mutual imitation and connection or anatagonism

8/20/2019 Mutual Imitation and Connection or Anatagonism

1/96

Imitation of Emotion:How meaning affects the linkbetween imitation and liking

Sytske van der Velde


2/96

Cover: Syske van der Velde

Prined by: GildePrin

ISBN: 978-90-367-3879-8

© 2009, (Syske W. van der Velde)

Al l righs reserved. No Par o his publica ion may be reproduced, sored in a rerieval

sysem o any naure, or ransmited in any orm or by any means, elecronic, mechanical, now

known or hereaer invened, including phoocopying or recording, wihou prior writen per-

mission o he auhor.

Nies ui deze uigave mag verveelvuldigd en/o openbaar gemaak worden door middel van

druk, ookopie, microfilm o op welke andere wijze ook, zonder vooragaande oesemming van

de aueur.


3/96

RIJKSUNIVERSIEI GRONINGEN

Imiaion o Emoion:How meaning affecs he link beween imiaion and liking

Proeschri

er verkrijging van he docoraa in de

Gedrags- en Maaschappijweenschappen

aan de Rijksuniversiei Groningen

op gezag van de

Recor Magnificus, dr. F. Zwars,in he openbaar e verdedigen op

donderdag juni

om . uur

door

Syske illemien van der Velde

geboren op april e Hoorn


4/96

Promoores: Pro. dr. D. A. Sapel

Pro. dr. E. H. Gordijn

Pro. dr. S. Oten

Beoordelingscommissie: Pro. dr. A.H. Fischer

Pro dr. .. Posmes

Pro. dr. D.H.J. igboldus


5/96


6/96


7/96


8/96


9/96

Chapter 1

General introduction


10/96

10 Chaper 1

Imagine a couple in love, oally engrossed in each oher. Tey order he same ice cream,

finish each oher’s senences and copy each oher’s mannerisms. Tey are even emoionally in

une: hen one smiles he oher smiles, when one eels sad abou a scene in a movie he oher

immediaely sars o eel sad oo. Ten, he man says somehing which causes he woman

o become angry wih him. ha will he do? ill he ge angry wih her as well? Or will he

apologise and ry o calm her down? ha will happen i he does ge angry? I wil l probably ruin

he dae and could possibly even be he end o heir relaionship….

As his example il lusraes, people someimes imiae each oher. And indeed, especially

people who are ond o each oher, are in love wih each oher or like each oher very much, have

a endency o copy each oher’s behaviour (Lakin, Jefferis, Chang, & Charrand, ; Sel,

Blascovich, McCall, & Vonk, ). Alhough research shows people also imiae each oher

even when hey are no especially close, muual liking ypically does increase imiaion (Lakine al., ; Sel e al., ). Lakin and colleagues () have even argued ha imiaion

benefis our l iking or each oher. Tus hrough imiaing each oher he couple in he example

would ge even more atraced o each oher. Research shows ha people indeed generally

like each oher more aer hey imiae each oher (Charrand & Bargh, ), and aer being

imiaed even have an increased liking or people oher han he imiaor (Van Baaren, Holland,

Kawakami, & Van Knippenberg, ).

On he oher hand, even in a siuaion where imiaion is very likely o be beneficial, such

as or a couple in love, imiaion is likely o have is limis. I he man in he example chooses animiaive approach and ges angry in reurn o he woman’s anger, i is ar more likely ha he

dae will end badly han ha he dae will end well. In his case a more non- or ani-imiaive

approach will probably have beter resuls: I he reacs in an apologising, calming manner his is

more likely o have a beneficial oucome (although you never know …). Tis will almos cerainly

also be rue or behaviour ha ranscends his imaginary example. I seems no o be oo daring

o sae ha ‘Imiaion is unlikely o always have a posiive effec on liking’ and ‘Liking will no

always have a posiive effec on imiaion’.

I is ineresing ha in cerain siuaions imiaion is no likely o be beneficial or liking

and vice versa. ha deermines wheher imiaion leads o more liking or liking o more

imiaion? In he example he negaive effec on liking is expeced when he imiaed behaviour

is an expression o anger. Te expression o anger is o course no simply or only behaviour, bu

is clearly inended as a social signal: In his case i means ‘I do no like wha you jus said’. Some

o he oher behaviour in he example such as he way he couple speaks or heir mannerisms is

more similar o he behaviour ha has been sudied in previous research on imiaion and liking.

Imiaing such behaviour ypically has posiive effecs on liking. However, speech paterns and

mannerisms are generally no social signals.


