Post on 13-Feb-2020
transcript
Masterproef II neergelegd tot het behalen van de graad van
Promotor:
Copromotor:
Begeleider:
Acknowledgements
The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support
of several people, who each in their own way contributed to the accomplishment of this
project.
First of all, I would like to thank my promotor, prof. dr. Robert Hartsuiker, for
his guidance and feedback, though also encouraging me to work independently and to
determine my own path in this research.
I also wish to express my thanks to dr. Sarah Bernolet for explaining the
experimental paradigm and to provide the necessary materials.
I would also like to thank the confederate in my study’s experiments, Sara Van
Yperzele, for her many hours of help. Even during the last session she still managed to
convincingly act like it was the first time she participated.
Last but not least I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and my
sister for their unconditional and continuous support during my studies and the writing
of this thesis. No one has ever had more faith in me than they have.
Thank you!
Loes Abrahams
Abstract
Based on previous research in which (verbal) mimicry and its prosocial effects appeared
to be modulated by individual differences, the current study’s focus was twofold: we
aimed 1) to replicate and extend previous findings of syntactic mimicry and its effects
on prosocial behavior, and 2) to link Big Five personality factors both to the degree to
which individuals engage in mimicry themselves, and to the degree to which they show
enhanced prosocial behavior towards third persons after being mimicked. These
questions were assessed through the application of a picture description task which
participants performed with a confederate. In the first part of the experiment we found
that participants mimicked the confederate’s dative use (prepositional object or double
object) on picture descriptions, which was additionally negatively related to scores on
the Extraversion scale of the NEO Five Factor Inventory (a Big Five questionnaire). In
the second part of the experiment we aimed to link scores on this questionnaire to
participants’ prosocial behavior towards third persons after being mimicked (or non-
mimicked) syntactically by the confederate, as measured by the time spent on an extra
questionnaire that participants were asked to fill out voluntarily. No main differences in
prosocial behavior between a mimicry and a non-mimicry condition were found,
although in the mimicry condition there was a positive relationship between
Extraversion and prosocial behavior, and between Neuroticism and prosocial behavior,
whereas in the non-mimicry condition these relationships were negative. Implications,
limitations, and directions for future studies will be discussed.
Keywords: verbal mimicry, imitation, syntactic priming, prosocial
behavior, Big Five, personality
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 1
Mimicry………………………………………………………………………… 1
The role of individual differences in mimicry………………………………….. 6
Positive effects of mimicry and its relation with individual differences………. 16
The current study: the relationship between mimicry and personality factors… 25
Experiment 1………………………………………………………………………. 27
Method…………………………………………………………………………. 27
Participants…………………………………………………………………. 27
Materials……………………………………………………………………. 28
Procedure…………………………………………………………………… 30
Scoring……………………………………………………………………… 31
Results………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Discussion……………………………………………………………………… 35
Experiment 2……………………………………………………………………….. 37
Method…………………………………………………………………………. 37
Participants…………………………………………………………………. 37
Materials……………………………………………………………………. 37
Procedure…………………………………………………………………… 37
Scoring……………………………………………………………………… 39
Results………………………………………………………………………….. 40
Discussion……………………………………………………………………… 43
General Discussion………………………………………………………………… 45
References…………………………………………………………………………. 53
Appendix A: Target and prime items………………………………………………. 67
Appendix B: Filler items………………………………………………………….. 71
Appendix C: NEO-FFI…………………………………………………………….. 73
Appendix D: Dutch summary……………………………………………………… 77
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !1
Syntactic Mimicry and its Prosocial Effects:
the Role of Big Five Personality Factors
Although the main purpose of communication is to convey information, needs,
and goals, its exact implementation might serve several social functions that are beyond
interlocutors’ conscious intentions. Previous studies have for example found that when
individuals (unwittingly) imitate others’ behaviors or language they are evaluated more
positively by their conversation partner than when they do not imitate them, and that
this mimicry instigates the mimickee (i.e. the person being mimicked) to engage in
prosocial and positive behaviors (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Van Baaren, Holland,
Steenaert, & Van Knippenberg, 2003). Chartrand and Bargh (1999, Experiment 2) were
among the first to address this hypothesis experimentally and found increased liking of
a confederate - as reported by the participant - when she imitated the participant’s
movements and postures as compared to when she had not. Additionally, other studies
have shown that some individuals are more inclined to execute imitative behaviors or
language than others; several studies suggested a modulating role of individual
difference aspects such as empathy (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999, Experiment 3; Sonnby-
Börgstrom, 2002), levels of Extraversion and Openness (Kurzius, 2015), perspective
taking and field-dependency (Horton, 2014), and levels of narcissism (Obhi, Hogeveen,
Giacomin, & Jordan, 2014). However, less is known about the possible interplay
between individual differences and the responses to being mimicked verbally. Several
studies suggest that individual differences might also play a role regarding responding
to being mimicked behaviorally (Leander, Chartrand, & Bargh, 2012; Stel, Rispens,
Leliveld, & Lokhorst, 2011; Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, Wigboldus, & Rinck, 2010), but up
until now no studies have examined these effects regarding verbal mimicry. The current
study therefore aimed to link individuals’ main personality traits both to their
inclinations to syntactically mimic their interlocutor themselves, and to the extent to
which being mimicked syntactically affects their prosociality towards third persons.
Mimicry
First, we will start with an introduction on mimicry, a behavior possibly as
ancient as human mankind which can be defined as the imitation of other people’s
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !2
behaviors, mannerisms and gestures (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003). A
more elaborate definition of mimicry is offered by Chartrand and Lakin (2013), who
state that mimicry is present when “people are engaging in the same (or a similar) action
at a certain time, or that a particular behavior is repeated by an interaction partner within
a short window of time, typically no longer than three to five seconds” (p. 286).
Both conscious and unconscious expressions of verbal and non-verbal mimicry
appear to be present in various facets of everyday life. Differentiating between these
two forms of mimicry, we can specify conscious mimicry as what is typically regarded
“aping behavior”; the explicit and intentional imitation of other people’s actions (Lakin
& Chartrand, 2003). Unconscious mimicry on the other hand comprises all of the
unintentional copies of our communication partners’ behaviors of which we do not have
a conscious notion, an act which might even be more prevalent in our behavior than
conscious mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). An illustrative example of unconscious
mimicry is the well-known phenomenon of yawning when one observes another
individual yawning (Provine, 1986). Experimental studies additionally found
participants to automatically mimic smiling behavior, foot shaking movements and face
rubbing movements of strangers with whom they worked on a task (Chartrand & Bargh,
1999, Experiment 1; Yabar, Johnston, Miles, & Peace, 2006). However, the scope of
unconscious mimicry reaches beyond behavioral expressions, which is reflected by the
presence of imitation of verbal aspects such as accent (Giles, 1973) and linguistic style
(Ireland & Pennebaker, 2010), which will be the main focus of the current thesis.
Such verbal mimicry seems to be as ubiquitous as behavioral mimicry and can
comprise a broad range of different linguistic aspects . Accent adaptation for example 1
appears to be an expression of verbal mimicry (e.g. Coupland, 1984). Coupland
investigated the extent to which a shopkeeper from Cardiff (Wales) adapted her accent
to that of her customers. The speech analysis focused on several linguistic variables
which were found to be valid markers of Cardiff English in previous research (the exact
Although strictly speaking verbal mimicry can be considered a form of physical or behavioral mimicry 1
as well since it involves the movement of the facial muscles, in the following we will use the term verbal mimicry to refer to the imitation of written and spoken language, and the term physical/behavioral mimicry will be used for all types of behavioral imitations that cannot be categorized as verbal mimicry.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !3
properties of these variables are beyond the scope of the current study, for more
information see Coupland, 1980, and Coupland, 1984). As hypothesized, analysis of
these variables indicated that the shopkeeper converged her accent to that of her
customers.
Also one’s speech rate can be affected by that of one’s conversation partner. An
early study by Webb (1969) demonstrated for example that interviewees adapted their
speech rate to that of the interviewer. More recently Jungers and Hupp (2009) found
comparable results. In this research participants were offered an auditory prime sentence
at a fast or slow rate (0.24 s/syllable and 0.40 s/syllable, respectively) and were
instructed to repeat these primes. Consequently, they were required to describe a
picture. It was found that the timing of the prime correlated positively with the speed of
participants’ utterances on the picture description task. A second experiment ruled out
an explanation in terms of articulatory priming effects (for more information see
Jungers & Hupp, 2009).
However, not only how individuals convey their spoken messages appears to be
subjected to mimicry behavior, also what one says can be affected by the interlocutor’s
language use. This behavior is for example expressed in the mimicry of others’ word
use, also referred to as lexical mimicry, lexical entrainment, or lexical alignment (e.g.
Brennan, 1996). Garrod and Anderson (1987) were among the first to study this
phenomenon experimentally. In their experiment participants were required to describe
their position in a virtual maze game to another participant, of which analyses of the
dialogue indicated that over time participants tended to adjust the word use in their
descriptions to that of the other. If for example individual A decided to call a horizontal
row of nodes a line, individual B would be likely to align on this choice and would also
start using this referent (Branigan, Pickering, Pearson, & McLean, 2010; Garrod &
Anderson, 1987). Similar results were reported in a study by Brennan and Clark (1996,
Experiment 1) in which two participants had to put their set of cards in the same order
as that of the other, using descriptions of the objects on the cards. Participants tended to
adopt the terms used by the other; if one of both interlocutors would for example
describe the object on the card by naming it a dancer, this would increase the other
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !4
participant’s likelihood of also describing it as a dancer instead of for example a
ballerina, suggesting the presence of lexical alignment.
Finally, syntactic mimicry – in which the grammatical structures of the
interlocutor’s speech are being adopted – is among the most frequently observed types
of verbal mimicry and is also the focus of the current study. Levelt and Kelter’s study
(1982) showed for example that shopkeepers tended to copy the (non)prepositional
structure of the sentences used by experimenters who called them to ask at what time
their shop closed. To illustrate this, if the question was “At what time does your shop
close?” shopkeepers often started their answer with “at” as well (e.g. “At five o’clock”).
Similarly, if the question was formulated as “What time does your shop close?”,
shopkeepers often omitted the “at” from their response (e.g. “Five o’clock”). However,
critics might argue that this can also be regarded lexical mimicry, since the word “at” is
returned to the speaker. One of Kathryn Bock’s numerous syntactic priming studies
(1986) involved priming by passive transitive sentences or active transitive sentences,
or by prepositional object (PO) or double object (DO) datives. An example of an active
transitive sentence is “One of the fans punched the referee”, while the passive transitive
version would be “The referee was punched by one of the fans”. (Transitive sentences
are sentences in which the verb performs the action to the direct object.) A PO sentence
is one similar in structure to “A rock star sold some cocaine to an undercover agent”,
while a DO sentence can be illustrated by the sentence “A rock star sold an undercover
agent some cocaine” (Bock, 1986, p. 361). In short, participants were primed by the
repetition of sentences that were read aloud by the experimenter, and were consequently
asked to describe pictures to which on target trials either a passive or an active transitive
sentence structure, or a PO or a DO structure could be applied. When participants were
primed by a specific sentence structure they were more likely to employ that structure
again in the description, as compared to the alternative form. A similar experiment by
Hartsuiker and Kolk (1998b) found comparable effects in a dative priming study in
Dutch, which was also the targeted language in the current study.
The research questions of Branigan, Pickering, and Cleland (2000) were largely
similar to those of Bock (1986), except for the fact that Branigan and her colleagues
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !5
were among the first to make an innovation to the often-applied picture description
paradigm by including a confederate in the experimental session. Such a dialogue game
yielded similar results as those found by Bock among others: participants were more
likely to use a PO sentence structure to describe a picture when the confederate had
previously primed them by using that construction in a picture description as well. The
same held for DO sentence structures. Another similar study additionally pointed to the
apparent strength of syntactic priming effects by emphasizing its longevity: even with as
much as six filler items between prime and target syntactic mimicry effects could still
be observed (Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008). The
strength of syntactic priming effects is also supported by studies reporting similar
effects in Broca’s aphasics (Hartsuiker & Kolk, 1998a; Saffran & Martin, 1997; Verreyt
et al., 2013), amnesiacs (Ferreira, Bock, Wilson, & Cohen, 2008), children as young as
three years old (Shimpi, Gámez, Huttenlocher, & Vasilyeva, 2007), and signers of
American Sign Language (ASL; Hall, Ferreira, & Mayberry, 2015).
Pickering and Garrod (2004) intend to explain verbal and behavioral mimicry in
terms of interactive alignment. As its name implies, this account states that during
communication conversation partners’ linguistic and behavioral representations will
become (automatically) adjusted in the direction of the other’s. As a result,
communication will become more effortless. Pickering and Garrod argue that interactive
alignment “remove[s] the need to make complex decisions about how to represent the
mental state of the interlocutor” (p. 20). According to this theory, the use of a certain
linguistic form by the speaker would lead to the activation of this same form in the
listener’s mind. This supposition is supported by neuroimaging data suggesting that the
mirror neuron network becomes activated during mimicry of others’ behaviors (i.e. the
inferior parietal cortex and the premotor cortex; Grèzes & Decety, 2001; Iacoboni et al.,
1999; Molenberghs, Cunnington, & Mattingley, 2009). Mirror neurons become
activated when observing other individuals’ actions and mimic the observed action in
the brain (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004), their activation thus possibly reflects the
presence of mimicry neurally. Additionally, these mirror neurons also seem to respond
to being mimicked; one study investigated EEG responses to being mimicked in
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !6
spontaneous interactions and found activation in regions related to the mirror neuron
system as well (Hogeveen, Chartrand, & Obhi, 2015).
In sum, the studies discussed in this section might lead us to presume that verbal
mimicry is a robust phenomenon that can arise in a diversity of linguistic aspects such
as syntax, accent, and speech rate. Theories suggest that one of its purposes is to
decrease the cognitive load and to ease communication (Pickering & Garrod, 2004), and
additionally several neuroimaging studies suggest that mimicry and being mimicked can
be traced back neurally to the mirror neuron system.
The role of individual differences in mimicry
Although found in many different aspects of verbal and behavioral
communication, to a certain degree mimicry appears to be affected by individual
differences. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) were among the first to put forward the
question whether and which individual difference aspects might be related to behavioral
mimicry and hypothesized that a personality aspect such as empathy might be a
moderator for mimicry behavior. Importantly, Chartrand and Bargh argued that the
cognitive component of empathy (which mainly involves perspective taking) would
correlate positively with mimicry, while the affective component of empathy would be
unrelated to it. The rationale behind this reasoning is that mimicry would be generated
by the perception-behavior link, as Chartrand and Bargh argue. Similar to the working
mechanism of the mirror neuron system in mimicry previously described, the
perception-behavior link is “the finding that the mere perception of another’s behavior
automatically increases the likelihood of engaging in that behavior oneself” (Chartrand
& Bargh, 1999, p. 893). Thus, this link would be more pronounced in people who
engage more in the cognitive act of perspective taking, leading to increased levels of
mimicry. The affective component of empathy would not be involved in the perception-
behavior link and would therefore have no impact on mimicry. To assess these
hypotheses, Chartrand and Bargh carried out an experiment in which they measured the
extent to which participants mimicked certain behavioral mannerisms of the confederate
(face rubbing and foot shaking) and set out to relate this to both components of
empathy. As expected, participants who scored high on the perspective taking subscale
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !7
of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) exhibited increased mimicry of
the confederate’s behavior as compared to participants who scored low on this subscale.
