Mimicry and Self-Perception: An Application

Sarah Strout, Clark UniversityHow does Self-Perception explain

Mimicry/Emotional Contagion

Self-perception shows that certain people rely on their facial expressions and postures for emotional experiences, and others rely mainly on the situation.

Would predict that when those people responsive to personal cues are presented with emotional stimuli, they will mimic the other person, which will lead to emotional contagion. Would predict that those less responsive to personal cues, should not mimic (it is not providing useful information), however, if they do, it should not lead to contagion, since they are unaffected by their own facial expressions.

Evidence that mimicry causes emotional contagion in personal cue

people

In 1994, Laird, Alibozak, Davainis, Deignan, Fontanella, Hoy, Levy, and Pacheco investigated the individual differences of the effect of mimicry on emotional contagion in two studies.

The researchers hypothesized that in light of the results of previous studies demonstrating individual differences in response to the adoption of facial expressions; it is likely that these differences will affect whether or not mimicry leads to emotional contagion.

–The results of the first study showed that mimicry did in fact occur and was more likely to occur among participants who were more responsive to personal cues.

–The results of the second study also confirm the assumptions of Self-Perception Theory. The researchers found that inhibiting the expressive behavior of participants prevented emotional contagion, however it only prevented emotional contagion in participants who were more responsive to personal cues.

So what? How can this be applied?

The current practice,to discover who is more responsive to personal cues is tedious, time consuming, and requires a lot of involvement on the part of the proctor.

Since Mimicry occurs only in those more responsive to personal cues, the mimicry procedure should be an easy alternative to the current practice.

If I can show that Mimicry will differentiate between those who are more or less responsive to personal cues, I can replace the existing system.

What is Mimicry and Emotional Contagion?

Mimicry is the unconscious copying of another’s facial or body expressions. It can occur in any interaction that involves face to face contact.

Emotional contagion is the process that occurs when one person mimics another. The person will mimic the other person’s facial or body expressions then will experience the same emotion as a result of the emotional behavior.

Evidence that mimicry occursTwo theories can be found to suggest why mimicry occurs.

One states: Mimicry is a communicative act that allows an emotion receiver to inform the emotion sender they understand the emotion communication (Beavin Bavelas, Black, Lemery, & Mullett, 1986).

The second theory states: Emotional mimicry results in the receiver experiencing the emotion via self-perception, which is called emotional contagion, it allows the receiver to feel the same emotion as the sender (Laird, Alibozak, Davainis, Deignan, Fontanella, Hong, Levy, & Pacheco, 1994; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994).

What is Self-Perception Theory?Self- Perception Theory has shown that people can be divided into two groups in relation to subjective experience of emotion.

The people in the first group are referred to as more responsive to personal cues.

We refer to these people as more responsive to personal cues because it is their personal cues (facial expressions, postures, gaze) that lead to the subjective emotion experience

First they express an emotion and then they feel the emotion.

The people in the second group are referred to as less responsive to personal cues

These people are not able to use personal cues to experience emotion.

First they “feel” an emotion based on the situational cues, then they express it.

Contrary to some critics, Self-Perception Theory does not ignore situational, or environmental cues.

We believe that ALL people use situational context to some extent to assess their emotions.

However not all people use personal cues to perceive emotion.

This StudyI plan to conduct a study using both the facial manipulation measure and the mimicry measure. My research design includes three separate tasks.

These tasks are:

The facial manipulation task, the mimicry procedure, and lastly a confidence measure.

The confidence measure involves the participant building something on a low table, causing the participant to slump, followed by the participant drawing on a stand-up easel which causes him or her to stand tall.

Research has shown that those participants who are more responsive to personal cues will feel less confident while on the low table and more confident standing up. People less responsive to personal cues are not affected by the two conditions (Laird ..

ConclusionIf the facial manipulation task and the mimicry procedure both agree on which participants will be affected by the third task, I can assume that the mimicry task measures the same thing at the facial manipulation. Then I can begin using it as an alternative method in successive studies.

ReferencesBavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). “I

show how you feel”: Motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 322-329.