11/96

11General inroducion

I m i t a t i o n o f E m

o t i o n

C h a p t e r 1

Te social signals emoional behaviour may be sending are especially relevan in he

conex o imiaion, since imiaion is said o have an affiliaive uncion. Behaviour ha is

inherenly social, such as an emoional expression, can be expeced o influence he affiliaive

uncion o imiaion in a way ha behaviour ha is no inherenly social can no. hen people

imiae such behaviour hey are no merely copying behaviour, hey are also sending he social

signal associaed wih ha imiaed behaviour. I he man in he example reacs wih anger

owards he woman his is no jus imiaion: his behaviour wil l ineviably also send her a non-

affiliaive social signal in reurn. Sending each oher such (non) affiliaive signals can obviously

be expeced o have an impac on how much hey consequenly like each oher.

o dae, wha has been missing in mos research on imiaion is a ocus on he specific

meaning o he behaviour being imiaed. Previous research has predominanly sudied

imiaion by looking a behaviour and mannerisms ha are relaively meaningless, no behaviour ha is socia l and rich in meaning. An imporan aim o his hesis is o show ha such

a ocus on he specific meaning o he behaviour is necessary: I imiaion is sudied wihou

considering he communicaive meaning o he behaviour ha is imiaed, his may lead o

overgeneralisaions, such as he belie ha here is an inrinsic link beween imiaion and

lik ing. In order o show ha such a ocus on he social signals o behaviour is indispensable, his

hesis ocuses on imiaion o behaviour ha is inherenly social: Te expression o emoions.

Te hesis will ex plore he ollowing quesions: ‘ill I like you more i I imiae your emoion?’

and ‘ill I be more likely o imiae your emoion i I like you more?’.

ill I like you more i I imiae your emoion?

An inspecion o he lieraure reveals ha in general imiaion o behaviour has a posiive

effec on liking. People have been shown o imiae a variey o behaviours such as oo apping

(Charrand & Bargh, ), increased orearm muscle ension when observing arm wreslers

(Berger & Hadley, ) and speech paterns and accens (Capella & Panalp, ; Giles &

Powesland, ; Giles & Smih, ; ebb, , ). hen people imiae such behaviour

his ypical ly has a posiive effec on liking (Charrand & Bargh, ; Van Baaren e al., ).

Mimicry has even been described as a ‘social glue’, binding people ogeher and creaing

harmonious relaionships (Lakin e al., ).

Is imiaing emoions differen rom he behaviour examined in hese previous sudies? I

conend ha i is. I people imiae oo apping his will lead o more lik ing. Bu can oo apping

be compared o ex pressing an emoion? Emoion expressions are obviously no jus a par o

he broad group ‘human behaviour’, bu are par o he group o human behaviour wih specific

communicaive meaning (Fridlund, ). Each specific emoion has a different meaning: each


12/96

12 Chaper 1

expression exiss or a reason, has a differen communicaive social signal value, and is hereore

likely o have a differen effec on he observer. Tis means ha i people imiae someone’s

emoion expression, hey wil l no jus be imiaing ha behaviour, bu will ineviably also be

sending he oher he signal generally associaed wih such an expression. Sending each oher

such signals can clearly have an impac on wheher people like each oher.

ha social signals do emoions convey? hen someone is expressing an emoion i is

usually wih he purpose o reveal o ohers wha he or she is eeling (Frijda, ). However,

he emoional sae someone is in is no he only hing an emoion reveals. I can also be

communicaive in oher ways: or example, i can be inended as an affiliaive signal (Fridlund,

; Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, ; K nuson, ). Smiles in paricular are oen shown o reveal

riendly inenions. hereas i people wan o reveal o someone hey are displeased wih hem,

hey migh send ha person an expression o annoyance, disgus, or, when hey wan o makehemselves exremely clear, anger. Research shows ha observers indeed rae acial expressions

differenly on affiliaion. Happiness is seen by observers as highly affiliaive (Hess, e al., ;

Knuson, ). Disgus and anger are seen as highly non-affi liaive wih anger being he mos

non-affiliaive. Fear and sadness are seen as neural on raings o affiliaion (Hess, e al., ;

Knuson, ).

ha effec does his affiliaive aspec o emoion have on imiaion? Te social signal

each emoion is sending is especial ly relevan in he conex o imiaion since imiaion is said

o have an affiliaive uncion. Because emoions are seen as affiliaive hey can be expecedo influence imiaion, in a way ha simpler ypes o behaviour can no. Imiaion oen serves

a goal o ry o improve liking (Lakin & Charrand, ). However, i he behaviour isel is

also sending an affiliaive or non-affiliaive signal, his can inerac or even inerere wih he

affiliaive goal. Imiaing a highly affiliaive emoion, such as happiness, imiaion will only

ampliy he affiliaive aspec o imiaion and resul in more liking, because boh sender and

observer are sending highly affiliaive signals o each oher. However, imiaing a highly non-

affiliaive emoion, such as anger, means ha boh sender and observer are sending highly non-

affiliaive signals o each oher. Tis will probably lead o less liking even hough he behaviour

is imiaive.

In shor, I expec imiaion o non-affiliaive behaviour, such as anger, o have a negaive

effec on liking. However, I also argue ha here is one precondiion or such negaive liking

effecs o occur. Social signals generally have a arge: In he example a he beginning o his

inroducion he woman is angry and he man is he arge o ha anger. I he woman in he

sory would have been angry a a hird person, her boss or example, he man could have saely

imiaed her anger by becoming exremely angry a her boss. She migh even have liked him

more aer his (‘You and I are boh angry a my boss’). Tus, i he highly non-affiliaive signals


13/96



o t i o n

C h a p t e r 1

are no sen a each oher, bu a a hird pary, anger imiaion may in ac serve an affiliaive

goal. Tis means ha he expecaion or anger imiaion o lead o less liking only holds when

he anger is, or can be perceived o be, direced a he observer. hen he anger is clearly no

direced a he observer, here will be no decrease in lik ing and here migh even be more liking,

because alhough he behaviour is non-affiliaive, i is no non-affi lia ive owards he observer.