Scores on the IRI’s emphatic concern subscale appeared to be uncorrelated with
mimicry levels, which was exactly in line with Chartrand and Bargh’s predictions.
A study applying electromyography (EMG) to compare participants scoring high
on empathy and participants scoring low on empathy according to the Questionnaire
Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE) obtained similar albeit partially challenging
results (Sonnby-Börgstrom, 2002). EMG is a research technique that enables the capture
of very small skeletal muscle activity, such as those in individuals’ faces. Participants in
Sonnby-Börgstrom’s research were presented pictures of happy or angry looking faces
during which their facial muscle reactions were recorded. Analyses indicated that
participants scoring high on empathy were more likely to mimic the displayed facial
expressions than were participants scoring low on empathy, as measured by the
corresponding facial muscle reactions. Since the QMEE takes into consideration both
cognitive and affective components of empathy (for more information see Mehrabian &
Epstein, 1972), it is likely that also the affective component of empathy would have
played a role in these results, which would challenge Chartrand and Bargh’s previously
discussed findings (1999). However, this is only speculation since the allocation of
participants’ scores over the different QMEE subscales was not reported.
Alternatively, the research group of Obhi, Hogeveen, Giacomin, and Jordan
(2014) hypothesized that narcissism might be a personality factor affecting mimicry.
Individuals with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by a sense of
grandiosity, self-centeredness, need for admiration, entitlement, arrogance, and lack of
empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). More importantly, this disregard for
others would be reflected in disrupted social processing and less expressed motor-
resonance in individuals scoring high on narcissism (or on other antisocial personality
disorders). Motor resonance is a component of the mirror neuron system and involves
the activation of observers’ motor related brain areas when they witness another
individual executing an action. Obhi and his colleagues thus hypothesized that this
imperfect motor resonance would lead to impaired mimicry in narcissists. In short, in
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !8
this study participants’ task was to press a button with their index finger when a “1” was
displayed and to press a button with their middle finger when a “2” was displayed (or
the other way around). Along with the number a picture of a hand with a moving finger
(index finger or middle finger) was displayed on the screen, which was included to
create incongruent and congruent trials. Using this automatic imitation task, participants
scoring high on subclinical narcissism (i.e. a high score on narcissism though still below
the borderline of narcissism as a personality disorder [Raskin & Hall, 1979]) tended to
display less interference by incongruent trials than did participants scoring low on
(subclinical) narcissism. This smaller interference in individuals scoring high on
subclinical narcissism – as reflected by lower reaction times and error rates – indicates a
less involved motor system when observing others’ actions and, in behavioral terms, a
lower degree of automatic imitation in these individuals.
On the other hand, in a study more related to real life mimicry situations Ashton-
James and Levordashka (2013) found contrasting and more differentiating results
regarding the relationship between mimicry behavior and narcissism. Although many
studies suggest that the desire to affiliate increases individuals’ imitative behaviors (for
a comprehensive discussion see Lakin & Chartrand, 2003), Ashton-James and
Levordashka argued that it might also be the (self-centered) desire to be liked that drives
mimicry. Based on a previous study in which it was found that individuals that were
excluded during a game tended to mimic their interlocutor more afterwards (Lakin,
Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008), Ashton-James and Levordashka hypothesized that this
mimicry behavior might be brought about by the increased effort to be liked by the
other. Since narcissists specifically aim to be liked by high-status others without
genuinely feeling the desire to affiliate with them (Campbell, 1999; Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001), the researchers suggested that the hypothesis of the desire to be liked leading to
increased mimicry could be easily investigated by comparing mimicry behavior of
narcissists towards (relatively) low-status others to mimicry of high-status others. In an
experiment in which participants either conversed with a low-status confederate (a
research assistant) or with a high-status confederate (a PhD student), it was indeed
found that high-status confederates were imitated more (behaviorally) than low-status
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !9
confederates were, but only by participants scoring high on (subclinical) narcissism.
The strength of this effect was emphasized by the finding that although that individuals
scoring high on narcissism reported lower levels of affiliation with the high-status
confederate than individuals scoring low on narcissism did, the former group still
exhibited higher levels of mimicry. In sum, these findings suggest that perhaps not the
desire to affiliate but rather the desire to be liked underlies mimicry behavior, a
hypothesis that deserves more attention in future studies.
Van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, De Bouter, and Van Knippenberg (2003) found
that levels of self-construal orientation might affect the extent to which individuals
engage in behavioral mimicry. More specifically, in this study the research group
differentiated between interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal.
Individuals with an interdependent self-construal tend to adjust their self to the
surrounding others, while on the other hand individuals with an independent self-
construal do not let others affect their self easily (p. 1093), or more comprehensively
according to Ashton-James, Van Baaren, Chartrand, Decety, and Karremans,
interdependence of self-construal can be formulated as “the extent to which individuals
define themselves or construe their identity with reference to their social roles, groups,
status, and relationships” (2007, p. 517). Van Baaren, Maddux, and their colleagues
(2003) argued that individuals with an interdependent self-construal would engage more
in mimicry than individuals with an independent self-construal, given the relative
inclusion or exclusion of others in one’s self. This hypothesis was assessed in an
experiment in which one of both self-construal orientations was induced through
priming, after which the extent to which participants imitated several of the
confederate’s behaviors - such as foot shaking, face rubbing, and the putting down and
picking up of a pen - was measured. As predicted, participants with a successfully
primed interdependent self-construal tended to mimic the confederate’s movements
more than did participants who were successfully primed with an independent self-
construal. Similar results were found in a more naturalistic experiment by Van Baaren,
Maddux et al. in which differences in mimicry between Japanese individuals (who
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !10
scored high on interdependent self-construal) and American individuals (who scored
high on independent self-construal) were assessed.
Although seemingly supported by fewer studies than that of the role of
individual differences in behavioral mimicry, specific individual characteristics appear
to affect verbal mimicry as well. In an experiment similar to that of Branigan et al.
(2000) Horton (2014) found mimicry of datives in a picture description task that
participants performed together with a confederate. More interesting with regard to the
current interests is that Horton set out to link these findings to two individual difference
aspects, namely perspective taking and field dependency. The former variable was
included based on the previously discussed study by Chartrand and Bargh (1999,
Experiment 3) in which behavioral mimicry appeared to be enhanced in participants
who scored high on dispositional empathy, which is closely related to perspective
taking. The latter variable, field dependency, was included based on findings of a
previous research (Van Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand, & Dijkmans, 2004) in which
behavioral mimicry appeared to be heightened in participants who scored high on the
Embedded Figures Test (EFT), a measure of field-dependence/field-independence
(FDI). FDI was defined as “a cognitive style indexed by reliance upon external or
internal cues in information processing contexts” (Horton, 2014, p. 43). The term field-
independence would be applicable to individuals who possess a rather analytical
cognitive processing style that would be relatively unaffected by external factors. Field-
dependence on the other hand would describe a cognitive style that is characterized by
an influence of contextual cues on one’s mental processing (Witkin, Goodenough, &
Oltman, 1979) and was linked to an increased likelihood to engage in behavioral
mimicry in Van Baaren, Horgan, et al. (2004). First of all, the strength of the priming
effects indeed appeared to correlate positively with participants’ scores on perspective
taking. Secondly, there were significant effects of the degree of FDI on syntactic
priming found. These findings were, however, in the opposite direction as hypothesized:
while it was predicted that higher levels of field-dependence would correlate positively
with structural priming, it was found that higher levels of field-independence were
associated with more structural priming. Although these findings seem to contrast Van
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !11
Baaren, Horgan, et al.’s findings (2004), it is important to note that in the latter study the
effects of levels of FDI on behavioral mimicry were studied, while in Horton’s study
(2014) the effects of FDI on verbal mimicry were assessed. Nevertheless, the latter
study’s findings of higher levels of field-independence to be associated with increased
levels of verbal mimicry are remarkable and rather counterintuitive given the content of
the concept of FDI.
Another study hypothesized that individuals with high levels of social anxiety
would display less behavioral mimicry than individuals scoring low on social anxiety
(Vrijsen, Lange, Becker, & Rinck, 2010). Social anxiety is characterized by
impairments in social abilities (Bögels, Rijsemus, & De Jong, 2002; Voncken & Bögels,
2008) and by lowered levels of pleasantness to interact with (Heerey & Kring, 2007),
which led Vrijsen and his colleagues to suggest that this might be caused or at least
strengthened by deficiencies in mimicry behavior. Whereas in most conversations
mimicry behavior evolves naturally and is often assumed to serve the displaying of
feelings of affiliation, the absence of this behavior in high socially anxious individuals
might disrupt and impede smooth interaction. In Vrijsen and his colleagues’ study both
individuals scoring high on social anxiety and individuals scoring low on social anxiety
were included and watched a virtual avatar as it set out his opinion on a certain
(irrelevant) topic. During this presentation the avatar moved his head ten times in
specific ways. Four raters scored the extent to which participants tended to copy the
avatar’s head movements; as expected low anxious participants mimicked the avatar
more than high anxious participants. These results thus suggest that socially anxious
individuals’ impairments in social interactions might be (partially) brought about by a
lack of displaying feelings of affiliation due to their lowered levels of behavioral
mimicry. We will return to the relationship between social anxiety and mimicry in the
next section.
Yu, Abrego-Collier, and Sonderegger (2013) were among those authors who
argued that if individual differences appear to influence (verbal) mimicry, Big Five
personality traits might explain a large part of the variation in mimicry among people.
The Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a commonly used framework which
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !12
consists of the five main personality traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness,
Openness (to experience) and Conscientiousness. These factors are found based on the
lexical hypothesis, which states that highly important personality traits will become
encoded (as a single word) in people’s language. This implies that the most important
personality factors would be the ones that are referred to most often in people’s use of
language (e.g. Crowne, 2007). The Big Five personality factors are confirmed by factor
analysis across different ages and cultures among others. They do not show any overlap
in content and the main differences between individuals’ personalities would be
captured adequately and sufficiently by these factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Therefore, including this model into a research design might offer valuable information
on which distinct individual variables might be responsible for the variation in mimicry
among individuals. Although Yu and his colleagues tested for the influence of many
different variables on phonetic mimicry of which the full discussion reaches beyond the
scope of this thesis, we wish to review the findings on the role of the Big Five traits into
more detail. Participants in this study were asked to read aloud a word list after which
they were exposed to a story told by a male narrator. In this story the target words that
were previously read by the participants were included, but the narrator’s voice onset
time (VOT) of the target words was doubled artificially. The VOT is the time that passes
between the release of a plosive and the beginning of vocal fold vibration and is often
used as an independent variable in phonetic imitation research (Nielsen, 2011). After
being exposed to the narrative, participants had to read aloud the same word list again
(in a different randomized order). After completion of the word list participants were
administered several measures, including the Big Five Inventory (BFI). It was found
that individuals who scored high on the trait of Openness tended to assimilate their VOT
of target words in the second word list significantly more to that of the narrator than did
participants who scored low on Openness. Yu et al. argued that this effect might be
caused by the greater level of engagement that goes together with the trait of Openness.
Individuals who thus engaged more in the task would pay more attention to the specifics
of how the narrator exactly pronounced the words. Apart from Openness, no significant
effects of Big Five personality traits on phonetic imitation were found.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !13
Gill, Harrison, and Oberlander (2004) focused on only two Big Five factors,
namely Extraversion and Neuroticism. As typical in syntactic priming research, a
picture naming paradigm was applied in which in every session a real participant and a
confederate participated. In this study the primes were either in the active or passive
voice. Gill and his colleagues expected Extraversion to correlate positively with priming
effects, since Extraversion appears to be linked to approach behaviors. Individuals who
score high on Extraversion might then be more inclined to coordinate with their
conversation partner on linguistic style – and thus show more verbal mimicry – than
individuals with low levels of Extraversion would do. For Neuroticism an opposing
hypothesis was formulated: since Neuroticism tends to be associated with withdrawal
behaviors, one might expect individuals scoring high on Neuroticism to engage less in a
joint activity with their conversation partner, and thus to show less verbal mimicry than
individuals scoring low on Neuroticism. However, the results showed some
discrepancies with the hypothesized outcomes. For Extraversion, no significant effects
were found: the Low, Mid, and High Extraversion groups all displayed similar degrees
of verbal mimicry. For Neuroticism on the other hand interesting significant results
were obtained: both the High and the Low Neuroticism group showed significantly less
verbal mimicry than the Mid Neuroticism group did. The research group suggested that
these findings can be explained with an adjustment to the earlier hypothesis. Namely,
the High Neuroticism group tends to show decreased levels of verbal mimicry
according to the previously stated hypothesis, but the Low Neuroticism group might
also show decreased levels of mimicry due to their disinterest in monitoring their own
and the conversation partner’s verbal behavior (p. 467). However, the explanations of
these results are formulated rather post-hoc and should therefore be applied critically.
Based on previous studies showing that the trait of affiliation significantly
predicted imitative behaviors (Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008; Lakin & Chartrand,
2003; Martin, Guéguen, & Fischer-Lokou, 2010) , Kurzius (2015) hypothesized that 2
individuals scoring high on the Big Five factors of Extraversion and Agreeableness
However, as a critical note we argue that given the results of Ashton-James and Levordashka (2013) 2
previously discussed one might also suggest that the desire to be liked, rather than the desire to affiliate, might have played a crucial role in these findings.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !14
would show higher levels of speech rate imitation than individuals who score low on
these factors would do. Kurzius argued that these factors and other interindividual
differences that are found to affect mimicry behavior (e.g. empathy in Sonnby-
Börgstrom, 2002; self-construal orientation in Van Baaren, Maddux, et al., 2003) might
be more specific expressions of the overarching trait of affiliation. Additional support
for this hypothesis is offered by Extraversion’s and Agreeableness’ closeness to the
affiliation dimension on the interpersonal circumplex (for more information see Kiesler,
1996; Kurzius, 2015; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995; Wiggins &
Pincus, 1994). The other three factors of the Big Five model - Neuroticism, Openness,
and Conscientiousness - would not affect mimicry because of their unrelatedness to
affiliation. As predicted, the results of Kurzius’ study pointed towards higher levels of
mimicry of the confederate’s speech rate (which was either fast or slow) in participants
with high scores on Extraversion. For Agreeableness, however, no significant effects
were observed. Additionally, an effect of levels of Openness on speech rate imitation
was found, with individuals scoring high on Openness imitating more than individuals
scoring low on Openness.
