The impact of mimicry on sales – Evidence from field and lab experiments

Herrmann, Andreas; Roßberg, Nadja; Hüber, Frank; Landwehr, Jan R.; Henkel, Sven

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.017

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, people were more likely to disclose intimate information (Guéguen, Martin, Meineri, & Simon, 2013) or give honest answers (Guéguen, 2013) to a confederate who mimicked them. Mimickers are also rated as being more persuasive than non-mimickers (Bailenson & Yee, 2005; Drury & van Swol, 2005;van Swol, 2003), and may sometimes be more successful in swaying people to agree with their opinion (Bailenson & Yee, 2005, but see van Swol, 2003 or to consume and purchase goods (Herrmann, Rossberg, Huber, Landwehr, & Henkel, 2011;Jacob, Guéguen, Martin, & Boulbry, 2011;Tanner, Ferraro, Chartrand, Bettman, & Baaren, 2008). Furthermore, mimicry can improve negotiation outcomes (Maddux et al, 2008): participants who negotiated for around 30 minutes had better personal and joint outcomes when one member of the dyad was instructed to mimic (Maddux et al, 2008).…”

Section: Changing Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Hale

Hamilton

2016

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

unclear how the complex behavioural effects of mimicry relate to neural systems which respond to being mimicked. Mimicry activates regions associated with mirror properties, selfother processing and reward. In this review, we outline three potential models linking these regions with cognitive consequences of being mimicked. The models suggest that positive downstream consequences of mimicry may depend upon self-other overlap, detection of contingency or low prediction error. Finally, we highlight limitations with traditional research designs and suggest alternative methods for achieving highly ecological validity and experimental control. We also highlight unanswered questions which may guide future research. Keywords: mimicry, imitation, nonverbal behaviour, neurocognitive modelsIt is often said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and copying what other people do is a central feature of human social interaction (Frith & Frith, 2012; Hamilton, 2014; Meltzoff, 2010; Over & Carpenter, 2013). One way we copy others is through unconscious behavioural mimicry, also described as 'behaviour matching' (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991;Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) or the 'chameleon effect' (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). This kind of mimicry occurs when one person unintentionally and effortlessly copies another person's posture or body movements without either one being aware (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013;Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009). Mimicry may extend to the contagion of facial expressions (Bavelas, Black, Lemery, & Mullett, 1986, 1987 Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2000;Hsee, Hatfield, Carlson, & Chemtob, 1990), moods (Hsee et al., 1990;Neumann & Strack, 2000) and speech (Giles & Powesland, 1975;Neumann & Strack, 2000).As well as mimicry, there are many other ways we coordinate our behaviour with other people during social interactions (Table 1). The umbrella term 'interpersonal coordination' covers a range of coordinated actions between two people, which can be linked in both space and time. Actions occurring at the same time are described as entrained or synchronous; this includes perfect synchrony where actions are matched in form and timing, as well as general synchrony where different actions are coordinated in time (see Table 1, column 1). Actions that occur after a delay but which are contingent on the other are termed imitation or mimicry if the form is the same, and complementary if the form is different (see column 2). There is a distinction between imitation, which is deliberate and goal-directed,and mimicry, which is unconscious and spontaneous. In this paper we will focus specifically on mimicry. For the main part we will limit our review to mimicry of postures and body movements, and we will not include literature on facial, emotional or vocal mimicry. We will also concentrate on adult mimicry rather than developmental literature. At the end, we will return to consider how future research may situate mimicry within a wider framework of interpersonal coordination. Whilst partners in real life social interac...

show abstract

Section: Changing Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Hale

Hamilton

2016

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the present study was conducted in a natural retail environment. Only a small subset of mimicry research has been done in natural settings, such as a mall (Jacob et al., ), a train (Herrmann, Rossberg, Huber, Landwehr, & Henkel, ), and bars (Guéguen, ). None of these, however, assessed the effects of mimicker attractiveness on mimicry outcomes.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attractive Chameleons Sell: The Mimicry‐Attractiveness Link

Kulesza

Szypowska²,

Jarman

et al. 2014

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research explored the effects of nonverbal mimicry behavior and mimicker attractiveness in a natural retail context. A 3 (nonverbal mimicry, nonmimicking, antimimicry) × 2 (attractive salesperson, attractiveness control) design was used to study the effects of different combinations of these variables on female customers’ (N = 150) purchases, customer service ratings, and plans to return to the store. Results showed that customers spent the most and had the highest customer service ratings when they interacted with a salesperson who was both attractive and mimicking them. When the salesperson, however, was less attractive and engaged in the opposite gestures as the customer, it corresponded with substantially lower customer service ratings and a tendency to not wish to return to the store. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings for mimicry and attractiveness in a retail environment are discussed.

show abstract

“…This pre-test was conducted via an online survey which consisted of two separate sections, which were formulated to (1) evaluate the baseline measure of product preferences and (2) assess an original priming activity. The first section utilised modified statements from Herrmann et al's (2011) study investigating the impact of mimicry on product sales for a range of popular German snack foods. The choice of snacks as the product category of interest was chosen in this pre-test for two reasons: (1) to extend previous studies (Herrmann et al, 2011; Tanner et al, 2008b) and (2) allow for product liking, consumption, and purchase intentions to be easily measured in an objective manner.…”

Section: Methodology and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…van Baaren et al (2004) extends Chartrand and Bargh's (1999) findings and demonstrate that the presence of nonconscious mimicry improves prosocial behaviour in the receiver that is transferable to a third-party outside of this interaction. These results have been further illustrated to consider the outcomes of mimicry on product attitudes and evaluations (Stel et al, 2011), consumption (Tanner et al, 2008b), and preferences (Herrmann et al, 2011; Tanner and Chartrand, 2008a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Behavioural Effects of Nonconscious Mimicry and Social Intentions

Wong

Hartley

Tombs

2017

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonconscious mimicry is a salient behaviour in many social interactions, such as the imitation of accent over the phone or the tendency to return a smile from another smiling person. However, existing research has yet to consider the importance of individuals' social intentions when entering into a social interaction in a customer service setting. This paper extends current managerial leadership theory into the novel setting of nonconscious mimicry to explain the critical role of social intentions in relationship building in customer service encounters. This research consists of a 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design to evaluate the hypothesised relationships between nonconscious mimicry, social intentions, and product choice behaviour. The findings indicate that social intentions play a critical role influencing the relationship between nonconscious mimicry and product consumption, purchase intentions, and product liking in service encounters. Further, it is suggested that individuals identified as task-oriented should not be behaviourally imitated, as this will not positively increase product liking, purchase intentions, or product consumption. Instead, consumers should be primed to be relationship-oriented prior to nonconscious mimicry.

show abstract

The impact of mimicry on sales – Evidence from field and lab experiments

Cited by 12 publications

References 70 publications

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Attractive Chameleons Sell: The Mimicry‐Attractiveness Link

Behavioural Effects of Nonconscious Mimicry and Social Intentions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About