Anoher aspec ha is likely o influence he effec o imiaion o anger is he gender o

he person sending he emoion. Gender has been shown o influence how anger is seen: Anger

is seen as especially non-affiliaive when shown by men (Hess, e al., ). Men are also in

general seen as more likely o ac aggressively (Swim, ), which migh make an angr y man

more righening han an angry woman. How will his influence how imiaion o anger affecs

lik ing? I could signal o he observers how he emoion is o be perceived. Especially i i is

unclear wheher he behaviour is non-affiliaive or affiliaive owards someone, he simple acha he person showing he anger is a man migh signal ha he emoion is non-affiliaive. Tus

imiaing an angry man could resul in a decrease in liking even when imiaing he anger migh

oherwise have had a more mild effec on liking.

In sum: ill I like you more i I imiae your emoion? I expec ha he answer will be ‘no

always’. More specifical ly, people will indeed like each oher more i he emoion is, or is seen as,

affiliaive. In conras, i he emoion is, or is seen as, non-affiliaive and is no direced owards a

hird pary (away rom he observer), hen he oher person will be liked less.

ill I be more likely o imiae your emoion i I like you more?

Researchers in he imiaion and lik ing field do no only argue ha imiaion should lead o

more liking bu also argue ha liking should lead o more imiaion (or an overview, see Lakin

e al., ). Sudies on non-emoional behaviour show ha an unlikable person is imiaed less

han a likable person (Sel e al., ), and more personal, inimae conversaions lead o more

imiaion (Jefferis, van Baaren & Charrand, ).

Disliking and Imitation

Alhough liking is oen associaed wih imiaion ( Jefferis e al., ; Lakin e al., ;

Sel e al., ), disliking is ypically only argued o lead o less or a mos no imiaion, bu

not o he opposite o imiaion or oher dissimilar reacions. Teoreically, however, dissimilar

reacions are no impossible. Lakin and Charrand () showed ha an acive affiliaion

goal leads o more imiaion, and hey argued ha lik ing probably leads o more imiaion

because people generally are more likely o have an acive affilia ion goal owards liked ohers.


14/96

14 Chaper 1

Alhough hey did no menion he possibiliy o dissimilar reacions owards disliked ohers,

such reacions would sill be in line wih heir reasoning. One merely has o ake Lakin and

Charrand’s () reasoning one sep urher: Tus, I argue ha i is possible ha people do

no merely have less or no desire o affiliae wih disliked ohers, bu migh also have an acive

desire o not affiliae or even distance hemselves rom disliked ohers. Since imiaion can

ulfil an affiliaion goal, such a desire o no affiliae could be ulfilled by dissimilar reacions. I

hereore argue ha dissimilar reacions owards disliked ohers are ar more likely han similar

(imiaive) reacions. I a disliked person is showing happiness, or example, I expec people o

reac wih disancing behaviour raher han wih imiaion.

Only one sudy has previously been done on he effec o liking on he imiaion o

emoions (Likowski, Mühlberger, Seib, Pauli, & eyers, ). Tis sudy showed ha boh

happiness and sadness were imiaed more when paricipans had a more posiive atiudeowards he oher person. Imporanly, hey also ound some suble indicaions o dissimilar

acial muscular reacions (smiling) owards disliked sad ohers. Tey did no show such effecs

or happiness. However, because heir main ineres was in imiaion o happiness and sadness,

hey only ocused on muscle aciviy consisen wih sadness and happiness. I argue ha he

reacions o disliked happy ohers are likely o include disancing behaviour and unlikely o

include sadness i is unsurprising ha his sudy did no show any such effecs. Te dissimilar

reacions owards he disliked sad ohers does however suppor he idea ha people do no jus

imiae disliked ohers less, bu can indeed show dissimilar reacions.

Liking and imitation

Even when he oher is liked, however, i does no seem logical o always expec more

imiaion. Te man in he example abou he couple probably would no have reaced o he

woman’s anger wih imiaion. He would probably be more inclined o calm he woman down

han o ge angry a her in reurn. Even hough he relevan lieraure ypical ly argues ha liked

ohers should be imiaed more (Jefferis, e al., ; Lakin, e al., ; Likowski, e al, ;

Sel, e al., ), a non-imiaive reac ion owards a liked oher noneheless makes perec sense

i he meaning o he behaviour is again aken ino accoun. Anger is non-affiliaive and hus

showing anger in response o he oher’s anger (imiaion) is ambiguous: I could be consrued

as empahic behaviour (e.g., ‘ogeher we are angry a someone else’), bu could also be

consrued as a non-affiliaive message (e.g., ‘I am angry a you’). I consequenly expec, conrary

o he research on non-emoional behaviour, ha anger will not be imiaed i he oher is liked:

People wil l be especially unlikely o risk sending a non-affiliaive message owards someone

hey like. Tey will be more likely o wan o be unmisakably affiliaive, or example by rying


15/96



o t i o n

C h a p t e r 1

o help he oher in some way. I he oher person is no liked people are more likely o show

non-affiliaive expressions. However, as beore, showing anger i he oher is already showing

anger (imiaion) is ambiguous: as well as possibly being consrued as a non-affi liaive message

i could also be consrued as empahic behaviour. Tereore I do no expec people o imiae

anger owards disliked people eiher. People will be more likely o wan o be indispuably non-

affiliaive, or example by urning heir back on he oher person (disengaging).

In sum: ill I be more likely o imiae your emoion i I like you more? As wih he

previous quesion he answer is likely o be more complicaed han a simple yes or no. I he

emoion is affiliative or neural on affiliaion, liking will lead o more imiaion compared o

disliking. I he emoion is non-affiliative , here will be no imiaion, regardless o wheher he

oher is liked or disliked. However, when I say no imaion I do no mean inacion. Raher han

inacion I expec non-imiaive (dissimilar) reacions.

Overview o he empirical chapers

Above I have argued ha he affiliaive aspecs o behaviour are ex remely imporan when

sudying he effec o imiaion on liking and he effec o liking on imiaion. Especially or

emoions, which are imporan social signals in and o hemselves, hese affiliaive aspecs are

likely o play an imporan role when sudying imiaion. For boh quesions ‘ill I like you

more i I imiae your emoion?’ and ‘ill I be more likely o imiae your emoion i I like youmore?’, he expeced differences are in large par due o wheher he emoion is eiher affiliaive

or non-affiliaive. In he ollowing hree empirical chapers I will es hese expecaions.

Will I like you more i I imitate your emotion?

In Chaper he idea ha he affiliaive naure o he emoion will affec liking aer

imiaion is esed. An affiliaive emoion (happiness) and a non-affi liaive emoion (anger) are

pited agains each oher.

In Chaper he effec o arge and gender o he sender o he emoion are explored. Te

inenion being o show how he same behaviour, imiaion o anger, can cause differen effecs

on lik ing depending on how ha anger is perceived.


16/96

16 Chaper 1

Will I be more likely to imitate your emotion i I like you more?

In Chaper he reverse side o he link beween imiaion and lik ing is invesigaed: Does

lik ing affec wheher people are more likely o imiae oher people’s emoions? In order o

invesigae he influence o he affiliaive aspecs o emoions, hree differen emoions are used

var ying on how affilia ive hey come across: happiness, sadness and anger. Tese emoions are

expressed by eiher an inensely disliked or an inensely liked person.


17/96


18/96


19/96

Chapter 2

Imitation of emotion:When meaningleads to aversion


20/96

Chaper 220

I is easy o imagine a siuaion where you find yoursel imiaing someone else. You

probably have, a imes, sponaneously reurned a riend’s big smile wih he same acial

expression. O course, people do no always respond o ohers by maching hem, oherwise hey

would all quickly behave in exac ly he same manner. However when people do imiae each

oher, i oen makes ineracions smooher: Several sudies have shown ha people like ohers

ha imiae hem more han ohers ha do no imiae hem. A nd, vice versa , imiaors like he

people hey imiae more han he people hey do no imiae (Charrand & Bargh, ; Sel

& Vonk, ; Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & Van Knippenberg, ). In oher words,

previous research suggess ha imiaing ends o have a posiive effec on liking. Furhermore,

i has even been described as a ‘social glue’: “…he consisen link beween behavioral mimicry

and lik ing suggess ha his behavior may have ulimaely evolved o serve a ‘social glue’

uncion, binding people ogeher and creaing harmonious relaionships” (Lakin, Jefferis,Cheng, & Charrand, , p. ).

However, i is imporan o noe ha hese previous sudies oen ocused on relaively

neural behaviour like ace ouching or oo apping. Some behaviour clearly includes a message

o he oher person: Research shows or example ha emoions differ widely on wheher hey

are seen by ohers as affiliaive or non-affiliaive (Hess, Blair y, & Kleck, ; K nuson, ).

Happiness is usually shown o encourage conac and show riendly inenions and is seen by

ohers as highly affi liaive, and anger is oen expressed o show disconen or hosiliy owards

someone and is seen as highly non-affiliaive by ohers (Hess e al., ; Knuson, ). Iseems logical o argue ha even hough imiaion generally leads o more lik ing, imiaion o

behaviours ha are o heir inheren meaning already clearly affiliative or non-affiliative may

have a differen effec on liking. In he presen sudies, we aim o es his logical assumpion

and show ha imiaing an affiliaive emoional expression (happiness) may indeed lead o more

lik ing, whereas imiaing a non-affiliaive emoional expression (anger) can lead o less liking.

Imitation o emotional expressions

ha effec does he affilia ive or non-affiliaive aspec o emoion have on imiaion?

Imiaion o more neural behaviour generally leads o more liking and is oen said o have

an affiliaive uncion (see Lakin e al., ). In ha conex he affiliaive signals emoional

behaviour may be sending are especial ly relevan. Behaviour ha is inherenly affi lia ive, such

as emoional expressions (Fridlund, ), can be expeced o influence he affiliaive uncion

o imiaion unl ike behaviour ha is no inherenly social. hen people imiae such behaviour


21/96

Imiaion o emoion

h e n m e a n i n g l e a d s t o a v e r s i o n

C h a p t e r 2

21

hey are no merely copying behaviour. Tey are also sending he affiliaive signal associaed

wih ha imiaed behaviour. Sending each oher such (non-) affilia ive signals can obviously be

expeced o have an impac on how much people consequenly like each oher.

Imiaing an affiliaive emoional expression such as happiness is likely o lead o more

liking, since he affiliaive aspec o he behaviour is likely o aciliae he affiliaive uncion

o imiaion. However, because imiaing means sending he non-affiliaive signal associaed

wih ha behaviour, imiaing a non-affi liaive emoional expression such as anger will probably

resul in less liking. Boh sender and observer are sending highly non-affiliaive signals o each

oher, cancelling ou any posiive effec ha he mere ac o imiaion migh have.

Te lieraure on imiaion and mimicr y oen implies ha hese processes are he cemen

o sociey and uncion as a sor o social glue (e.g., Lakin e al ., ). From his perspecive

i ollows ha in siuaions where mimicry has negaive effecs on liking here should be lessmimicry. Tus, precisely because we expec imiaing anger will have negaive effecs we should

also expec anger will generally no be imiaed sponaneously. Tereore, o be able o sudy he

effecs imiaing such non-affiliaive behaviour has on liking, i is necessary o sudy inenional

imiaion (insruc people o imiae). Much o he previous research on imiaion and liking,

however, sudied sponaneous imiaion: Ta is, paricipans in hese sudies were generally

unaware hey were imiaing. Tis difference in mehods could poenially pose a problem;

however, recen research shows ha inenional imiaion is likely o have similar effecs

on liking compared o sponaneous imiaion (Sel & Vonk, ). Moreover, oher sudiescomparing he wo kinds o imiaion sugges ha he choice or inenional imiaion migh

acually be a conservaive one: Inenional imiaion is slower and more efforul (Dimberg,

Tunberg, & Grunedal, ) and inenional imiaion is more sensiive o siuaional demands

and culural influences (Ekman, ).

o summarise: we expec imiaion will only cause increased liking when a acial

expression is seen as affiliaive (when he expression is happy). hen i is seen as non-affiliaive

(when he expression is angry), we expec ha inenionally sending such a non-affiliaive signal

back (imiaing) will lead o less liking. e invesigae hese hypoheses in wo sudies. In boh

sudies we looked a he impac o emoion (happy / angr y) and imiaion on liking. In Sudy

., we used compuer generaed aces (avaars) as arges o have maximum conrol over acial

eaures and srengh o he emoional expression. In Sudy ., we used videos o real people as

arges.


22/96

Chaper 222

Sudy .

Method

Participants and design. Universiy sudens (n = ) ook par in Sudy .. Te sudy had

an emoion (happy / angry) versus imiaion insrucion (imiaion yes / no) design and wih

lik ing as he dependen variable. Paricipans were randomly assigned o he our condiions and

were disribued equally across condiions.

Material . Te paricipans were shown a shor video in which a acial ex pression changed

rom neural o a specific emoion: angry or happy. In his sudy we used compuer generaed

aces (avaars) as arges.

Procedure. Paricipans were old ha hey would look a and evaluae videos in order o es

maerial or uure research. Tey were also old ha in order o preven hem hinking oo much

abou he video hey would ge a specific insrucion. In he imiaion condiion, he paricipans

were asked o imiae he arge. In he conrol condiion he paricipans were asked o jus

look a he video. All paricipans were recorded wih a webcam in order o be able o check

wheher hey were ollowing our insrucions. Aer he video he paricipans compleed several

quesions including he main dependen measure. Aer ha paricipans were asked wha hey

hough he sudy was abou and hey were debrieed.

Dependent measure . o measure lik ing we used he quesion ‘wha was your firs impressiono he person in he video’. Paricipans answered by dragging a marker on a l ine rom negaive

o posiive. Te posiion on he line corresponded wih a number beween and . e asked

people abou heir ‘firs impressions’ because we el ha direcly asking abou o wha exen

hey “liked” he arge would be likely o bias heir responses in a posiive direcion (see

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, ; Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, ).

o give credibiliy o he cover sory and o be able rule ou or conrol or oher

explanaions we asked several oher quesions, including quesions abou he video (“wha was

your firs impression o he video isel ”), and experienced emoions (“Do you eel…?”). Forhese measures he same scales were used as or he main dependen measure.

Results

In order o deermine wheher he paricipans ollowed our insrucions we scored

our webcam recordings on he presence and inensiy o acial expressions. Because some

paricipans disappeared ou o view we were able o score o he oal number o recordings

For more inormaion abou he simuli conac he firs auhor.


23/96

Imiaion o emoion


C h a p t e r 2

23

o which saw he happy emoion and saw he angry emoion. wo experienced judges, who

were blind o condiions, independenly scored he recordings on inensiy o expressions

(happy and angry among ohers) on scales rom o (a score o was used when he expression

was absen). o deermine iner-raer reliabiliy we compued inraclass correlaions, using a wo

way random model and consisency definiion (McGraw & ong, ; Shrou & Fleiss, ).