Recently Duffy and Chartrand (2015) addressed the hypothesis whether levels of
Extraversion and motivation to affiliate might affect behavioral mimicry. More
specifically, Duffy and Chartrand speculated that extraverts’ higher social skilfulness as
compared to introverts’ might be moderated by mimicry, but only when motivation to
affiliate is present. Thus, extraverts might unwittingly employ mimicry as a tool to
increase rapport but only when they are motivated to do so. In Duffy and Chartrand’s
experiment motivation to affiliate was manipulated by explaining to the participants that
in order to fulfill the task successfully it would be adaptive to get along with the other
participant (i.e. the confederate). In the control condition no such explanation was
given. Performing an unrelated photo description task during which the confederate
repeatedly touched her hair and face, it was found that extraverts indeed mimicked the
confederate’s behaviors more, but only in the condition in which motivation to affiliate
was present. Whereas it is usually assumed that extraverts are more sociable in general
(Argyle & Lu, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987), Duffy and Chartrand’s study questions
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !15
this relationship by assuming that this only holds in the presence of a motivation to
affiliate.
A comprehensive third recent study on the relationship between nonverbal
mimicry and affiliation provided more differentiating findings as well (Kurzius &
Borkenau, 2015). Kurzius and Borkenau were among the first to focus on naturally
occurring mimicry behavior among two naive participants. One of their main aims was
to not only assess which broad personality factors (i.e. the Big Five factors and the
Affiliation and Dominance dimensions of the Interpersonal Circumplex model) affect
mimicry behavior, but additionally to offer a more specific and differentiating theory on
which individual differences affect which specific behaviors in which contexts. This
way they for example found that whereas Affiliation and Agreeableness enhance
mimicry of positive behaviors (e.g. nodding, leaning forward), high scores on
Neuroticism tend to be associated with increased mimicry of negative behaviors, such
as head shaking and shrugging. Surprisingly, high scores on Extraversion did not seem
to be associated with increased mimicry of positive behaviors, but rather with increased
mimicry of negative behaviors. Kurzius and Borkenau hypothesize that this might serve
the goal of communicating social status. The authors conclude that since different
behaviors have different communicative meanings, it is not surprising that mimicry can
be expressed differently depending on individuals’ personality factors, and future
studies should take this into account.
Reviewing the studies discussed in this section we can conclude that although
research regarding possible moderators of mimicry behavior stills seems to be in its
infancy, interesting results have been found. At first glance, various findings regarding
the role of specific Big Five personality factors in verbal mimicry seem to contradict
each other: whereas Gill et al. (2004) for example found significant effects of levels of
Neuroticism on verbal mimicry, this was not found in other verbal mimicry studies
(although we emphasize that these comparisons should be treated with care since
different verbal properties were studied; Kurzius, 2015; Yu et al., 2013). Similarly,
whereas Yu et al. (2013) and Duffy and Chartrand (2015) found effects of levels of
Openness on verbal mimicry, this relationship was absent in Gill et al.’s study (2004).
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !16
Nevertheless, several other previous studies aimed and succeeded to explain the
relationship between various individual difference aspects and (verbal) mimicry in
terms of differences in individuals’ desire to affiliate (e.g. Ashton-James &
Levordashka, 2013; Duffy & Chartrand, 2015; Kurzius & Borkenau, 2015). Perhaps the
diverging results concerning the role of Big Five factors in verbal mimicry might be
explainable by differences between studies regarding participants’ desire to affiliate.
Future research should therefore aim to specify the mechanisms and underlying causes
for mimicry behavior further, which is also one of the goals of the current study.
Positive effects of mimicry and its relation with individual differences
Continuing with the function of mimicry behavior, mimicry is an understandable
phenomenon from an evolutionary perspective (Lakin et al., 2003). In order to be able
to successfully pass on their genes, our ancestors had to live harmoniously with one
another. Since especially in the past people were highly dependent of each other for
survival, behaviors such as cooperation, communication and living in peace with each
other were of crucial importance. People that succeeded in this behavior were
consequently more likely to survive and reproduce. Group members’ nonverbal
behaviors could offer cues about possible dangers in the surrounding environment and it
is often argued that mimicry would be an essential tool to successfully inform others
about these dangers (Condon & Sander, 1974). Additionally, as discussed previously,
another function of mimicry behavior might be to provide a means to increase social
acceptance and affiliation (Lakin et al., 2003), which would enhance individuals’
chances of survival by belonging to the group. The nonverbal gestures that were
essential for survival and for smooth communication within groups would have become
forms of unconscious imitation over time, which would make interactions – also in
contemporary societies – more efficient (Lakin et al., 2003). It is likely that this
tendency to mimic others can nowadays be understood in terms of the need to belong
and the desire to be included in social groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which can be
interpreted as an altered expression of an evolutionary adaptive function.
The hypothesis of mimicry benefiting social engagements seems to be supported
by empirical findings as well. Early studies already observed that mimicry might have
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !17
valuable effects in several contexts; mimicry in therapy sessions (Charney, 1966;
Maurer & Tindall, 1983) and in classroom settings (Bernieri, 1988) tends to increase
affiliation, empathy, and rapport for example (Hale & Hamilton, 2016). Chartrand and
Bargh (1999) were among the first to test the hypothesis of mimicry leading to
increased liking of the interaction partner experimentally and additionally argued that
imitation might facilitate the smoothness of the interaction. These hypotheses were
confirmed in an experiment in which participants were required to perform a photo
description task together with a confederate, who did or did not mimic the participant’s
movements, mannerisms, and posture during the task. Participants reported increased
liking of the confederate if the latter had mimicked them during the performance of the
task. Similar results were obtained in a more naturalistic setting in which female
confederates took part in speed dating sessions (Guéguen, 2009). When the female
confederates mimicked men’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors during five-minute
conversation sessions they were evaluated more positively in terms of (sexual)
attractiveness by their conversation partners than when they had not mimicked them.
Furthermore, as in Chartrand and Bargh’s study (1999), men perceived the interaction as
going more effortless and were additionally more likely to exchange contact
information if their behaviors were imitated during the speed dating session as
compared to when they were not. An inventive study similar to that of Vrijsen, Lange,
Becker, and Rinck (2010) found that such positive effects of mimicry on liking could
even be observed in individuals interacting with a virtual agent (Bailenson & Yee,
2005). Participants interacted with an agent in a virtual environment setting that
presented participants with a persuasive message during which their head movements
were imitated (or not) with a delay of four seconds. As expected from previous studies
with human agents, imitated participants rated the agent’s arguments are more
persuasive and evaluated him more positively than non-imitated participants did.
Comparable findings were obtained regarding feelings of liking and trust towards a
behaviorally mimicking virtual agent (Verberne, Ham, Ponnada, & Midden, 2013) and
regarding the effects of a verbally imitating (i.e. imitation of prosodic aspects of the
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !18
participants’ speech) virtual agent on individuals’ interpersonal relation with it (Suzuki,
Takeuchi, Ishii, & Okada, 2003).
Not only do individuals’ subjective evaluations and feelings appear to be altered
due to mimicry behavior, also positive behavioral modifications can be observed. Van
Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, and Van Knippenberg (2004, Experiment 1) found that
participants in an experimental session were more likely to pick up one or several of six
pens that the experimenter “accidentally” dropped if they were previously mimicked
behaviorally by the experimenter (during a task to disguise the real purpose of the
study) as compared to when they were not. Whereas this study focused on implicit
helping behavior (i.e. helping spontaneously), Guéguen, Martin, and Meineri (2011)
assessed whether these effects could be extended to helping behavior regarding explicit
helping requests. In this study participants were mimicked behaviorally (or not, in the
control condition) by a female confederate (who acted as a participant) during an
experimental session in which they had to discuss their opinions regarding an irrelevant
topic. Upon leaving the experiment, the confederate explained to the participant that she
was required to ask someone she did not know to evaluate a written essay for a French
course. The confederate asked the participant if she could help her with this assignment
and that she would need the essay back within 48 hours. Imitated participants were
more likely to comply with this request than non imitated participants were, suggesting
that behavioral mimicry can also lead to increased prosocial behavior on explicit
helping requests. Another study found that increased helping behavior on explicit
requests can also be observed after verbal mimicry (Müller, Maaskant, Van Baaren, &
Dijksterhuis, 2012); verbally imitated individuals were more likely to accompany a
stranger during a walk to the train station, which took as much as 15 to 20 minutes, than
non-imitated individuals were.
Although critics argue that these effects would be brought about by the improved
rapport between interlocutors after conversing and that therefore these effects would be
partner-specific (e.g. Guéguen et al., 2011), several studies aimed (and succeeded) to
provide results suggesting otherwise (e.g. Ashton-James et al., 2007; Van Baaren,
Holland, et al., 2004). Van Baaren, Holland, and their colleagues (2004, Experiment 2)
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !19
were the first to assess this specific question, and found positive effects of behavioral
mimicry towards third persons as well. In an experiment similar to the one described
previously in this section (in which the experimenter dropped several pens; Van Baaren,
Holland, et al., 2004, Experiment 1) it was found that also when another researcher
entered the room and dropped the pens, mimicry seemed to lead to increased
helpfulness as measured by an increased likelihood to pick up the pen(s). Thus, the
prosocial consequences of being mimicked appeared to reach beyond the imitator.
Similar results were found in a comparable third experiment in which the dependent
variable was the amount of money donated to charity at the end of the session. Not only
donated participants in the mimicry condition more often money than participants in the
non-mimicry condition did, they also donated a larger amount of money than
participants that were not mimicked by the experimenter did. Similar results of
increased prosocial behavior towards others in general after mimicry were found by
Ashton-James and her colleagues (2007), who found that individuals that were
mimicked during an experimental session were more likely to fill out an extra
questionnaire for another researcher voluntarily than were individuals that were not
imitated.
Another study showed that after being mimicked behaviorally individuals tend to
show increased closeness towards people in general and towards unknown others as
well, not only towards the interlocutor (Van Baaren & Chartrand, 2005). In two
experiments participants’ movements and mannerisms were imitated by the
experimenter during a task in which participants had to rate a series of advertisements.
In the first experiment it was found that imitated individuals rated their feelings of
closeness towards people in general higher than did individuals that were not imitated,
whereas the second experiment resulted in similar findings regarding actual behavior
towards an unknown individual. In this second experiment participants were asked -
after the mimicry session - to take a seat in a waiting room in which one seat seemed to
be occupied, as feigned by the presence of personal items such as a coat, a bag, and
some documents. The distance of the seat of the participant’s choice to the occupied seat
would indicate the participant’s preference of closeness to the unidentified individual,
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !20
an inventive measure that was introduced in a earlier study by Holland, Roeder, Van
Baaren, Brandt, and Hannover (2004). As expected, imitated individuals chose a seat
closer to the occupied seat than did individuals that were not imitated, suggesting an
increased preference of being close to unknown others. In sum, the studies discussed
above seem to provide compelling findings that being imitated behaviorally results in
more prosocial behavior to the imitator, and additionally that this effect might be
generalized to third parties as well.
Similarly, being mimicked verbally appears to enhance one’s prosociality as well
(e.g. Kulesza, Dolinski, Huisman, & Majewski, 2013; Van Baaren, Holland, et al.,
2003). An inventive and naturalistic study that reflected the consequences of being
mimicked semantically (i.e. having your utterances repeated) was carried out by Van
Baaren, Holland, et al. (2003). In this experiment customers’ orders were or were not
repeated by a waitress immediately after taking their orders. Interestingly, the waitress
received significantly more often tips when she copied the customers’ words as
compared to when she did not copy them. Additionally, the average amount of money
tipped was higher after verbal mimicry as well. A follow-up study by Jacob and
Guéguen (2013) emphasized the strength of this effect. In this study a similar paradigm
as in Van Baaren, Holland, et al.’s research (2003) was applied, except for the
adaptation of a delayed mimicry condition. More specifically, also in this study the
waitress mimicked the customers’ orders in the experimental condition, however, she
only did this when she delivered the customers’ drinks to the table. In the control
condition no verbal mimicry was present. The results demonstrated that even after non-
immediate mimicry of customers’ orders an increased frequency and amount of tipping
could be observed, as compared to situations where no verbal imitation was existent.
Thus, the authors conclude that being mimicked verbally might enhance people’s
generosity.
Kulesza and his colleagues (2013) found similar positive effects of verbal
mimicry towards third persons in an experiment carried out in a currency exchange
office in Poland. In this field experiment customers’ currency exchange request was
imitated (or not) by the cashier, who would ask the customer to donate money to a
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !21
charity project after the transaction was made. In this study special attention was
attributed to the exact implementation of the conditions, since an earlier study indicated
that engaging in dialogue can already be sufficient to elicit an increase in prosocial
behavior (Dolinski, Nawrat, & Rudak, 2001). Therefore, argued Kulesza et al., in many
mimicry studies there might be a confound between mimicry and dialogue since in
mimicry conditions there are often more aspects of dialogue present than in non-
mimicry conditions. That is, mimicry conditions usually consist of repeating the
interlocutors message (such as for example in Van Baaren, Holland et al., 2003, and in
Jacob & Guéguen, 2013), whereas in non-mimicry conditions often only a sign of
having received the message is provided. Thus, in order to study the unique effects of
mimicry on prosocial behavior, aspects of dialogue should be kept as constant as
possible over conditions, argued Kulesza and his colleagues. Their extensive field
experiment included five different conditions: two mimicry conditions (one in which the
exact message was repeated, and one in which the same words were employed but in a
different order), one dialogue condition (in which the response consisted of the same
number of words as the message of the customer), and two control conditions (one in
which only ‘okay’ or a similar response was provided, and one in which the cashier did
not respond at all). The main finding of relevance here was that the effects of mimicry
could not be reduced to the effects of dialogue: customers in both mimicry conditions
donated more money to charity than did customers in the dialogue condition.
Additionally, they found that customers in the dialogue condition in their turn made
more donations than customers in the control conditions did, which is in accordance
with Dolinski and his colleagues’ previous findings (2001) and stresses the importance
of taking aspects of dialogue into consideration when conducting mimicry research.
Another study set out to assess the effects of coupled behavioral and verbal mimicry of
salesmen towards customers (Jacob, Guéguen, Martin, & Boulbry, 2011) and found that
mimicked customers were more likely to adhere to the salesmen’s advice and to have
purchased products in the store. Additionally, mimicked customers gave more positive
evaluations of both the salesmen and the store than did non-mimicked customers.
Although we value this study’s comprehensiveness of assessing many of the findings
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !22
we discussed in the previous part of this section highly, in our opinion a downside of
this study is that one can not determine whether both verbal and behavioral mimicry
contributed to these effects, or whether only one of them was responsible for the
increase in positive affect and positive behavior. Fischer-Lokou, Martin, Guéguen, and
Lamy’s research (2011) did take this issue into account in their field experiment in
which passersby were mimicked either verbally or both verbally and behaviorally
during a brief conversation in which they were asked directions by a confederate. After
this inquiry another confederate was asking for money further down the street, of which
it was found that mimicry (either verbally or both behaviorally and verbally) increased
compliance to donate money. Interestingly, no significant difference between these two
mimicry conditions appeared to be present, reflecting a possible absence of any
cumulative effects of verbal and behavioral mimicry. A logical follow-up research
would assess whether also behavioral mimicry alone would be able to induce these
effects.
Also Taylor and Thomas’ study (2008) stressed that verbal mimicry’s positive
effects do not solely arise in artificial experimental sessions but also in real life - though
highly exceptional - situations such as hostage negotiations. More specifically, Taylor
and Thomas examined correlations between Linguistic Style Matching (LSM) and
hostage negotiation outcomes. The term LSM was first coined by Niederhoffer and
Pennebaker (2002) and “rests on the notion that individuals’ use of words and phrases
reflects their global perception of a situation and their explicit concerns and goals at any
moment in time”, according to Taylor and Thomas (2008, p. 4). Thus, the synchronicity
between both interlocutors’ linguistic style would be an important aspect of LSM and
might indicate how harmonious a conversation is. Thomas and Taylor therefore
hypothesized that the level of LSM present in hostage negotiations might be an
explanatory variable regarding the outcome of it. More specifically, the higher the level
of LSM, the more likely a positive outcome would be. Taylor and Thomas analyzed
transcripts of nine hostage situations and concluded that, as hypothesized, successful
negotiations were associated with higher levels of LSM than were unsuccessful
negotiations. Although the results found in this research seem to be in line with
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !23
previously discussed studies, we argue that it would not be unlikely that in these
analyses a third variable might have mediated the effects. Recently another study
reported comparable effects regarding confessions in police interrogations (Richardson,
Taylor, Snook, Conchie, & Bennell, 2014). Richardson and her colleagues analyzed
language use in 64 interrogation sessions and found that although overall bidirectional
LSM did not correlate with crime confession, when comparing specifically suspects’
language adaptation towards that of the interrogator it was found that increased LSM
tended to be associated with confession. Having discussed two studies on LSM we wish
to emphasize that LSM presumably has a broader scope than genuine verbal mimicry.
Although we therefore evaluate the results discussed in this section carefully regarding
the current research interests, we intend to illustrate the important role verbal adaptation
in real life communication might have.
Although numerous studies focused on individual differences in mimicry behavior
- as we discussed extensively in the previous section -, only a handful of studies
examined possible modulating factors regarding responses to being mimicked. Stel et al.
(2011) argued that since prosocially oriented individuals value mutual goals highly
whereas proself individuals focus more on their personal goals and gains, this might
cause the latter to be less responsive to mimicry. Prosocial individuals might
(unconsciously) process the mimicking behavior of the interlocutor as an effort to
engage in successful communication, while this might remain unnoticed to proselfs.
Participants were categorized as proself or prosocial based on their behavior in a game
(for more information see Stel et al., 2011) after which they interacted with a
(behaviorally) mimicking or non-mimicking confederate. Prosocially oriented
individuals rated the confederate as more sympathetic when they had been imitated by
him or her, an effect found in numerous studies as discussed previously. For individuals
that were defined as being proself, however, the effects of mimicry on positive
evaluations appeared to be absent, which seems to be in line with Stel and her
colleagues’ hypothesis.
Furthermore, whereas Van Baaren, Maddux, et al. (2003) focused on individuals’
levels of in(ter)dependent self-construal regarding their own mimicry behavior, Leander
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !24
et al. (2012) aimed to assess how this aspect might affect responses to being mimicked.
An inventive study was conducted in which reactions to mimicry behavior were
measured implicitly by asking participants to estimate the temperature of the room after
being mimicked nonverbally or not. Research has shown that when social norms or
standards are violated this tends to activate feelings of physical coldness (Bargh &
Shalev, 2012; IJzerman & Semin, 2009; Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008), so that when
individuals are mimicked more or less than they would prefer this would lead to an
underestimation of the room temperature due to the feelings of uncomfortableness that
activate physical coldness, argued Leander and his colleagues. They hypothesized that
individuals with a highly independent self-construal prefer not to be mimicked, which
would be reflected in an underestimation of the room temperature after being mimicked.
Individuals with a highly interdependent self-construal on the other hand value mimicry
behavior highly and would respond negatively to not being mimicked. Results were in
line with these hypotheses, not only showing that levels of in(ter)dependent self-
construal might affect preferences and reactions to being mimicked, but also suggesting
that such preferences are reflected in physical responses. However, as a final note we
argue that these results should be evaluated critically since a recent study (Lynott et al.,
2014) was not able to replicate previous findings regarding the relationship between
subjective temperature and prosocial inclinations (Williams & Bargh, 2008, Experiment
2).
Finally, another study by Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, et al. (2010) found that not only
do high socially anxious individuals mimic less than individuals scoring low on anxiety,
a logical consequence is that they also respond less positive to being mimicked than
non-anxious individuals do. In a similar experiment as the one by Vrijsen, Lange,
Becker, and Rinck (2010) we previously described it was found that high socially
anxious participants did not like a mimicking avatar more than a non-mimicking avatar,
while low anxious participants did evaluate the mimicking avatar as more likable. These
results thus suggest a bidirectional pattern: certain traits might not only cause
individuals to display altered levels of mimicry themselves, they might also install a
differential pattern regarding responses to being mimicked by others.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !25
The studies discussed in this section could lead us to conclude that both verbal
and behavioral imitation might lead to increased prosocial behavior towards the
mimicker (Jacob & Guéguen, 2013; Van Baaren, Holland, et al., 2003) and towards
third parties (Kulesza et al., 2013; Van Baaren, Holland, et al., 2004; for a
comprehensive review on findings up to date see also Hale & Hamilton, 2016).
Additionally, several individual difference aspects, such as prosociality (Stel et al.,
2011) and social anxiety (Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, et al., 2010), are found to affect
responses to behavioral mimicry. As far as we are aware however, no studies have
assessed these prosocial effects regarding syntactic mimicry specifically, neither have
researchers investigated the role of individual differences regarding responding to
verbal imitation. As will be clear after the next section, this will be two of the
innovative aspects of the current study.
The current study: the relationship between mimicry and personality factors
After having discussed different forms of (verbal) mimicry and several of its
predictors and consequences, we have arrived at our current objective of study. Here our
focus was twofold: first, we aimed to extend previous research on the prosocial
consequences of verbal imitation. However, in contrast to previous studies we
investigated the extent to which these effects arise with syntactic mimicry (instead of
semantic mimicry as is usually applied, see for example Jacob & Guéguen, 2013,
Kulesza et al., 2013, and Van Baaren, Holland, et al., 2003) in order to assess whether
such findings are generalizable to other verbal properties as well. Additionally, whereas
most studies focused on prosocial behavior towards the interlocutor, we wished to
analyze whether these effects can be found regarding prosocial behavior towards third
persons in an experimental setting. Several studies already found general prosocial
effects of verbal imitation in naturalistic experiments (e.g. Kulesza et al., 2013; Müller
et al., 2012), however, as far as we are aware no studies on the prosocial consequences
of verbal imitation towards others in general have been conducted in controlled
experiments in which specific utterances can be evoked and mimicked. A second
research aim was to systematically investigate how both syntactic imitation and
syntactic imitation’s prosocial effects might be related to Big Five personality factors,
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !26
since previous studies suggested that individual differences might play a role in mimicry
behavior. Towards this end, we implemented an experiment in which the first part
examined the role of Big Five factors on active mimicry by the participants themselves,
while the second part studied the relationship between participants’ scores on the Big
Five and their prosocial behavior towards a third person after being mimicked
syntactically. Based on the previously discussed studies we hypothesized that syntactic
mimicry – as compared to syntactic non-mimicry – leads to increased prosocial
behavior towards third parties, and that overall individuals do tend to imitate the
confederate’s dative structure (i.e. prepositional object dative and double object dative,
for examples see Bock’s study discussed previously [1986]). Given the relative
sparseness and contradicting findings of studies assessing the role of Big Five
personality factors in verbal imitation and its consequences, we do not consider
ourselves in the position of formulating specific predictions regarding the question how
Big Five personality factors might relate to both active verbal mimicry and the possible
prosocial consequences of being mimicked verbally, and therefore emphasize the
current study’s explorative role regarding these aspects. However, we do support the
previously discussed suggestion that the desire to affiliate might be one of the main
underlying traits that affects mimicry behavior and individuals’ responses to it. One
might then expect that for example the factor of Extraversion could be of significance
here because of extraverted individuals’ relatively high levels of sociability (Gosling,
Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Higher levels of Extraversion might then be associated with
increased levels of verbal alignment because of extraverts’ desire to affiliate with the
interlocutor. Similarly, these individuals might also respond positively to being
mimicked since this might be interpreted as an effort of the interlocutor to communicate
at the same level and to affiliate. On the other hand, Big Five personality factors that are
less related to affiliation preferences, such as Conscientiousness and Openness, are
expected not to play a role in mimicry behavior. Nevertheless, once again we stress that
given the apparent lack of consistent findings in previous studies we wish to explore the
possible effects with an open view. If one or several of the Big Five factors appear to
have a significant effect on verbal mimicry, future research might concentrate on the
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !27
further specification of which subaspects of the factor(s) play a crucial role in these
processes and whether individuals’ desire to affiliate is indeed related to this.
Returning to the specifics of the current experiments, all participants were
subjected to both parts of the study, which were carried out with the help of a female
confederate. Participants were instructed to perform a picture description task together
with “another participant” (i.e. the confederate; cfr. Branigan et al., 2000). Both the
participant and the confederate were asked to alternately describe pictures that were
displayed on their computer screen to the other person, who would verify whether or not
the same picture was shown on her screen. In the first part of the study we measured the
proportion of the confederate’s sentence structures (either PO or DO) that were imitated
by the participant. In the second part the experimental set up was equal to the first part
except for the fact that turns changed and now the confederate did (in the experimental
condition) or did not (in the control condition) purposefully imitate the syntactic
structure as applied by the participant. Then, to measure participants’ degree of
prosocial behavior towards third parties we offered them another researcher’s
questionnaire of which they could freely decide whether and for how long they wished
to complete it. For more details we refer to the Procedure section of Experiment 2. The
two experiments followed each other as if it were one experiment consisting of two
blocks; participants were not aware of the shift in research purposes. We linked the
results of both parts of the study to participants’ scores on the NEO Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), a Big Five questionnaire.
Experiment 1
As was set out previously, in the first of two experiments we aimed to
investigate the role of Big Five personality factors on the extent to which people engage
in syntactic mimicry in a picture description task carried out with a confederate.
Method
Participants. Forty-one Caucasian female participants were included in this
experiment. Participants could sign up online for the experiment through the
university’s experiment schedule system. They were paid €10 for their 60 minutes of
participation and were required to have Dutch as their native language. Ages ranged
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !28
from 18 to 47 years (M = 23.49, SD = 5.33 years). Unbeknownst to the participants,
they performed a task in alternation with a confederate of the experimenter. A 22-year
old female confederate fulfilled the role of the student with whom participants
performed the task. She was kept as blind as possible regarding the research purposes.
Only female participants were included in this study in order to minimize
possible gender effects. Since studies suggest that a larger similarity among
interlocutors is associated with increased levels of mimicry (Guéguen, Martin, & Vion,
2009; Yabar et al., 2006), including both male and female participants could have
structurally biased the results of Experiment 1.
Participants were asked to fill out the informed consent. For reasons of
credibility also the confederate filled out an informed consent.
Materials. Two sets of item lists were created; one for the confederate and one
for the participant. The stimuli included were adopted from Hartsuiker et al.’s study
(2008), who in their turn applied a translation of an item set created by Branigan et al.
(2000). The experimental session was created using E-Prime 2.0 software (Psychology
Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA).
The item list of the confederate consisted of 24 prime sentences and 48 filler
sentences (see Appendix A and Appendix B respectively). Each prime sentence and each
filler sentence was used only once. Half of the prime sentences consisted of
prepositional object (PO) constructions, while the remaining half was formulated as a
double object (DO) construction. An example of a PO sentence would be “De dokter
verkoopt een appel aan de monnik” (“The doctor sells an apple to the monk”), whereas
the DO version of this sentence would be “De dokter verkoopt de monnik een
appel” (“The doctor sells the monk an apple”). For the exact properties of PO and DO
structures we refer to the Scoring section further on in this Method section. Six different
verbs were used in the prime sentences, each one being included four times (verkopen,
overhandigen, schenken, geven, tonen, laten zien; in English: to sell, to hand, to give, to
give, to show, to show ). Every verb was used in both a DO prime sentence and a PO 3
In Dutch, there is a small nuance difference between schenken and geven, and tonen and laten zien. For 3
a more detailed account, see Hartsuiker et al. (2008).
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !29
prime sentence twice, one time matching the participant’s target picture and one time
not matching the participant’s target picture. Twelve of the 48 filler items consisted of
sentences comprising an intransitive verb (e.g. “The pirate walks”), while the remaining
36 filler items were sentences with a transitive structure (e.g. “The nun kisses the
monk”). The item list of the participant consisted of 24 target pictures and 48 filler
pictures (see Appendix A and Appendix B respectively). Again, each target picture and
each filler picture was used only once. In all of these pictures one or two persons were
depicted with the subscription of a verb. As in the confederate’s item list, the target
pictures could be described by either a DO sentence structure or a PO sentence
structure. The same target verbs as those in the confederate’s item list were included,
each of them appearing four times. Also in the participant’s item list the filler items
consisted of 12 pictures accompanied by an intransitive verb and of 36 pictures
accompanied by a transitive verb.
Every third trial of the confederate contained a prime sentence and consequently
every third trial of the participant encompassed a target picture. The participant’s target
picture always depicted a different verb than the one applied by the confederate on the
previous (prime) trial. Since previous research has demonstrated that there appears to be
no effect of the amount of fillers between prime and target on the strength of the
mimicry effect if there are different verbs assigned to prime and target (Hartsuiker et al.,
2008), we decided to exclusively include a direct target condition in order to keep the
experiment as uncomplicated as possible. Of each of the two lists – one for the
participant and one for the confederate – a counterbalanced list was created in which
only the use of PO and DO prime sentences was reversed (i.e. the meaning of the
sentence was kept identical, only the use of a PO/DO prime was shifted), to ensure that
possible effects of certain verbs preferring one of both sentence structures would be
minimized.
Additionally, participants were offered the Dutch version of the Big Five
questionnaire NEO-FFI (Dutch version by Hoekstra, Ormel, & De Fruyt, 1996; see
Appendix C). The NEO-FFI was originally developed in English by Costa and McCrae
(1992) and is a shortened version of the more extensive NEO Personality Inventory
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !30
(NEO-PI; 1985) and the NEO Personality Inventory revised (NEO-PI-R; 1990). The
NEO-FFI is a 60-item questionnaire which scores individuals on the five main
personality factors of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (to experience) - hence NEO
–, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. Participants can indicate on a 5-point scale to
what extent they agree with the items. Reliability measures of the Dutch version of the
NEO-FFI vary between α = 0.68 and α = 0.86 (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1998). It takes
approximately ten to fifteen minutes to complete the questionnaire. See Table 1 for
participants’ mean scores on the NEO-FFI.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations of participants’ scores on the NEO-FFI
Note. Every factor has a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 48.
Procedure. The participants and the confederate were asked to await the
experimenter in the waiting area near the university’s testing rooms. As mentioned
before, all participants were tested individually but were led to believe that they would
perform a task together with another participant. The participant and the confederate
were seated in front of a computer that was put backwards to the other’s computer. The
experimenter was seated in the corner of the room.
First, the participant and the confederate were asked to complete the paper
version of the NEO-FFI. The confederate was instructed to act out this procedure as
naturally as possible. We explicitly decided to administer the NEO-FFI prior to the
picture description task and not afterwards since previous research has shown that
mimicry might affect certain individual difference aspects, such as self-consciousness
Mean Standard deviation Range
Neuroticism 22.44 7.06 5-35
Extraversion 31.77 6.26 15-44
Openness 27.44 6.29 10-41
Conscientiousness 31.46 7.14 13-44
Agreeableness 30.41 4.52 19-37
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !31
and social anxiety (Guéguen, 2011). Therefore, it would not be unlikely that being
mimicked (in Experiment 2) would distort participants’ scores on the NEO-FFI if we
would administer the questionnaire only afterwards. Secondly, after administration of
the NEO-FFI the actual experimental task started. Participants were told that they would
carry out a picture description task and that the session would be recorded for analysis
purposes. In this task, the participant and the confederate alternately described a picture
appearing in the centre of their screen and the other person had to verify (by pressing 1
[“yes”] or 2 [“no”] on the keyboard) whether or not the picture shown on her screen was
identical to the description. After pressing 1 or 2 the roles changed. Hence, the
participant thought that the confederate was describing pictures as well, while in reality
she was reading prime sentences aloud. The confederate was always first to describe the
picture, so that - as was briefly mentioned previously in the Materials section – every
confederate’s dative prime sentence (i.e. target trials, every third trial) was followed by
a target trial for the participant in which a picture that could be described by either using
a PO sentence structure or a DO sentence structure was displayed. Experiment 1 took
approximately 25 minutes to complete.
Scoring. Recordings of the sessions were transcribed and target trials were
coded as either PO, DO, or “other”. Responses were coded as PO if the verb was
followed by the direct object and if additionally the preposition “to” and the indirect
object were placed after the direct object. Responses in which the indirect object was
placed after the verb, which in its turn was followed by the direct object, were encoded
as DO. Trials in which participants put the preposition and the indirect object after the
verb (e.g. “The nun gives to the soldier the book”), trials in which the indirect object
was not included in the description, and trials that did not contain the required verb
were encoded as “other”. Incorrect naming of the objects or persons in the pictures was
permitted since this was irrelevant regarding the current research purposes.
Results
Data of two participants were excluded from all analyses due to not meeting the
requirements for participation (i.e. not having Dutch as mother tongue). Six trials out of
the total of 936 trials (0.6%) were coded as “other” and were therefore removed from
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !32
our dataset. Of the remaining 930 trials, 765 (82.3%) were coded as PO and 165
(17.7%) were coded as DO.
Data were analyzed applying mixed logit models, which are highly suitable for
the analysis of categorical or binomial data (Jaeger, 2008) and predict the logit
transformed likelihood of a certain outcome, in our case the likelihood of a DO
response. Since on target trials only PO structures or DO structures are possible dative
use is complementary; analyzing and reporting the proportion of PO use too would not
be meaningful (Branigan et al., 2000, p. B20). An advantage of using mixed models
over subject and item analyses of variance (ANOVAs) is that mixed models are capable
of including random effects for both subjects and items simultaneously in one single
model, whereas this is not possible when applying ANOVAs (for a more thorough
discussion on the preference of mixed models over ANOVAs see Jaeger, 2008). As
recommended by Barr, Levy, Scheepers, and Tilly (2013) we constructed a model with
the maximal random effects structure as justified by the data. In this model random
intercepts for subjects and items, and random by-subject and by-item slopes for Prime
were included. The fixed effects consisted of Prime (DO or PO) and participants’
rescaled scores on Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. Additionally, interaction terms between Prime and each of the five
factors were added, which were of main interest in the current experiment. Due to
convergence issues of this model we removed the correlation parameter between the
random slopes and the random intercepts as suggested by Barr et al. (2013, p. 16). Since
this did not solve the model’s non-convergence, we followed Barr and his colleagues’
next step and removed the random intercept for within-unit factors, which did not lead
to a converging model either. Our last attempt was to stepwisely remove the random
effects with the smallest variances until the model would converge. However, this did
not lead to a successfully converging mixed model either. We therefore decided to
include all random effects back into the model and removed the fixed effects with the
smallest effects until the model converged. This led us to a model consisting of fixed
effects for Prime, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and an
interaction between Prime and Extraversion. However, since not the main effects of Big
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !33
Five personality factors on dative use but rather how they interact with prime type was
our point of focus, we checked whether a simpler model with only fixed effects for
Prime, Extraversion, and the interaction between them would have a better fit than the
previously mentioned model. We based this model comparison on the models’ Akaike
information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973). AIC values are often used in model selection
and give an indication of the relative goodness of fit of different models regarding the
data (in which lower values reflect a better fit). Since the simpler model resulted in a
lower AIC value (625.3) than the more extensive model did (629.9), we decided to
adopt the simpler model. As mentioned previously, random intercepts for subjects and
items, and random by-subject and by-item slopes for Prime were included. Data were
analyzed using R software (version 0.99.465, R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
2015) and its package lme4 (Bates, Maechler, & Bolker, 2011).
The results of the model are summarized in Table 2. A significant main effect of
Prime was observed, which was induced by a larger use of DO structures after DO
primes (24.3%) than after PO primes (11.2%; see also Figure 1), a significant priming
effect of 13.1%. Additionally, a significant interaction between Prime and Extraversion
was found. To investigate this effect into more detail each participant was assigned an
imitation score, which was defined as the proportion of DO use after DO primes minus
the proportion of DO use after PO primes. This imitation score was then plotted against
participants’ Extraversion scores, which resulted in a correlation of r = -.20 (95% CI [-.
49, .12]; see Figure 2). Thus, more extraverted individuals tended to imitate the
confederate’s sentence structures less than did individuals scoring low on Extraversion.
Finally, although not of main interest in this study, we found that levels of Extraversion
did not appear to affect DO use.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !34
Table 2
Results model Experiment 1
Note: N = 930, log-likelihood = -302.6
Note. DO = double object, PO = prepositional object
Figure 1. Proportion (and 95% confidence interval) of DO responses per prime type.
Predictor Coefficient SE Wald Z p
Intercept -2.71 2.32 -1.17 .243
Prime -3.03 1.02 -2.97 .003
Extraversion -0.02 0.70 -0.03 .978
Prime x Extraversion 0.68 0.29 2.37 .018
Prop
ortio
n D
O r
espo
nses
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
DO PO
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !35
Figure 2. Relationship between levels of Extraversion and imitation.
Discussion
In Experiment 1 we aimed to replicate previous findings of syntactic mimicry in
a picture description paradigm carried out with a confederate (e.g. Branigan et al., 2000;
Hartsuiker et al., 2008), and additionally addressed the question whether Big Five
personality factors might play a role in the extent to which these effects arise. As in
many previous studies, our results suggested the presence of syntactic mimicry (in
Dutch). Although we did find a (weak but significant) effect of levels of the Big Five
factor of Extraversion on mimicry behavior, these results were in the opposite direction
as we would have presumed. Whereas we would have expected to find higher levels of
alignment among individuals scoring high on Extraversion because of their larger desire
to affiliate with the interlocutor, we in fact found lower levels of alignment among
extraverts. These findings contradict several previous studies (e.g. Gill et al., 2004;
Kurzius, 2015); Kurzius for example found increased verbal mimicry in individuals
scoring high on Extraversion. The current results are also in contrast with Gill et al.’s
Imita
tion
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Extraversion0 10 20 30 40 50
R² = 0.0414
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !36
study (2004) in which no effects of Extraversion on verbal mimicry were found at all.
Especially this latter discrepancy is remarkable. The opposition in findings between our
study and Kurzius’ study might be attributable to disparities in the (verbal) aspect being
investigated. That is, whereas we studied syntactic mimicry, Kurzius focused on speech
rate adaptation. Gill and his colleagues, however, concentrated on the effects of
personality on syntactic mimicry as we did, but did not find any significant effects of
Extraversion on mimicry behavior. Even if we would disregard previously found results
because of their (minor) differences with our experimental design, the present findings
of a negative correlation between levels of Extraversion and imitation are still
remarkable given the concept of Extraversion. Introverts, those who score low on
Extraversion, tend to be characterized by a relatively high independence regarding their
social world (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). Extraverts on the other hand tend to be
highly engaged in their external world and aim to affiliate with their surrounding others.
One would then expect extraverts to be affected more by their interlocutor’s choice of
syntactic structure than introverts would be. Instead, we found introverts to be more
susceptible to mimicry than extraverts.
We therefore suggest that perhaps not Extraversion per se, but rather its complex
interplay with other influencing variables might play a role in mimicry behavior. Similar
to Duffy and Chartrand’s study previously discussed (2015), in which not Extraversion
by itself but rather its interaction with motivation to affiliate appeared to play a crucial
role in mimicry behavior, a certain interplay might also have been present in the current
study. Future studies should therefore not only assess which personality aspects might
affect mimicry, but they should also offer possible frameworks of how, why, and when
they affect this behavior in order to be able to explain possible discrepancies found in
mimicry studies and in order to get more insight in these apparent complex mechanisms
(as was also done by Kurzius & Borkenau, 2015). As Klein et al. (2012) argue,
especially in studies that take place in a social context researchers should aim to
acknowledge and document the role a specific environment might have. It would not be
unlikely that such disparities in social contexts and differences in participants’
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !37
expectations between studies might be accountable for contrasting findings in mimicry
studies.
Experiment 2
As briefly discussed before, in a second experiment we examined the role of Big
Five personality factors on the prosocial effects towards third parties after being
mimicked syntactically.
Method
Participants. After finishing Experiment 1, all participants also took part in
Experiment 2. Half of this group of participants was included in the mimicry condition,
while the other half was included in the non-mimicry condition. Participants were not
aware of the shift in the aim of study; to them it rather seemed the second block of the
first experiment.
As in Experiment 1, regarding the research objectives of Experiment 2 it was
essential to include same-sex participants only. A study by Leander, Chartrand, and
Wood (2011) showed that being mimicked (behaviorally) might induce participants to
act in accordance with certain stereotypes. Thus, different stereotypes might be evoked
in male participants than in female participants as a consequence of the mimicry
present. Since this might distort or complicate the results regarding participants’ levels
of prosocial behavior, this was a second reason to include only female participants in
our experiments.
Materials. The stimuli of Experiment 2 were equal to those used in Experiment
1. Again the participant’s and confederate’s target trials followed each other
immediately and always contained a different verb than the one that was included in the
other’s trial. The stimuli were presented in a different order than in Experiment 1.
Procedure. After completing Experiment 1, all participants were presented with
Experiment 2.
This time, the real participant was instructed to describe the first picture. As in
the first experiment, every third trial was a target trial, but now the participant’s target
trial always preceded the confederate’s target trial, in contrast to the set up of
Experiment 1 in which the participant’s target trial always followed the confederate’s
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !38
target trial. In the mimicry condition of Experiment 2 the confederate adapted her dative
use in every third trial to that of the participant. Thus, if the participant for example used
a PO sentence structure on her third trial, the confederate also used a PO sentence
structure on her third trial. Instead, in the non-mimicry condition the confederate
applied the opposing sentence structure as the one used by the participant. Thus, if the
participant for example used a PO sentence structure on her third trial, the confederate
used a DO sentence structure instead on her third trial. To facilitate this procedure for
the confederate, on critical trials both sentences that could have been applied by the
participant on the previous trial were displayed together with the appropriate target
sentences to read aloud by the confederate (i.e. the same structures in the mimicry
condition and the opposing structures in the non-mimicry condition). This way the
confederate could easily determine which sentence she had to apply and the possibility
of confusion was minimized.
After completion of the second part of the experiment, the confederate was told
to go to the adjacent room where a colleague of the experimenter would await her for
further instructions on a final task. In reality the confederate’s task was finished and she
should leave the room in order not to influence the participant regarding the final task.
Namely, the participant was told that her part of the experiment was already finished,
but that another researcher was conducting a study for which word lists had to be rated
on their age of acquisition. Since this is a time-consuming task, he or she would be very
pleased with a little help of many students. Especially since there was always some time
left, every bit of help participants could offer would be very much appreciated. It was
emphasized that participants could complete the list as far and as long as they wished to
and that if they preferred not to participate in this task they were free to decline. We
measured the time participants were willing to spend on the task; due to time constraints
we set the maximum time to spend on the task to 13 minutes. The time spent on the task
might be a more valid indicator of prosocial behavior than the number of words rated
since there might be a high variability among participants regarding their pace of rating
the words. The word lists we offered participants were originally used in a study by
Brysbaert, Stevens, De Deyne, Voorspoels, and Storms (2014) and were kindly provided
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !39
for use in the current research. Rates on this list were not used for further research
purposes; the only purpose of the list was to quantify participants’ prosocial
inclinations.
Importantly, this second experiment was required to be double blind because if
the experimenter would know that a participant was included in the mimicry condition,
she might (unintentionally) do more effort to let the participant fill out the questionnaire
afterwards. Such experimenter effects have been observed in previous studies and have
been shown to be a possible issue in psychology research (Doyen, Klein, Pichon, &
Cleeremans, 2012). To overcome this issue the files of the sessions were coded
beforehand in such a way that the experimenter did not know at the time of
administration which condition was applied in that specific session. Through the
presentation of the appropriate sentences on the computer screen the confederate would
know whether or not she had to mimic the participant. The experimenter listened to
music during the session in order not to hear whether the confederate imitated the
participant’s sentence structures or not. The recording of the session enabled later
analysis of the results.
Experiment 2 lasted for approximately 15 minutes (without the extra task).
Given the fact that Experiment 1 took approximately 25 minutes to complete, every
participant should have had around 20 minutes left to spend on the task since they were
informed that the experiment would last for 60 minutes. After finishing the extra task,
participants were questioned about possible suspicions regarding the experiment. None
of the participants guessed the purposes of the experiment correctly and all were
debriefed about the content of the study.
Scoring. The task (not) to imitate the participant was not always carried out
successfully by the confederate. With two participants she applied an incorrect structure
twice, and with four participants she applied an incorrect structure once. In some of
these cases incorrect imitation was caused by the use of an incorrect structure by the
participant. Given the total number of 24 target trials we regarded these deviances as
small and decided to accept them.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !40
Results
Data of two participants (one in the imitation condition and one in the no
imitation condition) were excluded from all analyses due to not meeting the
requirements for participation (i.e. not having Dutch as mother tongue; the same
participants as those in Experiment 1). As in Experiment 1, a PO bias appeared to be
present: on 796 out of the total of 936 trials (85.0%) participants produced a PO
structure, whereas on only 135 trials DO structures were used (14.4%). Five trials were
coded as “other” (0.5%). Means and standard deviations (in seconds) per condition on
the time participants spent on the extra task are reported in Table 3. In both the imitation
condition and the no imitation condition nine participants worked the maximum time
available on the extra task (i.e. 13 minutes), an issue to which we will return later.
