person entered and needed help. Within each condition, infants were randomly assigned to sub-conditions, where half were mimicked, and the other half were not. In the mimicry sub-condition, the experimenter mimicked the infants’ gestures. In the non-mimicry sub-condition, the experimenter performed gestures that were opposite to what the infants did. After the play period, the experimenter left the room and returned (or a different experimenter returned, depending on the condition) with pens that “accidentally” fell from their hands. Helpfulness was measured by seeing whether the infants picked up the pens. If they did so, that was indication of helpfulness.  The results revealed that infants who were mimicked picked up pens more frequently than those who were not mimicked. Whether the experimenter remained the same or changed did not significantly affect the children’s helpful behaviour. Therefore, mimicry had a positive effect on helpfulness in infants.

While Carpenter et al. (2013) demonstrates how mimicry affects infants, their study focuses exclusively on 18-month-old children. This narrow age range makes it challenging to determine whether mimicry operates similarly across different age groups. Piaget’s theory of the four stages of cognitive development suggests that infants, unlike adults, process their environment with limited social capabilities—for instance, they cannot verbally communicate or fully understand the consequences of their actions (Slater & Bremner, 2017). To comprehensively understand how mimicry influences helpfulness, it is essential to examine its effects across a broader range of ages. Van Baaren et al. (2004) address this gap by investigating how mimicry impacts adult behaviour, specifically among university students.

Van Baaren et al (2004) studied whether mimicry increases helpfulness in undergraduate students. Seventeen undergraduate students, of whom eight were women, were randomly assigned to two conditions: the mimicry condition and the non-mimicry condition. In both conditions, participants were led to an experimental room and given a task to verbally explain their opinions about advertisements. In the mimicry condition participants were mimicked and in the non-mimicry conditions they were not. After the task, the experimenter left and re-entered the room, then “accidentally” dropped pens on the ground. The helpfulness of participants was measured by whether they picked up the pens within ten seconds after the drop or did not pick up the pens. If they did pick up the pens, then that was an indication of participant being helpful. The study found that all participants in the mimicry condition picked up the pens, while only a small portion of participants in the non-mimicry condition did so. Therefore, mimicry had a positive effect on helpfulness in undergraduate students.

Van Baaren et al. (2004) together with Carpenter et al. (2013) provides good evidence about mimicry’s positive effect on helpfulness, but their study was done in an artificially manipulated laboratory setting. Since people typically spend their time in natural environments, it’s important to know if mimicry works the same way in real-world situations. Fischer-Lokou et al. (2011) study addresses this concern by testing mimicry’s effect on a busy street, and thus provides a better understanding of how mimicry influences helpfulness in real-world situations.

Fischer-Lokou et al. (2011) studied whether individuals who were mimicked would demonstrate helpfulness toward others who were not directly involved in the mimicking situation in a natural setting. Two hundred and ten participants, of whom roughly half were women, were selected for this study. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: verbal mimicry, verbal and non-verbal mimicry, or no mimicry at all.  Verbal mimicry involved repeating words or phrases, while non-verbal mimicry included copying gestures like arm, hand, and head movements. The mimicry (or lack thereof) was performed by an experimenter. The study took place on a busy seaside street in France, where participants were approached by an experimenter who asked for directions. After this interaction, participants continued their travel for 50 meters when another experimenter approached them, requesting money for a bus ticket. The effect of mimicry on participants’ helpfulness was measured by how often participants complied with the request and, if they did, how much money they gave to the experimenter. Giving money and the amount of it indicated that the participants were helpful. Participants in the mimicry conditions contributed more money and complied more often than those in the non-mimicry condition. Participants subjected to both verbal and non-verbal mimicry did not, significantly, give more money and more often compared to those subjected to only verbal mimicry alone. Therefore, mimicry in the natural setting had a positive effect on helpfulness in participants.

Discussion and conclusion

Based on the studies, mimicry shows a consistent positive effect on helpfulness. Carpenter et al. (2013) demonstrated that even 18-month-old infants displayed a positive effect of mimicry on helpfulness when mimicked. Van Baaren et al. (2004) found similar results with university students, while Fisher-Lokou et al. (2011) confirmed these findings in the natural setting. These results strongly support the hypothesis that humans (in controlled or natural settings) who are mimicked show increased helpfulness. Particularly noteworthy is how mimicry’s effect extends beyond the immediate interaction, influencing subsequent helping behaviour toward individuals not involved in the original mimicry situation. Especially interesting was Fischer-Lokou et al. (2011) finding that mimicked persons complied more eagerly than non-mimicked persons by giving money to strangers. This financial compliance aspect connects to Maddux et al. (2008) work on negotiation outcomes, as both situations involve requests for resources (Fischer-Lokou et al. 2011) or a job position (Maddux et al. 2008).

A key limitation of this research concerns how helpfulness is measured. The present findings by Gao et al. (2024) indicate that current measurement approaches are significantly influenced by social expectations, as people tend to modify their behaviour due to social pressure and desire to appear more helpful than they naturally would be. Future research needs to develop measurement methods that can better control for these social desirability effects to capture more authentic helping behaviours.

Another limitation is that studies in this literature review were conducted in Western settings, ignoring potential cultural differences in helping behaviour. What is considered helpful in Western cultures may differ from Chinese or other societies where direct mimicry can be perceived as inappropriate due to different social norms and values (Henrich et al. 2010). Future studies should examine how mimicry affects helping behaviour across different cultures, particularly comparing Western and Eastern societies.

Looking back to the opening discussion about mimicry’s role in human social interactions, the studies presented in this document confirm that mimicry indeed serves as a crucial part of our social behaviour, from simple actions like mirroring postures to complex interactions involving cooperation and negotiation. The findings demonstrate how this common social mechanism fosters cohesion and cooperation in our Western societies. While these studies help us scientifically understand how mimicry promotes helpful actions, they also reveal the complexity of this effect.

References

Carpenter, M., Uebel, J. & Tomasello, M. (2013), Being mimicked increases prosocial behavior in 18-Month-Old Infants. Child Development, 84: 1511-1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12083

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

Fischer-Lokou, J., Martin, A., Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2011). Mimicry and propagation of prosocial behavior in a natural setting. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 599-605. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.17.21.PR0.108.2.599-605

Gao, M., Qiu, X., Zhu, H. & Zhang, K. (2024) The relationship between narcissism and prosocial behaviour: A three-level meta-analysis. Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07082-2

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Maddux, W. W., Mullen, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.003

Slater, A., & Bremner, J. G. (2017). An introduction to developmental psychology (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Silva, J. L., Marks, L. D., and Cherry, K. E., (2009). The Psychology Behind Helping and Prosocial Behaviors: An Examination from Intention to Action. Faculty Publications. 4904. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0393-8_11

Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501012.x

Picture: Photo by Steven Van on Unsplash


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *