P SY CH O L O G I CA L SC I EN C E

Research Report

Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior

Rick B. van Baaren, Rob W. Holland, Kerry Kawakami, and Ad van Knippenberg

University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT—Recent studies have shown that mimicry occurs un- Study 2) instructed a confederate to take over the posture (e.g.,
intentionally and even among strangers. In the present studies, leaning forward or backward) and mannerisms (face rubbing) of half
we investigated the consequences of this automatic phenomenon the participants. Their results demonstrated that participants who had
in order to learn more about the adaptive function it serves. In been mimicked by the confederate liked the confederate better and
three studies, we consistently found that mimicry increases pro- perceived the interaction as running more smoothly than did parti-
social behavior. Participants who had been mimicked were more cipants who had not been mimicked.
helpful and generous toward other people than were non- In addition to increasing liking and rapport, mimicry should have
mimicked participants. These beneficial consequences of mimicry consequences at a behavioral level for it to be truly adaptive
were not restricted to behavior directed toward the mimicker, but (Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001). Preliminary evidence for the beneficial
included behavior directed toward people not directly involved in behavioral consequences of mimicry comes from a recent study (van
the mimicry situation. These results suggest that the effects of Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg, 2003) in which
mimicry are not simply due to increased liking for the mimicker, waitresses either verbally mimicked or did not verbally mimic their
but are due to increased prosocial orientation in general. customers. The waitresses received larger tips when they used the
exact same words as their customer than when they simply para-
phrased the order.
It is unclear, however, how diffuse or specific these effects of mi-
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate micry are. Does mimicry make a person more prosocial only toward the
each other. person who mimics, or does mimicry lead to a more general prosocial
—Demotivatorsr 2000 calendar (Despair, Inc., orientation that is not directed at a specific target? To investigate
http://www.despair.com) whether people other than the mimicker benefit from a more prosocial
orientation of individuals who are mimicked, we conducted three
By now, there is substantial evidence that humans mimic a wide range studies. Each study utilized Chartrand and Bargh’s (1999) procedure,
of behaviors. People not only mimic several speech-related behaviors, in which a confederate mimics the posture and mannerisms of half the
such as accents (Giles & Powesland, 1975), tone of voice (Neumann & participants. In Experiment 1, we examined whether mimicry makes
Strack, 2000), pauses (Cappella & Planalp, 1981), rate of speech people more helpful toward the mimicker. In Experiments 2 and 3, we
(Webb, 1969, 1972), and syntax (Levelt & Kelter, 1982), but they also examined whether mimicry increases helpfulness toward people other
mimic postures, mannerisms (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), and even than the mimicker. Assuming that mimicry makes people more pro-
moods (Neumann & Strack, 2000) and emotions (Hatfield, Cacioppo, social in general, we hypothesized that compared with participants who
& Rapson, 1994). This mimicry often occurs automatically. Chartrand were not mimicked, those who were mimicked would be more helpful
and Bargh (1999) observed that participants in their experiment un- not only toward the confederate who mimicked them, but also toward
consciously took over the mannerisms of a confederate, even though people who were not involved in the mimicry.
the confederate and the participants were not acquainted. Further
evidence for the automaticity of mimicry comes from neuroscientific
EXPERIMENT 1
research on mirror neurons (Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti,
1996; Iacoboni et al., 1999). This research shows that within the
Method
human brain, there is an intimate link between observing an action
and performing the same action oneself. Participants and Design
Why do humans have this innate tendency to mimic? One way to Seventeen (9 men and 8 women) undergraduate students from the
examine this question is to look at the consequences of mimicry. It has University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, were randomly assigned to
been hypothesized that mimicry, by increasing empathy, liking, and the two conditions and paid 2 euros for their participation. The ex-
rapport, plays an important role in social interactions (Chartrand, periment had a single factor (experimenter behavior: mimicry vs.
Maddux, & Lakin, in press). For example, Chartrand and Bargh (1999, nonmimicry) between-subjects design.

Address correspondence to Rick van Baaren, Department of Social Procedure

Psychology, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nij- Upon arrival at the laboratory, each participant was led into a room by
megen, The Netherlands; e-mail: r.vanbaaren@psych.kun.nl. the experimenter and seated behind a desk so that the participant’s

Volume 15—Number 1 Copyright r 2004 American Psychological Society 71

 Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior

chair half-faced the experimenter’s chair. The experimenter seated Procedure

herself behind a desk and explained that the experiment was a mar- The procedure for the first part of the experiment was similar to the
keting study examining the reactions of people to certain types of procedure in Experiment 1 except for the dependent variable. Spe-
advertisements. The task of the participant was to verbally describe cifically, after mimicking or not mimicking the participant during the
his or her opinion toward each of 10 specific advertisements for ap- supposed marketing study, a naive experimenter explained that a new
proximately 30 s. During the task, the experimenter mimicked the experimenter would come and give the participant a second, unrelated
posture of half the participants, copying their body orientation (e.g., task. Shortly after the first experimenter left the room, a new experi-
leaning forward), the position of their arms, and the position of their menter entered the room and, upon passing the participant, ‘‘acci-
legs. The experimenter did not mimic the other half of the partici- dentally’’ dropped six pens she was carrying on top of several papers.
pants. The experimenter was trained to keep the rest of her behavior,
with the exception of the behavioral mimicry, the same across con-
Results
ditions. The interaction lasted for approximately 6 min.
Participants in the mimicry condition picked up the pens more often
After participants completed the first task, the experimenter in-
(84%) than did participants in the nonmimicry condition (48%), w2(1,
formed them that they would perform another, unrelated task after she
N 5 42) 5 6.00, p o .02. These results, therefore, suggest that people
retrieved material from an adjacent room. The experimenter left the
other than the mimicker can profit from the prosocial behavior of a
experimental room and reentered after 30 s. Upon passing the parti-
mimicked individual and that mimicry can produce a diffuse prosocial
cipant, she ‘‘accidentally’’ dropped six pens that were on top of several
orientation that transfers to people in general.
papers (see Macrae & Johnston, 1998). If the participant did not pick
Donating money is a behavior that is especially dependent on
up the pens within 10 s, the experimenter picked up the pens herself.
prosocial orientation. If mimicry increases general prosocial orienta-
Finally, the participant was given a mood scale and instructed to in-
tion, people should donate more money to charity when they have
dicate on three 7-point bipolar scales (bad-good, sad-happy, cheer-
been mimicked than when they have not been mimicked. In Experi-
ful-gloomy; a 5 .89) how he or she felt at that specific moment.
ment 3, we examined this hypothesis by investigating the amount of
money donated to an organization that visits and entertains seriously
ill children in hospitals (CliniClowns). Because it was conceivable
Results and Discussion that a new experimenter who called attention to the CliniClowns
Participants in the mimicry condition picked up the pens more often would be less effective than the original experimenter in transferring
(100%) than participants in the nonmimicry condition (33%), w2(1, the prosocial orientation developed in the interaction to the donation
N 5 17) 5 8.24, p o .01. Additional analyses showed that mimicry situation, we also manipulated whether the same or a new experi-
had no effect on mood, F(1, 15) 5 0.58, n.s. Furthermore, there was no menter pointed out the donation possibilities.
relationship between mood and the number of pens participants
picked up, r 5 .22, n.s.
The results thus confirmed the hypothesis that mimicry increases EXPERIMENT 3
helpfulness. Participants whose behavior had been mimicked by a
confederate were more likely to help pick up pens than were parti- Method
cipants who had not been mimicked. These results are a conceptual
replication of our previous results (van Baaren et al., 2003) and Participants and Design
provide further evidence that mimicry promotes prosocial behavior. Forty-one1 (7 men and 34 women) undergraduate students from the
It is unclear from these results, however, whether mimicry simply University of Nijmegen were randomly assigned to the four conditions
creates a special bond between the mimicker and the mimicked or and paid 2 euros for their participation. The experiment had a 2
whether it leads to a more social orientation in the mimicked person. (experimenter behavior: mimicry vs. nonmimicry)  2 (experimenter:
We addressed this question in Experiment 2, in which the dependent same vs. new) between-subjects design.
variable was not helpfulness toward a confederate who had or had not
mimicked the participant, but rather was helpfulness toward another Procedure
person not involved in the mimicry situation. If mimicry leads to a For the most part, the procedure was similar to the procedure in
more prosocial orientation in general, mimicked participants should Experiment 2 except for the dependent variable. As in Experiment 2,
help not only the mimicker, but other people as well. the mimicker was naive regarding the hypothesis. After being mi-
micked or not during the first task, the participant was told that this
task was finished and that he or she would work on a second, unrelated
EXPERIMENT 2 task. The experimenter explained that he would pay the participant
now for participation in the entire session and that the participant was
Method free to go after finishing the second task. He then gave the participant
four 50-cent coins (i.e., 2 euros in total).
Participants and Design Half the participants received the instructions for the second task
Forty-two (11 men and 31 women) undergraduate students from the from the same experimenter, and the other half received the in-
University of Nijmegen were randomly assigned to the two conditions structions from a new experimenter. In either case, the experimenter
and paid 2 euros for their participation. The experiment had a single
factor (experimenter behavior: mimicry vs. nonmimicry) between- 1
Three participants were excluded from the analyses because they were
subjects design. visiting students who were not native Dutch speakers.

72 Volume 15—Number 1
 R.B. van Baaren et al.

(the same one or the new one) seated the participant behind a desk in mimicked can alter the way in which people perceive their environ-
the corner of the room. The participant was shown a collection box and ment and interact with others.
a second, white box on the desk. Before leaving the room, the ex- Although an alternative explanation for the present results may be
perimenter informed the participant that ‘‘the University of Nijmegen that mood mediated the observed effects, the findings in Experiment 1
is conducting research for the CliniClowns. We would like you to fill did not demonstrate either an effect of mimicry on mood or an effect of
out a form, which contains several questions about this charity. After mood on participants’ helpfulness. Future research, however, needs to
filling out this form, you can donate money, if you want to. When the examine the effects of mimicry on more implicit mood measures.
questionnaire is completed, please place it in the white box.’’ The Mimicry may have adaptive value, enhancing the chances of suc-
participant was then left alone in the room and was not asked to cessful procreation of those members of a species who adopt this
identify him- or herself on the questionnaire. Furthermore, both the specific behavior. Most of the arguments in favor of the survival value
collection box and the white box were locked with a padlock to foster of mimicry (specifically, the behavioral imitation of conspecifics) are,
the impression that the data would be treated anonymously. The however, mainly hypothetical. First, it has been argued that mimicry
questionnaire consisted of four filler questions regarding the Clini- fosters safety in groups of animals (e.g., Dijksterhuis, Bargh, & Mie-
Clowns, so that the cover story would be credible. dema, 2000). Second, imitating others may be a potent mechanism in
learning and acculturation (de Waal, 2002). Third, mimicry may
function as a social glue, holding the group together. The present
Results and Discussion finding that mimicry enhances prosocial behavior suggests that it
Participants in the mimicry condition donated money more often serves to strengthen social bonds. When you mimic someone, it be-
(76%) than did participants in the nonmimicry condition (43%), w2(1, comes more likely that this person behaves more prosocially not only
N 5 41) 5 4.84, p o .03. Furthermore, the amount of money donated toward you, but also toward other people. This person may be more
to the CliniClowns was subjected to a 2 (experimenter behavior: mim- inclined to lend you a helping hand or maybe even help raise your
icry vs. nonmimicry)  2 (experimenter: same vs. new) analysis of children, or your neighbor’s children. These behavioral consequences
variance. The only significant effect was a main effect of behavior, provide suggestive support for an evolutionary explanation of mimicry,
F(1, 37) 5 4.26, p o .05. The results indicated that participants in the because, in the end, natural selection works on a behavioral level.
mimicry condition donated more money (M 5 0.79 euro) than parti- In conclusion, the current research has provided additional evi-
cipants in the nonmimicry condition (M 5 0.38 euro). Furthermore, dence for the functionality of mimicry. In studying its consequences,
the Behavior  Experimenter interaction was not significant, F(1, researchers learn more about the adaptive role mimicry plays in
37) 5 1.52, p 5 .23. Participants gave more money to the CliniClowns people’s daily lives. Because doing what others do is so beneficial in
in the mimicry condition than in the nonmimicry condition both in the such a diverse array of social situations (e.g., job interviews, romantic
new-experimenter condition (M 5 0.72 euro vs. M 5 0.56 euro) and in affairs, networking and selling products), it is no wonder that people
the same-experimenter condition (M 5 0.91euro vs. M 5 0.25 euro). imitate each other, even when they are free to do as they please.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments—The authors would like to thank Aefke ten
These three studies provide strong evidence that mimicry increases Hagen, Loes Janssen, Sabrina Lackner, Errez Bar, Cobi van Vugt, and
prosocial behavior and that these behavioral consequences of mimicry Berlinda Hermsen for their help with Experiment 1.
are not restricted to behavior directed toward the mimicker. Other
people can also benefit from a mimicked person’s more prosocial or- REFERENCES
ientation. In Experiment 1, participants whose behavior had been
mimicked by an experimenter were more helpful when she dropped Cappella, J.N., & Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal
pens on the floor than were nonmimicked participants. In Experiment conversations: III. Interspeaker influence. Human Communication Re-
2, participants who had been mimicked by a first experimenter were search, 7, 117–132.
more helpful toward a second experimenter who dropped her pens. Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (1999). The Chameleon effect: The perception-
behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Finally, in Experiment 3, participants in the mimicry condition do-
Psychology, 76, 893–910.
nated more money to a charity than participants in the nonmimicry Chartrand, T.L., Maddux, W.W., & Lakin, J.L. (in press). Beyond the percep-
condition. Mimicry led to enhanced donations irrespective of whether tion-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of
the possibility of donation was mentioned by the experimenter who nonconscious mimicry. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman, & J.A. Bargh (Eds.),
had mimicked the participant or by a new experimenter. Taken to- Unintended thought 2: The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University
gether, these results illustrate the important role mimicry plays in Press.
de Waal, F. (2002). The ape and the sushi master: Cultural reflections of a
creating prosocial behavior. primatologist. New York: Basic Books.
The finding that it is not only the mimicker who benefits from a Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J.A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway:
more prosocial orientation in the mimicked person suggests that the Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in
effects of mimicry are not simply due to ‘‘something special’’ between Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1–40.
the mimicker and the mimicked, but rather are due to a more general Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J.A., & Miedema, J. (2000). Of men and mackerels:
Attention and automatic behavior. In H. Bless & J.P. Forgas (Eds.),
change in the mimicked person’s orientation. Consistent with this
Subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 36–51). Phi-
idea is the recent finding that being mimicked induces a more field- ladelphia: Psychology Press.
dependent cognitive processing style (van Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand, Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition
& Dijkmans, in press). Specifically, this study shows that being in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.

Volume 15—Number 1 73
 Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior

Giles, H., & Powesland, P.F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: van Baaren, R.B., Holland, R.W., Steenaert, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003).
Academic Press. Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 393–398.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. van Baaren, R.B., Horgan, T.G., Chartrand, T.L., & Dijkmans, M. (in press).
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J.C., & Rizzo- The forest, the trees and the chameleon: Context-dependency and mi-
latti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, micry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
2526–2528. Webb, J.T. (1969). Subject speech rates as a function of interviewer behaviour.
Levelt, W.J.M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question Language & Speech, 12, 54–67.
answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78–106. Webb, J.T. (1972). Interview synchrony: An investigation of two speech rate
Macrae, C.N., & Johnston, L. (1998). Help, I need somebody: Automatic action measures in an automated standardized interview. In B. Pope & A.W.
and inaction. Social Cognition, 16, 400–417. Siegman (Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication (pp. 115–133). New
Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). ‘‘Mood contagion’’: The automatic transfer of York: Pergamon.
mood between persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
211–223. (RECEIVED 8/15/02; REVISION ACCEPTED 2/26/03)

74 Volume 15—Number 1