L8: Imitation in social interaction Flashcards
(10 cards)
automatic imitation
Observing someone perform an action (e.g., lifting a finger) activates areas in the motor cortex necessary for producing that action (Buccino et al., 2004; Hari et al., 1998)
Direct perception – action link
Typically, this is referred to as covert motor activation or automatic imitation
Buccino et al. (2004) recruited p’s who could play the guitar and in the scanner, either had them observing videos of someone else playing or execute? have broadly shared of activation pattern. playing and observing overlap. shared activation. parity between action and execution.
measuring imitation
Automatic imitation is commonly measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task
These tasks consist of observing an action (e.g. lifting middle or index finger) whilst being prompted to lift the same or different finger. Automatic imitation is taken as the RT difference between congruent and incongruent trials.
measuring imitation
Automatic imitation is commonly measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task
These tasks consist of observing an action (e.g. lifting middle or index finger) whilst being prompted to lift the same or different finger. Automatic imitation is taken as the RT difference between congruent and incongruent trials.
The logic here, is that when we see an action, covert motor activation prepares us to perform the same action
In congruent trials (doing the same thing as the actor), this speeds up your responses, as your motor system has to execute what it has just prepared.
In incongruent trials, responses are slower, and more prone to error, as you have to throw out the prepared action, generate a new plan, and execute it.
The logic here, is that when we see an action, covert motor activation prepares us to perform the same action
In congruent trials (doing the same thing as the actor), this speeds up your responses, as your motor system has to execute what it has just prepared.
In incongruent trials, responses are slower, and more prone to error, as you have to throw out the prepared action, generate a new plan, and execute it.
accuracy decreases with incongruent trials
the functions of imitations
Social functions:
Rapport building (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013; Over & Carpenter, 2012)
Overcoming ostracism (Lakin et al., 2008; Over & Carpenter, 2009)
may strategically use initiative processes to demonstrate in-group membership. you act more like them and appear more like them.
perception and action
Classical view
Action Perception and Action Production are distinct processes
No involvement of production processes in perception
start with intended goal
perception and action
perception: action in external world–> perceptual systems–> intended goals and meaning
action:
intended goal—> motor planning—> action execution e.g: motor systems
Contemporary view
Action perception can utilise production mechanisms
argue this is a false dichotomy.
ugh look at image on slide 18 i cba to write
both perceptual and action execution processes recruit elements from anoe another.
the functions of imitation
Social functions:
Rapport building (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013; Over & Carpenter, 2012)
Overcoming ostracism (Lakin et al., 2008; Over & Carpenter, 2009)
Learning:
Observation induced motor activation enhances action recognition, imitation recognition, and observational learning (Vogt & Thomaschke, 2007)
Action Comprehension:
Imitation improves accent comprehension (Adank, Hagoort, & Bekkering, 2010)
social goals and modification of imitation
Wang & Hamilton (2011) propose that mimicry, broadly, is modulated top-down by social cognition, in their Social Top-down Response Modulation (STORM) model.
This model suggests that imitation is controlled, in a “Machiavellian” fashion to improve social standing.
This model is based on observations that:
Being mimicked leads a participant to like the mimicker (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)
Feel closer to the mimicker (van Baaren et al., 2004)
Be more easily persuaded by the mimicker (Maddux et al., 2008)
section 1 learning objectives
Describe what is meant by perception and action
Describes the theory that action perception recruits production mechanisms, allowing alternate routes for action comprehension and prediction
Provide an accurate description of automatic imitation
Perceiving an action activates the neural mechanisms necessary to produce that action. This facilitates or inhibits subsequent action production.
Understand the social and learning importance of imitation and perception and action more broadly.
Imitation has been proposed to play a broad selection of roles, including social functioning, learning, and action prediction
In the next part, we’ll look at empirical studies looking at the different roles of automatic imitation.
social goals and modulation of imitation
Wang & Hamilton (2011) propose that mimicry, broadly, is modulated top-down by social cognition, in their Social Top-down Response Modulation (STORM) model.
we use it strategically to improve our social standing
This model suggests that imitation is controlled, in a “Machiavellian” fashion to improve social standing.
This model is based on observations that:
Being mimicked leads a participant to like the mimicker (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)
Feel closer to the mimicker (van Baaren et al., 2004)
Be more easily persuaded by the mimicker (Maddux et al., 2008)
testing social control: unobserved imitation
If imitation is socially controlled, this suggests some cases where imitation should be reduced.
The imitation of manual actions (e.g., finger lifting) should rely on the target of the imitation being able to see it.
In cases where imitation cannot be observed, it should be reduced
Wang & Hamilton (2011) sought to test this hypothesis in a study where participants (n = 20) would complete trials where:
The imitation target used direct gaze, with an image of the stimulus “looking” directly at participants
The imitation target used averted gaze, with the image “looking” away from participants.
trial: pattern of gaze that is established. a fixation cross. we have an initial orientation phase where the person is going to establish the gazwe they will use in the trial e.g: averted gaze. then they might orient stimulus and ten the second gaze, they might orient away or towards you and then they produce an action. sohere they used a finger or hand opening vs hand closing. they look at their hand, away or directly at the viewer. if hamiltons hypothesis is correct imitation should be greater when person doing action is looking at you.
for averted gaze you do see a difference between congruent and incongruent trials. same when looking at hand. largest difference is that automatic imitation effect is huge in the direct gaze condition. more robust imitation effects.
The results demonstrated:
A main effect of congruency (faster stimuli responded to more quickly)
An interaction between 1st and 2nd gaze.
Critically, an interaction between 2nd gaze and congruency, with faster responses for congruent stimuli with direct 2nd gaze
Suggests that direct gaze increases the facilitation for congruent stimuli
Taken together, this suggest that the magnitude of imitation is modified by the gaze of the target, with greater facilitation when it would be of benefit.
alt exp: could be participant is attending more tightly to stimulus and greater focus on the self when you’re surveilled
