PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENC Research Article I Am Too Just Like You Nonconscious Mimicr

Question

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENC Research Article I Am Too Just Like You Nonconscious Mimicrv as an Automatic Behavioral Response to Social Exclusion Jessica L. Lakin, Tanya L. Chartrand,2 and Robert M. Arkin3 Drew University, 2Duke University, and The Ohio State University ABSTRACT-Research across various disciplines has dem- 2005), which makes them more likely to take advantage of new onstrated that social exclusion has devastating psycholog- affiliative opportunities (eg, to choose to work with other peo- ical, emotional, and behavioral consequences. Excluded ple rather than alone; Maner, De Wall, Baumeister, & Schaller, individuals are therefore motivated to affiliate with others, 2007). even though they may not have the resources, cognitive or The research reported here explored how people attempt otherwise, to do so. The current research explored whether to affiliate after they are excluded, by identifying an automatic nonconscious mimicry of other individuals -a low-cost, oebl behavior that addresses threatened belongingness low-risk, automatic behavior-might help excluded in- needs. Although exeluded people are motivated to affiliate, their dividuals address threatened belongingness needs. Ex- affiliative behaviors often are conscious, require great effort, or perment l demonstrated that excluded people munic are high in cost Maner et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2000). They subsequent interaction partner more than included people are also risky in that they may result in additional rin (e.g do. Experiment 2 showed that individuals excluded by an a person who is complimented may not reciprocate). Automatic in-group selectively (and nonconsciously) munca con ed- affiliative behaviors, however, are relatively low in effort, cost, erate who is an in-group member more than a confederate and risk. Attempts to affiliate in subtle, nonverbal ways are who is an out-group member. The relationship between unlikely to be met with new or continued rejection. Moreover, exclusion and mimicry suggests that there are automatic given that self-regulation and cognitive resources suffer after behaviors people can use to recover from the eaperience of exclusion (Baumeister, De Wa Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; being excluded. In addition, this research demonstrates Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002), automatic affiliative that nonconscious mimicry is selective and sensitive to behaviors would be especially functional because they require contert few, if any, conscious resources. Understanding the automatie affiliative attempts that follow exclusion is therefore critically important. These behaviors could reduce the devastating con sequences of exclusion with little risk or cost to the rejected person. Vio (e.g., the shootings at Virginia Tech) is often assumed to be partially caused by social isolation, and as a result, recent violent incidents have increased research interest in the con- sequences of exclusion. The conclusion from this literature is that exclusion indeed has adverse emotional, psychological, and NONCONSCIOUS BEHAVIORAL MIMICRY behavioral conseqences (MaDonald & Leary, 2005; Williams, 2007; Williams, Forgas, & von Hippel, 2005). Howver, ex- Research on nonconscious behavioral mimicry, or the tendency omimic other individuals' behaviors without awareness or in- clusion also increases some affiliative behaviors: Ostri increases participants' tendency to conform (Williams, Cheung, tent, demonstrates that people mimic others when there is no & Choi, 2000) and their cooperation in social dilemmas (O preexisting rapport and that mimicry can lead to the devel- werkerk, Kerr, Gallueci, & van Lange, 2005). Also, individuals opment of rapport (Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin, 2005). Both attend to soeial information after exclusion (Pickett & Gardner, conscious and nonconscious affiliation goals a be pursued successfully by mimicking others (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). Mimicry also leads to a number of other positive consequences: Address correspondence to Jessica L. Lakin, Psychology Depart ment, Drew University, 36 Madison Ave., Madison, NJ 07940, e mail iking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), trust (Maddux, Mullen, & jlakin@drew.edu Galinsky, 2008), closeness to others (Ashton-James, van Baaren, 816 Copyright © 2008 Association for Psychological Science Volume 19 Number 8

Explanation / Answer

In both the experiments, Non-conscious mimicry is the dependent variable. Why? Because the researchers are ultimately trying to study if exclusion is actually having an effect on memory by varying the effects of exclusion (which is then the IV).

It might be helpful for you to read the paragraph that states the hypothesis, then it becomes very clear to understand the IV and the DV. In most papers, you would find the hypothesis stated just before the methodology section.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.