Te scores were . or he happiness raings and . or he anger raings, which is excellen

according o he crieria specified by Cicheti and Sparrow (). e hen ook he averages o

he wo judges as he dependen variables in our manipulaion check. e ound a significan

effec o imiaion or boh he angry emoion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ., and he happy

emoion, F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= .. Paricipans showed sronger anger expressions when

hey were asked o imiae he angr y emoion compared o when hey were asked jus o look

( M = ., SD = . vs M = ., SD =.). Paricipans also showed sronger happy expressionsi hey were asked o imiae he happy emoion compared o when hey were asked jus o look

( M = ., SD = . vs M = ., SD = .). So our paricipans did ollow our insrucions.

Nex, we analysed he resuls o emoion and insrucion on liking o he arge. In line

wih our expecaions here was a significan ineracion beween insrucion and emoion on

liking, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. Alhough he means were in he expeced direcions

(see able .), simple effecs analysis or happiness and anger unorunaely showed ha he

effec o insrucion was no significan wihin each emoion –when using wo-ailed ess

(F (,) = ., p = ., ηp = . and F (,) = ., p = ., ηp = . respecively). Neverheless,simple effecs analysis did show a srong effec o emoion wihin imiaion insrucion: hen

he paricipans imiaed an angr y person hey liked his person less han when hey imiaed

a happy person, F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= . (see able .). As prediced, no significan

differences were ound or emoion wihin he ‘jus look’ insrucion, F (,) = ., p = .,

ηp

= (see able .).

able .

Te means o firs impression o he arge as a uncion o emoion and insr ucion or Sudy ..

Insrucion

Imiaion No assignmen

Happy 58.7a (24.6) 50.8

ab (25.1)

Angry 35.5 b

(29.4) 43.8ab

(30.6)

Noe: Scores are given on a scale rom (negaive) o (posiive). Te sandard devia ions are in parenheses . Means

ha do no share he same subscrip are significanly differen ( p < .).


24/96

Chaper 224

No oher effecs were ound on any o he oher measures (all F’s < ). Tis is imporan o

noe because i suggess ha he ineracion effec on he lik ing measure can no be inerpreed

as a response bias ha could have been ound on any evaluaive measure. Tus, imiaing an

angry arge did no cause paricipans o become more negaive in general , i merely caused

paricipans o become more negaive abou he target .

o es he robusness o our findings, we conduced Sudy .. In his sudy, emoion was

a wihin-subjecs variable so ha we could see wheher he effecs o imiaing an angry video

inerered wih he effecs o imiaing a subsequen happy video. Aside rom his we used videos

o real aces (Van der Velde, Sapel & Gordijn, ) raher han avaars o ensure ha he sudy

would more closely resemble a siuaion in daily lie.

Sudy .

Method

Universiy sudens (n = ) paricipaed in Sudy .. Each paricipan looked a and

judged he angry video firs and hen looked a and judged he happy video. For each par icipan,

insrucion (imiae or no) was consan hroughou he sudy and paricipans were randomly

assigned o eiher he imiaion or ‘jus look’ insrucion. Tus he design was a mi xed design

wih emoion as he wihin-subjecs variable and insrucion as he beween-subjecs var iable.Te res o he sudy was idenical o he firs sudy.

Results

In order o deermine wheher he paricipans ollowed our insrucions we firs scored

our webcam recordings on he presence and inensiy o acial expressions. In his sudy we

were able o score he recordings o only paricipans due o auly camera posiioning and

paricipans disappearing ou o view, o hese recordings were scoreable or he ime heysaw he happy emoion and were scoreable or he ime hey saw he angry emoion. wo

experienced judges, who were blind o condiions, independenly scored he recordings o he

paricipans, or he duraion ha hey were waching he videos, on inensiy o expressions on

a scale rom o (a score o was used when he expression was absen). o deermine iner-

raer reliabiliy we compued inraclass correlaions, similar o Sudy .. Te scores were . or

he happiness raings and . or he anger raings, which is excellen according o he crieria.

e hen ook he averages o he wo judges’ raings or happiness and anger as he dependen

variables in our manipulaion check. e ound a significan effec o imiaion or boh he


25/96

Imiaion o emoion


C h a p t e r 2

25

angry emoion, F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= . and he happy emoion, F (,) = ., p < .,

ηp

= .. Paricipans showed sronger anger expressions when hey were asked o imiae he

angry emoion compared o when hey were asked jus o look ( M = ., SD = . vs M = .,

SD = .). Tere were also sronger happy expressions or he paricipans who were asked

o imiae he happy emoion ( M = ., SD = . vs M = ., SD = .). So our paricipans

ollowed he insrucions and also did no imiae i hey were no asked o.

Nex, we analysed he resuls o emoion and insrucion on liking o he arge using a

repeaed measures analysis. During oulier analysis we ound one score ha had a disance o

more han . he Iner uarile Range (IQR) o he median. Since he oulier crierion or IR

is scores ha are over . IR his is a definie oulier. e hereore removed his score rom

urher analysis.

Te repeaed measures analysis showed here was a clear ineracion beween emoionand insrucion on liking, F (,) = ., p = ., η

p = .. Aer imiaing an angry person

paricipans liked his person less compared o he conrol group, F (,) = ., p = .,

ηp

= ., and aer imiaing a happy person hey liked his person more, F (,) = ., p = .,

ηp

= . (see able . or he means). Analyses or each insrucion separaely also showed an

effec o emoion wihin he imiaion insrucion: hen he paricipans imiaed an angry

person hey liked his person less han when hey imiaed a happy person, F(,) = .,

p = ., ηp

= .. Again no effec o emoion on liking was ound wihin he ‘jus look’

insrucion, F(,) = ., p = ., ηp = . (see able .).

able .