Table 3
Average time and standard deviation of the time spent on the extra task by Condition
As in the previous experiment, data were analyzed using R. A between-subjects
ANOVA was conducted in which Condition (imitation, no imitation), each of the five
factors, and their interactions with Condition were included as predictors. The time
spent on the extra task constituted the dependent variable as a measure of prosocial
behavior. No significant main effect of Condition on prosocial behavior was found, F(1,
27) = 0.557, p = .462, ηp2 = .002. However, two marginally significant interactions
between Condition and Big Five personality factors appeared to be present; both the
interaction between Condition and Extraversion, F(1, 27) = 3.626, p = .068, ηp2 = .118,
and the interaction between Condition and Neuroticism, F(1, 27) = 3.716, p = .064, ηp2
= .121, reached marginal significance. The interaction between Condition and
Extraversion suggested that in the imitation condition higher levels of Extraversion
tended to be associated with more time spent on the extra task, whereas in the no
Mean Standard deviation
Imitation (n = 19) 648 154
No imitation (n = 20) 653 148
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !41
imitation condition higher levels of Extraversion were associated with less time spent
on the extra task (see Figure 3). Similar results were found regarding the interaction
between imitation and Neuroticism: in the imitation condition higher levels of
Neuroticism tended to be associated with more time spent on the extra task, whereas in
the no imitation condition participants with higher levels of Neuroticism tended to
spend less time on the extra task (see Figure 4). The interactions between Condition and
Openness, F(1, 27) = 0.108, p = .745, ηp2 = .004, between Condition and Agreeableness,
F(1, 27) = 0.609, p = .442, ηp2 = .022, and between Condition and Conscientiousness,
F(1, 27) = 0.289, p = .596, ηp2 = .011, did not reach (marginal) significance.
Figure 3. Relationship between levels of Extraversion and time spent on the extra task
by Condition.
Tim
e sp
ent o
n ex
tra
task
400
550
700
850
1000
Extraversion15 20 25 30 35 40 45
No imitation Imitation
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !42
Figure 4. Relationship between levels of Neuroticism and time spent on the extra task
by Condition.
Although not our primary focus, for reasons of comprehensiveness we also
report the main effects of Big Five personality factors on prosocial behavior, of which
none reached significance. Neuroticism: F(1, 27) = 0.027, p = .871, ηp2 = .007;
Extraversion: F(1, 27) = 0.367, p = .550, ηp2 = .021; Openness: F(1, 27) = 0.703, p = .
409, ηp2 = .041; Agreeableness: F(1, 27) = 0.309, p = .583, ηp2 = .011;
Conscientiousness: F(1, 27) = 0.900, p = .351, ηp2 = .035. We will review the absence of
an effect of Big Five personality factors on prosocial behavior in the Discussion.
In order to ensure that the previously mentioned PO bias did not affect imitation
effects, an ANOVA was performed in which additionally participants’ proportion of PO
production and its interaction with Condition were included. Neither the main effect of
PO production on prosocial behavior nor the interaction between PO production and
Condition reached significance, F(1, 25) = 0.892, p = .354, ηp2 = .011 and F(1, 25) =
0.909, p = .349, ηp2 = .035 respectively, suggesting that the absence of a significant main
Tim
e sp
ent o
n ex
tra
task
400
550
700
850
1000
Neuroticism5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No imitation Imitation
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !43
effect of imitation on prosocial behavior was not caused by participants’ repetitive use
of PO datives.
Additionally, since ceiling effects appeared to be present (18 participants spent
the maximum time available on the extra task), we explored how results might alter
when we would exclude participants who spent the maximum time on the task.
However, because of the small sample size (after exclusion: n = 10 in the imitation
condition and n = 11 in the no imitation condition) we stress that this is only by means
of exploration. Excluding these 18 participants, also here no significant main effect of
imitation on prosocial behavior was observed, F(1, 9) = 2.651, p = .138, ηp2 = .005
(imitation: M = 528, SD = 118, no imitation: M = 545, SD = 122). As in the original
analysis - in which all participants were included - a marginally significant interaction
between Condition and Extraversion was found, F(1, 9) = 4.368, p = .066, ηp2 = .327.
The interaction between Condition and Neuroticism, however, did not reach (marginal)
significance in the current analysis, F(1, 9) = 2.526, p = .146, ηp2 = .219, nor did the
interactions between Condition and Openness, F(1, 9) = 0.899, p = .368, ηp2 = .091,
between Condition and Agreeableness, F(1, 9) = 2.441, p = .153, ηp2 = .213, and
between Condition and Conscientiousness, F(1, 9) = 0.289, p = .596, ηp2 = .042. Also, as
previously, no significant main effects of Big Five personality factors on prosocial
behavior were found, Neuroticism: F(1, 9) = 0.071, p = .935, ηp2 = .040; Extraversion:
F(1, 9) = 1.668, p = .229, ηp2 = .076; Openness: F(1, 9) = 0.529, p = .485, ηp2 = .037;
Agreeableness: F(1, 9) = 0.026, p = .875, ηp2 = .007; Conscientiousness: F(1, 9) =
1.344, p = .276, ηp2 = .097.
Discussion
In a picture description paradigm in which a confederate either mimicked or
non-mimicked the participant’s choice of dative structure no effects of verbal mimicry
on prosocial behavior towards third persons were found. We did find, however, a
significant interaction between mimicry and levels of Extraversion, and between
mimicry and levels of Neuroticism. To our surprise no significant main effects of Big
Five personality factors on prosocial behavior, regardless of imitation, were found.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !44
Although to a certain extent the absence of an increase in prosocial behavior
after being mimicked might seem to contrast a very similar previous study in which
positive effects of syntactic mimicry were observed (Abrahams, 2016), this discrepancy
in findings might be easily explainable: whereas the latter study and many other studies
focused on prosocial behavior towards the interlocutor (e.g. Fischer-Lokou et al., 2011;
Jacob & Guéguen, 2013; Van Baaren, Holland, et al., 2003), the present study aimed to
analyze the change in prosocial behavior towards third persons. Although Van Baaren,
Holland, et al. (2004) found that increased prosocial behavior after behavioral mimicry
can also be observed towards third parties, this effect appeared to be of a smaller size
than the effect towards the interlocutor himself. Perhaps this difference in the magnitude
of the effect is even larger with verbal mimicry, which might explain the absence of an
increase in prosocial behavior after verbal mimicry in our study. If we would have
measured prosocial behavior towards the interlocutor results might have been different.
Nevertheless, some other studies - carried out in real world contexts - still report
increased prosocial behavior towards others in general after being mimicked verbally
(e.g. Kulesza et al., 2013). One suggestion might be that in experimental studies verbal
imitation is not sufficiently powerful to increase prosocial behavior towards third
persons, whereas in everyday situations (like in Kulesza’ and his colleagues' study,
2013, and in Müller et al., 2012) it is. Future studies should therefore aim to get a better
understanding of the prosocial consequences of verbal imitation towards both the
interlocutor and towards third persons, and how this might differ between experimental
settings and real life situations.
As reported in the beginning of this section, we found two interesting
interactions between Big Five personality factors and mimicry that appeared to affect
prosocial behavior. These interactions suggested the presence of a positive relationship
both between levels of Extraversion and prosocial behavior, and between levels of
Neuroticism and prosocial behavior after being mimicked syntactically. In the no
imitation condition these relationships appeared to be negative. The finding of a positive
relationship between levels of Extraversion and prosocial behavior after mimicry seems
understandable given the previous suggestion of the role of affiliation in mimicry.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !45
Extraversion is characterized by an enjoyment of interacting with other people and by a
high social engagement among others (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), and it is
therefore of little surprise that individuals scoring high on this factor respond positively
to being mimicked by someone else. Unwittingly these participants might sense the
confederate’s effort to align on syntactic properties, which could increase levels of
affiliation and consequently prosocial behavior. However, we argue that the positive
relationship between levels of Neuroticism and prosocial behavior after being mimicked
verbally is rather remarkable. An important facet of Neuroticism is the susceptibility to
experience negative emotions, such as anxiety (John, Robins, & Pervin, 2008). Since
Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, et al. (2010) found that, as discussed previously, highly anxious
individuals did not respond positively to a mimicking avatar (whereas low anxious
individuals did), in the present study we would have expected individuals scoring high
on Neuroticism to show decreased levels of prosocial behavior after being mimicked. In
contrast, the opposite relationship was found, which might deserve attention in future
studies.
Finally, the absence of any significant main effect of personality factors on
prosocial behavior (regardless of imitation) is noteworthy. Previous studies found
effects of levels of Extraversion and Agreeableness on volunteering (Carlo, Okun,
Knight, & De Guzman, 2005), of levels of Agreeableness on helping behavior
(Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007), and of levels of Extraversion, Openness,
and Agreeableness on prosocial behavior (Kosek, 1995). Another study found that
volunteers scored higher on Agreeableness and Extraversion than did paid workers
(Elshaug & Metzer, 2001). Given these previous findings, one might then expect to find
an effect of one or several of the Big Five personality factors - most likely Extraversion
and Agreeableness - on the time participants were willing to help out another researcher
with an extra task. Although the general effect of personality factors on prosocial
behavior was not our focus, the absence of such a relationship is surprising.
General Discussion
The present study investigated the role of personality in syntactic mimicry and in
syntactic mimicry’s prosocial effects. Recently there has been a trend in research to
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !46
focus on the role of individual differences regarding nonverbal mimicry (e.g. Duffy &
Chartrand, 2015; Kurzius & Borkenau, 2015) and its consequences (Leander et al.,
2012; Stel et al., 2011; Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, et al., 2010). However, less is known on
how these effects might relate to verbal (syntactic) mimicry. As far as we are aware we
are the first to systematically assess how Big Five personality factors relate to syntactic
mimicry and its effects. As in numerous previous studies (e.g. Branigan et al., 2000;
Hartsuiker et al., 2008) we found dative mimicry in a picture description task that was
carried out with the help of a confederate, and additionally a weak but significant effect
of levels of Extraversion on verbal mimicry was observed. However, these results
contrasted previous studies (e.g. Gill et al., 2004; Kurzius, 2015) by showing that more
extraverted individuals tended to mimic the confederate less than did individuals
scoring low on Extraversion. It was suggested that minor differences between the
current study and previous studies might be responsible for the discrepancy in findings,
however, future research should be conducted to gain more insight in the ongoing
processes. To our surprise we did not find an effect of being mimicked by the
confederate on participants’ prosocial behavior towards third parties. Results did
suggest, however, that both levels of Extraversion and levels of Neuroticism might play
a role in how individuals respond to being mimicked. That is, individuals scoring high
on Extraversion or Neuroticism tended to respond more positively to being mimicked
than individuals scoring low on these factors, as measured by the willingness to help an
unknown individual with an extra task. When not being imitated, however, this pattern
seemed to reverse and findings suggested that prosocial behavior in this situation tends
to decrease as Extraversion or Neuroticism increase.
Not only is it remarkable that individuals scoring high on Extraversion tend to
mimic less than individuals scoring low on Extraversion, even more striking is that
regarding being mimicked opposing effects seem to arise. Simply put, whereas
extraverts display relatively low levels of verbal mimicry themselves, they do respond
more positively to being mimicked than individuals with low levels of Extraversion do.
We would have expected for these effects to point in the same direction, similar to the
effects previously found regarding mimicry in relation to levels of social anxiety
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !47
(Vrijsen, Lange, Becker, & Rinck, 2010; Vrijsen, Lange, Dotsch, et al., 2010). As
discussed previously, Vrijsen, Lange, Becker, and Rinck found that high socially
anxious individuals tend to display decreased levels of mimicry. The study by Vrijsen,
Lange, Dotsch and their colleagues in its turn showed that these individuals do not
respond differently to a mimicking avatar than to a non-mimicking avatar, which seems
reasonable given the finding that they show impaired mimicry themselves. Our
contradictory findings, however, are difficult to interpret. One suggestion is that perhaps
Extraversion - or a specific subaspect of it - has a differential effect on active mimicry
by individuals themselves than on being mimicked by others. We will return to this
matter later on in this section when we put forward several directions for future
research.
Our findings of an absence of an increase in prosocial behavior after syntactic
mimicry in Experiment 2 are in line with Kulesza and his colleagues’ claim that
syntactic mimicry would not be sufficiently strong to induce prosocial behavior (2013,
p. 12). The majority of previous studies investigating and finding prosocial effects of
verbal imitation applied lexical mimicry to examine the effects (e.g. Kulesza et al.,
2013; Van Baaren, Holland, et al., 2003). One hypothesis that we put forward here and
which elaborates on Kulesza and his colleagues’ claim is that syntactic mimicry does
not add as much value to the understandability of the conversation as lexical mimicry
does. That is, copying others’ messages or referring to an object with the same word as
one’s interlocutor does (i.e. lexical mimicry) might have beneficial effects for both
conversation partners by increasing alignment and transparency of the dialogue. Or as
Lewis (1969) put it, conversation can be regarded a game in which both players win if
coordination is achieved. If one feels that his or her interlocutor puts effort in
communicating at the same level, this might induce the prosocial effects that are often
found. We argue that syntactic mimicry, however, does not enhance the message’s
intelligibility; it is rather a matter of preference. Therefore, if one is being imitated
syntactically this does not affect interlocutors’ opinions on the degree to which the
conversation parter wishes to cooperate and hence no increase in prosocial behavior
might be observed. Furthermore, Pickering and Garrod (2004) argued that mimicry of
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !48
aspects that do not relate to meaning (such as syntax) also contribute to install a
cooperative communication style by enhancing mimicry of meaning related aspects
(such as word use). More simply put, syntactic mimicry might activate lexical mimicry.
However, in the current experiment this might not have been present due to the scripted
language of the confederate; she did indeed mimic the participants’ syntax use,
however, this did not cascade into lexical mimicry as might be the case in more natural
speech. Although the current findings are remarkable since we did find syntactic
mimicry by the participants themselves, this leads us to suggest that perhaps syntactic
mimicry is a more subtle phenomenon than lexical mimicry and can therefore be
elicited in individuals’ speech but is too weak to elicit any prosocial effects.