Duclos, S. E., & Laird, J. D. (2001). The deliberate control of

emotional experience through control of expressions. Cognition and

Emotion, 15, 27-56.

Flack, W. F., Laird, J. D., & Cavallaro, L. A., (1999). Separate and

combined effects of postures on emotional feelings. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 29, 203-217.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional

contagion: Studies in emotion and social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kellerman, J., Lewis, J., & Laird, J. D. (1989). Looking and loving:

The effects of mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal of Research

in Personality, 23, 145-161.

Laird, J. D. (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of

expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 909-917.

Laird, J. D., Alibozak, T., Davainis, D., Fontanella, K., Hong, J.,

Levy, B., & Pacheco, C. (1994). Individual differences in the effects of

spontaneous mimicry on emotional contagion. Motivation and Emotion, 188,

231-246.

Laird, J. D., Kuvalanka, K., Grubstein, L., Kim, T. H., & Nagarja, T.

(1997). Posture and confidence: Standing (and sitting) tall, makes you feel

good. Unpublished manuscript.

Current Practice: Facial Manipulation Task:

In most studies involving Self-Perception Theory, a facial manipulation task is used to determine whether a person is more or less responsive to personal cues.

Although the measure is accurate, this task is time consuming and requires the researcher to be actively involved in the measure.

The facial manipulation usually consists of a researcher first explaining about the different muscles in the face, then the researcher instructs the person to contract and release certain muscles which will result in a specific expression.

The researcher must help the participant until they adopt the correct expression.

The participant is then told to hold that expression while looking at an abstract picture, believing they will be asked to remember it later.

The researcher must go through multiple manipulations (about 12), each done very specifically.

In addition, the participant must fill out an emotion rating scale in between each expression.

The Mimicry Procedure as an Alternative

The procedure involves a room set up with a computer station, and in an adjacent room, a video camera set up to capture the participant’s response to the stimulus to see if they mimic or not.

A computer program has been designed to flash pictures of emotion expressions followed by an emotion rating scale.

The program is timed to run automatically

the proctor’s only task is to turn on the camera, via remote control each time the picture appears, and to stop the recording when the picture disappears.

It is a much easier, less time consuming task that could potentially replace the facial manipulation procedure, if this study shows that it does differentiate the same people as the facial procedure would have.

Evidence that emotional expression leads to subjective experiences of emotion (Proof of Self Perception

Theory)

The earliest theory relating to this phenomenon is linked to William James in 1872. James believed that people infer their emotions by sensing muscular, glandular, and visceral responses (Hatfield et al., 1994).

In 1907, Lipps used a theory similar to James’ for his explanation of mimicry. He theorized that people learn via self-perception that certain expressions relate to specific emotions. He believed that people use this knowledge to make inferences about other’s subjective experiences, in order to decode emotion (Hatfield et al., 1994).

Many other researchers including Tomkins, Izard, and Gellhorn used related theories to explain emotions, however the most notable Jamesion theorist did not appear until 1972, with Bem’s Self-Perception Theory.

-Bem stated that “individuals come to know their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behavior and/ or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs (Hatfield et al., 1994).

Following Bem, other researchers have found evidence to support self-perception, including James Laird.

Laird has investigated self-perception in a large number of studies and has found that emotional experience is shaped by information about one’s own facial expressions, postures, actions, and autonomic responses as well as situational information (Hatfield et al., 1994).

-In addition to demonstrating that facial expressions may elicit emotion (Laird, 1974), Laird has also found evidence that:

- bodily postures elicit emotion (Laird, Kuvalanka, Grubstein, Kim, & Nagaraji, 1997)

- gazing into another’s eyes elicits feelings of attraction (Kellerman, Lewis, & Laird, 1989)

- that combinations of both postures and expressions elicit stronger emotional responses than either one alone (Flack, Laird, & Cavallan, 1999).

The previous research done by Laird supports the hypothesis that not only can emotion expressions elicit emotional responses, but also that this phenomenon is more likely to occur in people who are more responsive to personal cues (Duclos & Laird, 2001).