Te means o firs impression o he arge as a uncion o emoion and insr ucion or Sudy ..

Insrucion

Imiaion No assignmen

Happy 61.8a (19.1) 50.5

b (18.5)

Angry 42.6c (23.8) 56.0 b (16.9)



I is imporan o noe ha all paricipans firs saw he angry person and hen he happy

person. I being angry a an angry person induced a negaive response bias (see Sudy .), his

should have disruped he resuls on he happy video. Te opposie was rue: Te means or he

happy condiion were even higher han beore. Again we did no find any oher effecs on he

oher measures (all Fs < ). Tus, again, hese findings suppor he hypohesis ha even hough


26/96

Chaper 226

imiaing a happy arge causes paricipans o like ha arge more, imiaing an angry arge

causes paricipans o like he arge less.

Discussion

Behaviour is meaningul and oen has a communicaive uncion. Tis is especially rue

or emoional behaviour. hen people show emoions, hey oen do his o le oher people

know wha hey are eeling. Tus, a happy ace is oen inended o be (and recognised by

ohers) as affiliaive, whereas an angry ace is oen inended o be (and recognised by ohers)

as non-affiliaive. Te presen findings suppor he noion ha when behaviour is meaningul,

imiaion does no necessarily breed liking. Specifically, imiaing non-affiliaive behaviour,

such as an angr y rown, may lead o less raher han more liking. Ineresingly, his imiaion-may-decrease-liking effec is in disagreemen wih a hos o recen social cogniion sudies o

imiaion effecs (see Lakin e al., or an overview). Tese previous sudies, however, have

never looked a he effec o imiaing meaningul non-affiliaive behaviour. Tus, he presen

sudies show ha o ruly undersand he consequences o imiaion, i is imporan o look a

he (social) meaning o wha is imiaed.

I is imporan o noe ha even hough he wo emoions we used o sudy he impac

o “meaning” on he imiaion-liking link differed in valence, our resuls can no be explained

simply in erms o he posiiviy o happiness or negaiviy o anger. As a recen sudy by Sel and Vonk () comparing imiaion o sadness and happiness has shown, someimes (in he case

o sadness) imiaing negaive emoions may increase lik ing. Tus, no all negaive emoions are

creaed equal. e would like o argue ha he difference is relaed o he affiliaiveness o hese

emoions: Sadness is neural on affi liaion, whereas anger is a non-affiliaive emoion (see Hess

e al., ; Knuson, ). A ruiul avenue or uure research may hus be o compare he

effecs o imiaing sadness and anger and oher negaive emoions ha differ on how affiliaive

hey come across.

Anoher issue which may be sudied in uure research is he idea ha or he presen

effecs o occur i may no be necessary or people o imiae. Jus saring angrily a someone

migh be enough o induce disliking. Since scowling a a person already implies you do no

like hem overmuch, his cerainly may be possible. e would argue, however, ha when

wo people look angry a each oher his gives more inormaion abou he ineracion hen

when one is angry and he oher is no, and hereore will give sronger effecs on lik ing. Te

imporan message in he presen sudies, however, is ha imiaion does no always and does

no necessarily increase liking, as many imiaion sudies have argued or implied (e.g., Charrand

& Bargh, ; Lakin e al., ; Van Baaren e al., ).


27/96

Imiaion o emoion


C h a p t e r 2

27

In line wih he lieraure on imiaion we argued ha i imiaion is he cemen o sociey

and uncions as a social glue, imiaion should be absen enirely or a leas decrease o a level

invisible o oher people when i has negaive effecs on liking. e hus expeced anger o be

imiaed less han happiness. Paricipans in our sudies indeed did no sponaneously mimic

anger. Some previous sudies show imiaion o emoions smiles and rowns (Blairy, Herrera, &

Hess, ; Dimberg & Tunberg, ; Dimberg, Tunberg, & Elmehed, ; Hess & Blairy,

). Tese sudies oen use non-vivid simuli such as phoos. Oher sudies using more vivid

simuli however have resuls ha more closely fi our heory showing litle imiaion o rowns

compared o smiles (Hinsz & omhave, ; Esow, Jamieson, & Yaes, ). However,

unexpecedly, he smiling person was also no sponaneously imiaed in our sudies (bu see

also Ruys & Sapel, ). I could be ha our simuli were already vivid enough o elici eelings

o liking or disliking aer insruced imiaion bu needed o be even more vivid or personallyrelevan or paricipans o have visibly imiaed he happy arges sponaneously. I would be

ineresing o urher invesigae o wha exen sponaneous imiaion occurs or does no occur

when i is or is no uncional.