An important point of critique that could be raised is that Experiment 2’s control
condition might not have been completely neutral. That is, whereas in the mimicry
condition participants were mimicked on all target trials, in the no mimicry condition
participants were actually anti imitated on all target trials. One might argue that this is
not a truly neutral situation and that this might therefore distort our view on individuals’
baseline condition of prosocial behavior, what we actually intended to measure in the
control condition. However, although one study found negative effects of behavioral
anti mimicry on prosocial behavior (as compared to a neutral control condition in which
the conversation partner restrained from any behaviors, for more information on this
study see Kulesza, Szypowska, Jarman, & Dolinski, 2014), another study found that
such effects can not be generalized to verbal (syntactic) mimicry (Abrahams, 2016,
Experiment 3). In the latter study no negative effects of syntactic anti imitation in
Spanish were observed: participants in a truly neutral control condition tended to spend
a similar amount of time on an extra task as anti imitated participants did. Although
these findings strengthen our choice of control condition, especially since we were not
eager to include a neutral control condition since this shift in stimuli compared to those
used in Experiment 1 might raise suspicion among participants, the current findings do
contrast Abrahams’ (2016, Experiment 2 and Experiment 3) study in which positive
effects of syntactic mimicry (as compared to syntactic anti mimicry) were found. As
mentioned previously, however, this discrepancy might be due to the fact that the
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !49
current study aimed to investigate prosocial behavior towards third parties whereas
Abrahams’ research focused on prosocial behavior towards the interlocutor. Further
research should be conducted to shed more light on these possible explanations.
Another cause for the discrepancy between our current findings in Experiment 2
and Abrahams’ previous findings (2016) might be the exact implementation of the extra
task. Whereas we administered the extra task in the presence of the experimenter,
Abrahams asked participants to carry out the extra task in an adjacent room at their own
pace. Although in both studies the decline rate was very low (in the present study none
of the participants declined to help with the extra task, and in Abrahams’ study one
participant in Experiment 2 declined and two participants in Experiment 3 declined), we
suggest that the actual presence or absence of the experimenter during the task might
have played a vital role regarding the time participants were willing to spend on the
task. If the experimenter would not have been present, participants might have felt less
rushed for example, or it would have been easier for them to quit with the task when
they wished to. If the presence of the experimenter then had a larger impact on
participants in one of both conditions, this might have created a crucial bias in our
results. Additionally, as discussed previously, ceiling effects might have been present in
the current study since 18 out of 39 participants spent the maximum time on the task.
Although we did explore whether different results would be obtained when we only
analyzed the data of participants who did not spend the maximum time on the task, no
conclusive statements can be drawn from this (due to the small number of participants
after exclusion of these 18 participants). If participants would have carried out the extra
task in a separate room, as was done in the study by Abrahams (2016), both compliance
effects and ceiling effects could have been avoided or reduced.
A first direction for future research might be to further test Kulesza et al.’s claim
(2013) that syntactic mimicry would not be sufficiently strong to induce prosocial
behavior by assessing whether there is a difference between syntactic mimicry and other
levels of alignment regarding prosocial inclinations. Such studies could provide
valuable information regarding the specific role of the type of alignment in verbal
mimicry. It might be useful to replicate the current study with several minor adaptations.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !50
As set out before, we argue that the request to fill out an extra questionnaire is a credible
and useful measure of prosocial behavior, provided that it would be administered as in
Abrahams’ study (2016; i.e. in a separate room without time restrictions). When carried
out as in Abrahams’ previous study it might have several advantages over many other
previously applied measures. Previous (experimental) studies for example often used
dichotomous measures so that prosocial behavior could not be quantified (e.g.
willingness to help out with an extra questionnaire [yes/no] in Ashton-James and her
colleagues’ study, 2007, and the picking up of a pen in Van Baaren, Holland, and their
colleagues’ experiment, 2004). Some other measures consisted of unusual demands for
help, possibly causing the request to give away too much information regarding the
objective of it (e.g. the request to help sharpening pencils after the experiment as
implemented by Whitaker and Bushman, 2012). Other studies applied measures that
were difficult to control, such as the dropping of several pens in Van Baaren, Holland,
and their colleagues’ study (2004). The current measure seems to solve each of these
issues elegantly, and if the task would be carried out as in the previous study by
Abrahams (2016) we argue that this would be a suitable measure of prosocial behavior
in experimental studies. Secondly, future studies might focus on obtaining a more
differentiating view on which aspects of Extraversion might have been responsible for
the contrasting findings of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. If future studies would
include the more extensive NEO-PI-R instead of the brief NEO-FFI in their research
design they might be able to investigate which specific subfacets of NEO-PI-R’s scale
of Extraversion (Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking,
and Positive Emotion; Costa & McCrae, 1992) play a role in these processes. The
diverging findings regarding the effects of levels of Extraversion on verbal mimicry up
to date (e.g. Gill et al., 2004; Kurzius, 2015; the current study) suggest that more
complex and specific processes underpin these findings and that they might not be
captured adequately by a brief questionnaire as the NEO-FFI. Similarly, the NEO-PI-R
could possibly also shed more light on which subaspects of Neuroticism might have
been responsible for Experiment 2’s counterintuitive findings of Neuroticism being
positively related to prosocial behavior in an imitation setting.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !51
Although the current thesis replicated previous findings of syntactic mimicry in
dialogue, we did not find increased prosocial behavior after verbal mimicry as previous
studies did. Several intriguing albeit partially counterintuitive effects regarding the role
of personality in these processes were reported. An integrative account on how Big Five
personality factors might affect verbal mimicry has yet to be developed in order to shed
more light on the underlying mechanisms, and to clarify several of the contrasting
findings recently found in research on the effects of personality on mimicry behavior.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !52
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !53
References
Abrahams, L. (2016). Syntactic Mimicry and Its Prosocial Effects in L1 and L2.
Unpublished manuscript. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum-likelihood
principle. In Petrov, B.N., & Csáki, F. (Eds.), 2nd International Symposium on
Information Theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990a). Happiness and social skills. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11(12), 1255–1261. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90152-H
Ashton-James, C.E., & Levordashka, A. (2013). When the wolf wears sheep’s clothing:
Individual differences in the desire to be liked influence nonconscious
behavioral mimicry. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6),
643-648. doi: 10.1177/1948550613476097
Ashton-James, C.E., Van Baaren, R.B., Chartrand, T.L., Decety, J., & Karremans, J.
(2007). Mimicry and me: The impact of mimicry on self-construal. Social
Cognition, 25(4), 518-535. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.518
Bailenson, J.N., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of
nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science,
16(10), 814-819. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01619.x
Bargh, J. A., & Shalev, I. (2012). The substitutability of physical and social warmth in
daily life. Emotion, 12(1), 154–162. doi: 10.1037/a0023527
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497-529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Barr, D.J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tilly, H.J. (2013). Random effects structure for
confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and
Language, 68(3), 255-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !54
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lmer4: Linear mixed-effects models using
S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-40. http://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=lme4
Bernieri, F.J. (1988). Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-student interactions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(2), 120-138. doi: 10.1007/BF00986930
Bock, J.K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology,
18(3), 355-387. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
Bögels, S.M., Rijsemus, W., & De Jong, P.J. (2002). Self-focused attention and social
anxiety: the effects of experimentally heightened self-awareness on fear,
blushing, cognitions, and social skills. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(4).
doi: 10.1023/A:1016275700203.
Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., & Cleland, A.A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in
dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13-B25. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5
Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Pearson, J., & McLean, J.F. (2010). Linguistic
alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9),
2355-2368. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012
Brennan, S. (1996). Lexical entrainment in spontaneous dialogue. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue, pp. 41-44. Philadelphia, USA.
Brennan, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in
conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 22(6), 1482-1493. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014). Norms
of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta
Psychologica, 150, 80-84. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.010
Campbell, W.K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254-1270. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254
Carlo, G., Okun, M.A., Knight, G., & De Guzman, M.R.T. (2005). The interplay of
traits and motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial
value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293-1305. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !55
Charney, E.J. (1966). Psychosomatic manifestations of rapport in psychotherapy.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 28(4P1), 305-&
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. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.893
Chartrand, T.L., & Lakin, J.L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human
behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285-308. doi:
10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754
Condon, W.S., & Sander, L.W. (1974). Synchrony demonstrated between movements
of the neonate and adult speech. Child Development, 45(2), 456-462. doi:
10.2307/1127968
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources
Coupland, N. (1980). Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society,
9(1), 1-12.
Coupland, N. (1984). Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and their
implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 49-70.
Crowne, D. P. (2007). Personality Theory. Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-542218-4
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1998). The assessment of the Big Five in the Dutch
language domain. Psychologica Belgica, 38(1), 1–22.
Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social
influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11),
1395-1406. doi: 10.1177/01461672012711001
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It’s
all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE, 7(1). doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0029081
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !56
Duffy, K.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (2015). The extravert advantage: How and when
extraverts build rapport with other people. Psychological Science, 26(11),
1795-1802. doi: 10.1177/0956797615600890
Elshaug, C., & Metzer, J. (2001). Personality attributes of volunteers and paid workers
engaged in similar occupational tasks. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(6),
752-763. doi: 10.1080/00224540109600586
Ferreira, V.S., Bock, K., Wilson, M.P., & Cohen, N.J. (2008). Memory for syntax
despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19(9), 940-946. doi: 10.1111/j.
1467-9280.2008.02180.x
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. doi: 10.2466/07.17.21.PR0.108.2.599-605
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in
conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181-218. doi:
10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological
Linguistics, 15(2), 87-105. doi: 10.2307/30029508
Gill, A.J., Harrison, A.J., & Oberlander, J. (2004). Interpersonality: Individual
differences and interpersonal priming. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Chicago, IL.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-
Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. doi:
10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Graziano, W.G., Habashi, M.M., Sheese, B.E., & Tobin, R.M. (2007). Agreeableness,
empathy, and helping: a person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583
Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2001). Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation,
observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta-analysis. Human Brain
Mapping, 12(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1002/1097-0193(200101)12:1<1::AID-
HBM10>3.0.CO;2-V
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !57
Guéguen, N. (2009). Mimicry and seduction: An evaluation in a courtship context.
Social Influence, 4(4), 249–255. doi: 10.1080/15534510802628173
Guéguen, N. (2011). The mimicker is a mirror of myself: Impact of mimicking on self-
consciousness and social anxiety. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(6), 725-
728. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.6.725
Guéguen, N., Martin, A., & Meineri, S. (2011). Mimicry and helping behavior: An
evaluation of mimicry on explicit helping request. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 151(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/00224540903366701.
Guéguen, N., Martin, A., & Vion, M. (2009). The effects of incidental similarity
between two individuals on mimicry behavior. Psychologie française, 54(4),
337-353. doi: 10.1016/j.psfr.2009.09.002
Hale, J., & Hamilton, A. (2016). Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from
others. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 106-123. doi: 10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2016.02.006
Hall, M.L., Ferreira, V.S., & Mayberry, R.I. (2015). Syntactic priming in American Sign
Language. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119611
Hartsuiker, R.J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008).
Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written
and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 214-238. doi:
10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003
Hartsuiker, R.J., & Kolk, H.H.J. (1998a). Syntactic facilitation in agrammatic sentence
production. Brain and Language, 62(2), 221-254. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1905
Hartsuiker, R.J., & Kolk, H.H.J. (1998b). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and
Speech, 41(2), 143-184.
Heerey, E.A., & Kring, A.M. (2007). Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(1), 125-134. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.
116.1.125
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). Handleiding NEO Persoonlijkheids-
vragenlijsten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FFI [Manual for NEO personality inventories
NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI]. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !58
Hogeveen, J., Chartrand, T.L., & Obhi, S.S. (2015). Social mimicry enhances mu-
suppression during action observation. Cerebral Cortex, 25(8), 2076-2082. doi:
10.1093/cercor/bhu016.
Holland, R.W., Roeder, U.R., Van Baaren, R.B., Brandt, A.C., & Hannover, B. (2004).
Don’t stand so close to me: the effects of self-construal in interpersonal
closeness. Psychological Science, 15(4), 237-242.
Horton, W.S. (2014). Individual differences in perspective taking and field-
independence mediate structural persistence in dialog. Acta Psychologica, 150,
41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.006
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R.P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J.C., & Rizzolatti, G.
(1999). Cortical mechanisms of human interaction. Science, 286(5449),
2526-2528. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5449.2526.
IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping
social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1214–1220.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02434.x
Ireland, M.E., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2010). Language style matching in writing:
Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99(3), 549-571. doi: 10.1037/a0020386
Jacob, C., & Guéguen, N. (2013). The effect of employees’ verbal mimicry on tipping.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 109-111. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.006
Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., Martin, A., & Boulbry, G. (2011). Retail salespeople’s mimicry
of customers: Effects on consumer behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 18(5), 381-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.11.006
Jaeger, T.F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or
not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4),
434-446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
John, O.P., Robins, R., & Pervin, L.A. (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and
research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jungers, M.K., & Hupp, J.M. (2009). Speech priming: Evidence for rate persistence in
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !59
unscripted speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(4), 611-624. doi:
10.1080/01690960802602241
Karremans, J.C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others:
The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(7), 939-950. doi: 10.1177/0146167208316693
Kiesler, D.J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research. Personality,
psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Wiley.
Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., Magalhães de Saldanha da Gama, P.A., Miller, S.,
Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations:
Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572-584. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463704
Kosek, R.B. (1995). Measuring prosocial behavior of college students. Psychological
Reports, 77, 739-742. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.739
Kulesza, W., Dolinski, D., Huisman, A., & Majewski, R. (2013). The echo effect: The
power of verbal mimicry to influence prosocial behavior. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 33(2), 183-201. doi: 10.1177/0261927X13506906
Kulesza, W., Szypowska, Z., Jarman, M.S., & Dolinski, D. (2014). Attractive
chameleons sell: The mimicry-attractiveness link. Psychology & Marketing,
31(7), 549 - 561. doi: 10.1002/mar.20716
Kurzius, E. (2015). The extraverted chameleon: Personality’s effects on mimicry of
verbal behavior. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(2), 80-86. doi:
10.1027/1614-0001/a000159
Kurzius, E., & Borkenau, P. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of mimicry: a
naturalistic interaction approach. European Journal of Personality, 29(2),
107-124. doi: 10.1002/per.1990
Lakin, J.L., & Chartrand, T.L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create
affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334-339. doi: 10.1111/1467-
9280.14481
Lakin, J.L., Chartrand, T.L., & Arkin, R.M. (2008). I am too just like you:
Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion.
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !60
Psychological Science, 19(8), 816-822. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x.
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(3), 145-162. doi:
10.1023/A:1025389814290
Leander, N.P., Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (2012). You give me the chills: Embodied
reactions to inappropriate amounts of behavioral mimicry. Psychological
Science, 23(7), 772-779. doi: 10.1177/0956797611434535
Leander, N.P., Chartrand, T.L., & Wood, W. (2011). Mind your mannerisms:
Behavioral mimicry elicits stereotype conformity. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47(1), 195-201. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.002
Levelt, W.J.M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering.
Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 78-106. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90005-6
Lewis, D.K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lynott, D., Corker, K.S., Wortman, J., Connell, L., Donnellan, M.B., Lucas, R.E., &
O’Brien, K. (2014). Replication of “Experiencing physical warmth promotes
interpersonal warmth” by Williams and Bargh (2008). Social Psychology, 45(3),
216-222. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000187
Martin, A., Guéguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2010). The impact of guilt on mimicry
behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(7),
987-991. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.7.987
Maurer, R.E., & Tindall, J.H. (1983). Effects of postural congruence on client’s
perception of counsellor empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(2),
158-163.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(1), 81–90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !61
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s
circumplex and the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(4), 586-595. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40(4), 525-543. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x
Molenberghs, P., Cunnington, R., & Mattingley, J.B. (2009). Is the mirror neuron
system involved in imitation? A short review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 975-980. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.03.010.
Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A
dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4),
177-196. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
Müller, B.C.N., Maaskant, A.N., Van Baaren, R.B., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Prosocial
consequences of imitation. Psychological Reports, 110(3), 891-898. doi:
10.2466/07.09.21.PR0.110.3.891-898
Niederhoffer, K.G., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social
interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(4), 337-360. doi:
10.1177/026192702237953
Nielsen, K. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics,
39(2), 132-142. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.007
Obhi, S.S., Hogeveen, J., Giacomin, N., & Jordan, C.H. (2014). Automatic imitation is
reduced in narcissists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 40(3), 920-928. doi: 10.1037/a0034056
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 1-58.
Pincus, A.L., & Gurtman, M.B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal dependency:
Structural analyses of self-report dependency measures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69(4), 744-758. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.744
Provine, R.R. (1986). Yawning as a stereotyped action pattern and releasing stimulus.
Ethology, 72(2), 109–122
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !62
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-
project.org/.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45(2), 590. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
Richardson, B.H., Taylor, P.J., Snook, B., Conchie, S.M., & Bennell, C. (2014).
Language Style Matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human
Behavior, 38(4), 357-366. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000077
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 27(1), 169-192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E.P. (2003). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1), 68-74. doi: 10.4102/
sajip.v29i1.88
Saffran, E.M., & Martin, N. (1997). Effects of structural priming on sentence production
in aphasics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(5-6), 877-882.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime User’s Guide.
Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc
Shimpi, P.M., Gámez, P.B., Huttenlocher, J., & Vasilyeva, M. (2007). Syntactic priming
in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive
and dative forms. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1334-1346. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1334
Sonnby-Börgstrom (2002). Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in
emotional empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 433-443.
Stel, M., Rispens, S., Leliveld, M., & Lokhorst, M. (2011). The consequences of
mimicry for prosocials and proselfs: Effects of social value orientation on the
mimicry-liking link. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 269-274. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.790
Suzuki, N., Takeuchi, Y., Ishii, K., & Okada, M. (2003). Effects of echoic mimicry
using hummed sounds on human-computer interaction. Speech Communication,
40(4), 559-573. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00180-2
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !63
Taylor, P.J., & Thomas, S. (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(3), 263-281. doi:
10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00016.x
Van Baaren, R.B., & Chartrand, T.L. (2005). Nonconscious imitation has consequences
that go beyond the dyad. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84858838776&partnerID=40&md5
=594cff6949e9b3c3a9f00be123b0148e, pp. 128–132.
Van Baaren, R.B., Holland, R.W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2004).
Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71-75. doi:
10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501012.x
Van Baaren, R.B., Holland, R.W., Steenaert, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2003).
Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 393-398. doi: 10.1016/S0022-
1031(03)00014-3
Van Baaren, R.B., Horgan, T.G., Chartrand, T.L., & Dijkmans, M. (2004). The forest,
the trees, and the chameleon: Context dependence and mimicry. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 453-459. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.86.3.453
Van Baaren, R.B., Maddux, W.W., Chartrand, T.L., De Bouter, C., & Van
Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-
construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1093-1102. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1093
Verberne, F.M.F., Ham, J., Ponnada, A., & Midden, C.J.H. (2013). Trusting digital
chameleons: the effect of mimicry by a virtual social agent on user trust. In S.
Berkovsky, & J. Freyne (Eds.), Persuasive Technology (pp. 234-245). Berlin,
Germany: Heidelberg
Verreyt, N., Bogaerts, L., Cop, U., Bernolet, S., De Letter, M., Hemelsoet, D., Santens,
P., & Duyck, W. (2013). Syntactic priming in bilingual patients with parallel and
differential aphasia. Aphasiology, 27(7), 867-887. doi:
10.1080/02687038.2013.791918
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !64
Voncken, M.J., & Bögels, S.M. (2008). Social performance deficits in social anxiety
disorder: reality during conversation and biased perception during speech.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1384-1392. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.
2008.02.001.
Vrijsen, J.N., Lange, W-G., Becker, E.S., & Rinck, M. (2010). Socially anxious
individuals lack unintentional mimicry. Behavior Research and Therapy, 48(6),
561-564. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.02.004
Vrijsen, J.N., Lange, W-G., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D.H.J., & Rinck, M. (2010). How
do socially anxious women evaluate mimicry? A virtual reality study. Cognition
and Emotion, 24(5), 840-847. doi: 10.1080/13854040902833652
Webb, J.T. (1969). Subject speech rates as a function of interviewer behavior.
Language and Speech, 12(1), 54-67. doi: 10.1177/002383096901200105
Whitaker, J.L., & Bushman, B.J. (2012). “Remain calm. Be kind.” Effects of relaxing
video games on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 6(1), 88-92. doi: 10.1177/1948550611409760
Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (1994). Personality structure and the structure of
personality disorders. In P.T. Costa & T.A. Wider (Eds.), Personality disorders
and the Five-Factor model of personality (pp. 73-93). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Williams, L.E., & Bargh, J.A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes
interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606-607. doi: 10.1126/science.
1162548
Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Oltman, P. K. (1979). Psychological
differentiation: Current status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(7), 1127–1145. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1127
Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry:
Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
30(3), 97-113. doi: 10.1007/s10919-006-0010-6
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !65
Yu, A.C.L., Abrego-Collier, C., & Sonderegger, M. (2013). Phonetic imitation from an
individual-difference perspective: Subjective attitude, personality and ‘‘autistic’’
traits. PLoS ONE, 8(9), 1-13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074746
Zhong, C.-B., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2008). Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion
literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19(9), 838–842. doi: 10.1111/j.
1467-9280.2008.02165.x
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !66
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !67
Appendix A
Target and prime items
The items below had to be described by the participant, or the description of the picture
was displayed on the screen and read aloud by the confederate.
Schenken (to give)
Laten zien (to show)
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !68
Geven (to give)
Tonen (to show)
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !69
Verkopen (to sell)
Overhandigen (to hand)
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !70
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !71
Appendix B
Filler items
The filler items below had to be described by the participant, or the description of the
picture was displayed on the screen and read aloud by the confederate.
Intransitive items
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !72
Transitive items
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !73
Appendix C
NEO-FFI Leeftijd:
Kruis aan welke uitspraak je mening het beste weergeeft. Let erop dat je geen regels
overslaat.
HO = helemaal oneens O = oneens N = neutraal E = eens HE = helemaal eens
HO O N E HE
1. Ik ben geen tobber O O O O O
2. Ik houd ervan veel mensen om mee heen te hebben O O O O O
3. Ik hou er niet van mijn tijd te verdoen met dagdromen O O O O O
4. Ik probeer hoffelijk te zijn tegen iedereen die ik ontmoet
O O O O O
5. Ik houd mijn spullen netjes en schoon O O O O O
6. Ik voel me vaak de mindere van anderen O O O O O
7. Ik lach gemakkelijk O O O O O
8. Als ik eenmaal de goede manier om iets te doen gevonden heb, dan blijf ik daarbij
O O O O O
9. Ik verzeil vaak in meningsverschillen met mijn familie en collega’s
O O O O O
10. Ik kan mijzelf vrij goed oppeppen om dingen op tijd af te krijgen
O O O O O
11. Wanneer ik onder grote spanning sta, heb ik soms het gevoel dat ik er onder door ga
O O O O O
12. Ik zie mezelf niet echt als een vrolijk en opgewekt persoon
O O O O O
13. Ik ben geïntrigeerd door de patronen die ik vind in de kunst en de natuur
O O O O O
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !74
14. Sommige mensen vinden mij zelfzuchtig en egoïstisch
O O O O O
15. Ik ben niet erg systematisch O O O O O
16. Ik voel me zelden eenzaam of triest O O O O O
17. Ik vind het echt leuk om met mensen te praten O O O O O
18. Ik vind dat leerlingen alleen maar in verwarring worden gebracht door ze te laten luisteren naar sprekers met afwijkende ideeën
O O O O O
19. Ik werk liever met anderen samen dan met ze te wedijveren
O O O O O
20. Ik probeer alle aan mij opgedragen taken gewetensvol uit te voeren
O O O O O
21. Ik voel me vaak gespannen en zenuwachtig O O O O O
22. Ik ben graag daar waar wat te beleven valt O O O O O
23. Poëzie doet mij weinig tot niets O O O O O
24. Ik ben vaak cynisch en sceptisch over de bedoelingen van anderen
O O O O O
25. Ik heb duidelijke doelen voor ogen en werk daar op een systematische manier naar toe
O O O O O
26. Soms voel ik me volkomen waardeloos O O O O O
27. Ik geef er meestal de voorkeur aan om dingen alleen te doen
O O O O O
28. Ik probeer vaak nieuwe en buitenlandse gerechten O O O O O
29. Ik denk dat de meeste mensen je zullen gebruiken als je ze de kans geeft
O O O O O
30. Ik verknoei veel tijd voordat ik echt aan het werk ga O O O O O
31. Ik voel me zelden angstig of zorgelijk O O O O O
32. Ik voel me vaak alsof ik barst van energie O O O O O
33. Ik merk zelden de stemmingen of gevoelens op, die verschillende omgevingen oproepen
O O O O O
34. De meeste mensen die ik ken mogen mij graag O O O O O
35. Ik werk had om mijn doelen te bereiken O O O O O
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !75
36. Ik word vaak kwaad om de manier waarop mensen me behandelen
O O O O O
37. Ik ben een vrolijk en levendig iemand O O O O O
38. Ik vind dat we beslissingen in morele zaken van onze religieuze leiders mogen verwachten
O O O O O
39. Sommige mensen vinden mij koel en berekenend O O O O O
40. Al ik iets beloof, kan men er op rekenen dat ik die belofte ook nakom
O O O O O
41. Wanneer dingen mis gaan raak ik maar al te vaak ontmoedigd en heb ik zin om het op te geven
O O O O O
42. Ik ben geen vrolijke optimist O O O O O
43. Wanneer ik een gedicht lees of naar een kunstwerk kijk, voel ik soms een koude rilling of een golf van opwinding
O O O O O
44. Ik ben zakelijk en onsentimenteel in mijn opvattingen
O O O O O
45. Soms ben ik niet zo betrouwbaar als ik zou moeten zijn
O O O O O
46. Ik ben zelden verdrietig of depressief O O O O O
47. Ik heb een jachtig leven O O O O O
48. Ik ben niet erg geïnteresseerd in het speculeren over het wezen van het universum of van de mens
O O O O O
49. Over het algemeen probeer ik attent en zorgzaam te zijn
O O O O O
50. Ik ben een productief mens die een klus altijd voor elkaar krijgt
O O O O O
51. Ik voel me vaak hulpeloos en wil dan graag dat iemand anders mijn problemen oplost
O O O O O
52. Ik ben een heel actief persoon O O O O O
53. Ik heb een breed scala aan intellectuele interesses O O O O O
54. Als ik mensen niet mag, laat ik dat ook merken O O O O O
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !76
55. Het lijkt mij maar niet te lukken om de dingen goed op orde te hebben
O O O O O
56. Soms schaam ik me zo dat ik wel door de grond wil zakken
O O O O O
57. Ik ga liever mijn eigen gang dan dat ik leiding geef aan anderen
O O O O O
58. Ik heb vaak plezier in het spelen met theorieën of abstracte ideeën
O O O O O
59. Als het nodig is ben ik bereid om mensen te manipuleren om te krijgen wat ik wil
O O O O O
60. Ik streef er naar uit te blinken in alles wat ik doe O O O O O
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !77
Appendix D
Dutch summary
Op basis van eerder onderzoek waarin verbale imitatie en de prosociale consequenties
ervan gemoduleerd bleken te zijn door individuele verschillen, beoogde de huidige
studie twee aspecten van syntactische imitatie te onderzoeken. Enerzijds werd gefocust
op de replicatie en uitbereiding van eerdere bevindingen betreffende de prosociale
gevolgen van verbaal geïmiteerd worden, en werd onderzocht of deze prosociale
gevolgen te generaliseren zijn naar derden. Anderzijds werd beoogd om Big Five
persoonlijkheidsfactoren te linken aan de mate waarin individuen zelf engageren in
verbale imitatie, alsmede aan de prosociale gevolgen van verbale imitatie. Dit werd
onderzocht door middel van het toepassen van een plaatjesbeschrijvingstaak dewelke
participanten uitvoerden samen met een handlanger van de experimentleider. In het
eerste deel van het experiment werd de mate van syntactische imitatie van de
handlanger’s zinstructuren (voorzetseldatief of dubbel object datief) door de
participanten gemeten, dewelke gelinkt werd aan scores op de Big Five vragenlijst
NEO-FFI. In het tweede deel van het experiment lag de nadruk op het relateren van de
scores op deze vragenlijst aan participanten hun prosociaal gedrag ten opzichte van
derden na verbaal geïmiteerd te zijn geweest. Dit werd gekwantificeerd als de tijd die
participanten vrijwillig wilden spenderen aan een vragenlijst waarvan ze werden
gevraagd deze in te vullen voor een andere onderzoeker. Vergelijkbaar met eerdere
onderzoeken werd gevonden dat individuen de datieve structuur die de handlanger
toepaste imiteerden. Ook werd gevonden dat de Big Five factor Extraversie hier een
significante rol in speelde; tegen de verwachtingen in bleek dat participanten met een
hoge score op Extraversie minder verbaal imiteerden dan participanten met een lage
score op Extraversie. In het tweede deel van het onderzoek werd gevonden dat
syntactische imitatie niet leidt tot een verhoging van prosociaal gedrag ten opzichte van
derden, maar wanneer Big Five factoren mee in consideratie werden genomen bleek er
een significante interactie tussen imitatie en Extraversie, en tussen imitatie en
Neuroticisme te zijn betreffende prosociaal gedrag. Na geïmiteerd te zijn geweest
toonden individuen met een hoge score op Extraversie of Neuroticisme meer prosociaal
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SYNTACTIC MIMICRY !78
gedrag dan indivividuen met een lage score op Extraversie of Neuroticisme. In de niet-
imitatie conditie draaide dit effect echter om en toonden participanten met een lage
score op deze factoren meer procosiaal gedrag. Toekomstig onderzoek zou moeten
uitwijzen of vergelijkbare resultaten gevonden zouden worden wanneer prosociaal
gedrag ten opzichte van de gesprekspartner de beoogde afhankelijke variabele zou zijn,
of wanneer lexicale imitatie in plaats van syntactische imitatie zou worden toegepast.