Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation

Abstract

Individuals have the automatic tendency to imitate each other. A key prediction of different theories explaining automatic imitation is that individuals imitate in-group members more strongly than out-group members. However, the empirical basis for this prediction is rather inconclusive. Only a few experiments have investigated the influence of group membership using classic automatic imitation paradigms and these experiments led to mixed results. To put the group membership prediction to a critical test, we carried out six high-powered experiments (total N = 1538) in which we assessed imitation with the imitation-inhibition task and manipulated group membership in different ways. Evidence across all experiments indicates that group membership does not modulate automatic imitation. Moreover, we do not find support for the idea that feelings of affiliation or perceived similarity moderate the effect of group membership on automatic imitation. These results have important implications for theories explaining automatic imitation and contribute to the current discussion of whether automatic imitation can be socially modulated.

Group membership does not modulate goal- versus movement-based imitation

“…Taken together, social modulation theories of imitation (e.g., Chartrand & Dalton, 2009; Wang & Hamilton, 2012) suggest that group membership should affect the way individuals imitate in- versus out-group members. However, the empirical basis for this effect is rather unclear, as recent studies were not able to find an influence of group membership on automatic imitation (De Souter et al, 2021; Genschow, Westfal et al, 2021; Weller et al, 2020). A disadvantage of previous research investigating the link between group membership and imitation is that researchers confounded movement-based with goal-based imitation.…”

“…However, the empirical basis for the idea that imitative behaviour is moderated by social group membership is less clear than previously assumed. Although some researchers find that in-group members are more strongly imitated in automatic imitation paradigms than out-group members (Genschow & Schindler, 2016; Gleibs et al, 2016), others were not able to replicate this finding (De Souter et al, 2021; Genschow, Westfal et al, 2021; Rauchbauer et al, 2015, 2016; Weller et al, 2020). For example, De Souter et al (2021) did not find a difference in automatic imitation between the imitation of in- and out-group members in a multi-agent paradigm.…”

“…For example, De Souter et al (2021) did not find a difference in automatic imitation between the imitation of in- and out-group members in a multi-agent paradigm. Most recently, Genschow, Westfal et al, 2021 did not find evidence for the hypothesis that group membership modulates automatic imitation within a classic automatic imitation task (Brass et al, 2001). Moreover, the authors’ data did not support the idea that perceived similarity or affiliation motives moderate the influence of group membership on automatic imitation.…”

Concurrently observed actions are represented not as compound actions but as independent actions.

“…That is, one hand had a pale skin tone and one hand had a dark skin tone (counterbalanced; Figure 1). Previous research has shown that skin tone as such does not influence automatic imitation, not even when tested in large samples (N = 297 and N = 737; Genschow et al, 2022). After the experiment, participants were asked whether they thought the hands belonged to two different persons or to the same person.…”

Reluctance against the machine: Retrieval of observational stimulus–response episodes in online settings emerges when interacting with a human, but not with a computer partner

“…Social modulations of observing a motion sequence onscreen depicting an irrelevant yet (in-)compatible action are documented for the automatic imitation task (Brass et al, 2001;Butler et al, 2016;Cracco, Genschow, et al, 2018b; for an overview, see Cracco et al, 2018a, b). For instance, individuals imitate others less strongly when they observe actions from a third-person perspective compared with a first-person perspective (Bortoletto et al, 2013;Genschow et al, 2013;Lamm et al, 2007;Vogt et al, 2003) or when they face out-group compared with in-group members (Genschow & Schindler, 2016; but see Genschow, Westfal, et al, 2021b, for a failed replication of this finding). Similarly, joint Simon effects emerge for situations in which participants believe to observe the action of a human interaction partner seated in an adjacent cubicle (Tsai et al, 2008).…”