Because we did no expec any sponaneous imiaion o anger o occur i was necessar y

o use inenional imiaion in our sudies. However, because previous sudies oen used

sponaneous imiaion he possibiliy remains ha he resuls were obained merely because o

he difference in imiaion. For example, he simple ac ha people were aware ha hey were

mean o imiae he oher person’s behaviour could have resuled in more people guessing hereal purpose o he research and hus influencing he resuls. e o course checked or his

possibiliy and we did no find any such effecs: people were generally compleely unaware why

hey were asked o imiae. More imporanly, research suggess inenional imiaion is l ikely

o be an equal or even a more conservaive choice han sponaneous imiaion (Dimberg e al,

; Ekman, ; Sel & Vonk, ), Tus, alhough i would be good o be able o compare

he wo orms o imiaion in one design, we hink ha i is likely ha sponaneous imiaion

o non-affiliaive behaviour will also have a negaive effec on lik ing, perhaps an even sronger

effec.

In conclusion hen, he link beween imiaion and liking is no as simple as he relevan

lieraure suggess. Imiaion and liking are no always posiively relaed. Especially when he

behaviour is meaningul, he link beween imia ion and liking may someimes be negaive.

heher he imiaor hinks he behav iour is affiliaive or non-affilia ive has a grea impac

on he effec imiaion has on liking. Imiaing non-affiliaive behaviour can have negaive

consequences.


28/96


29/96

Chapter 3

Are you angry at me?The importance ofmeaning and direction

when imitating emotion


30/96

Chaper 330

Imagine ha your riend is angry. I she is no angry at you, her anger wil l probably

no affec he warmh o your relaionship. Similarly, i you reurn her anger wih an angr y

expression ha is clearly not directed at her , your riendship is also l ikely o be unaffeced.

However, i she is clearly angry a you and you reurn her anger wih an angr y expression ha is

direced a her, muual affecion is likely o decrease. Ta is he hypohesis we will be esing

in he presen se o sudies: hen someone expresses anger oward you and because o you,

imiaing may decrease liking.

In conex o he relevan lieraure his sraighorward hypohesis may seem

counerinuiive. Mos sudies on mimicry and imiaion sugges ha imiaion will increase

lik ing (Charrand & Bargh, ; Sel & Vonk, ; Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & Van

Knippenberg, ). Mimicr y has even been described as a ‘social glue’: “…he consisen link

beween behavioural mimicry and liking suggess ha his behaviour may have ulimaelyevolved o serve a ‘social glue’ uncion, binding people ogeher and creaing harmonious

relaionships.” (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Charrand, , p. ).

Alhough we are no conesing he idea ha imiaion may increase liking, we hink i is

imporan o noe ha he imiaion-liking link is no ubiquious. Previous research on mimicry

and imiaion has oen ocused on he imiaion-liking link in he conex o relaively simple,

neural behaviours. Tere are o course many orms o behaviour ha can no be considered

neural. Research shows, or example, ha emoions differ widely on wheher hey are seen by

ohers as affiliaive or non-affiliaive (Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, ; Knuson, ). Happinessis usually inended as a way o encourage conac and is seen by ohers as highly affiliaive,

whereas anger is oen ex pressed o discourage conac and show disconen and is ypically

seen as highly non-affi liaive by ohers (Hess e al., ; Knuson, ). Even hough imiaion

generally leads o more liking, i seems logical o argue ha imiaion o such inherenly

affiliaive or non-affiliaive behaviours may affec liking in a differen manner.

Imitation o emotional expressions

ha effec does he affilia ive or non-affiliaive aspec o emoion have on imiaion?

Imiaion o more neural behaviour generally leads o more liking and is oen said o have

an affiliaive uncion (see Lakin e al., ). In ha conex he affiliaive signals emoional

behaviour may be sending are especial ly relevan. Behaviour ha is inherenly social, such as

emoional expressions (Fridlund, ), can be expeced o influence he affiliaive uncion o

imiaion unlike behaviour ha is no inherenly social. hen people imiae such meaningul

behaviour hey are no merely copying he behaviour. Tey are also sending he (non-) affiliaive

signal associaed wih ha behaviour. Sending each oher such (non-) affiliaive signals can


31/96

Are you angry a me?

T e i m p o r t a n c e o f m e a n i n g a n d d i r e c t i o n w h e n i m i t a t i n g e m o t i o n

C h a p t e r 3

31

obviously be expeced o have an impac on how much people consequenly like each oher.

Imiaing a non-affiliaive emoional expression such as anger will hus probably resul in

less lik ing. Boh sender and observer are sending highly non-affiliaive signals o each oher

cancelling ou any posiive effec ha he mere ac o imiaion migh have.

Such signals are oen directed at a paricular arge or objec, oen a person or siuaion

(Frijda, ). hen sudying he effecs o emoions, i is hus relevan o consider he arge

o he emoion. Te meaning and inerpreaion o he emoion may depend on wheher i

is direced oward he observer or a someone or somehing else. Tis is rue especially or

anger. Sudies have shown ha anger direced oward he perceiver is a clear hrea or he

perceiver and is more easily recognized, whereas anger direced away rom he perceiver

is more ambiguous and less easily recognized (Adams, Gordon, Baird, Ambady, & Kleck,

; Adams & Kleck, ). Furhermore, i has been shown ha in negoiaions anger isinerpreed differenly when i is direced oward people personally han when i is direced

a heir behaviour (Seinel, Van K lee, & Harinck, ). e hereore argue ha imiaing a

non-affiliaive emoion will only resul in less lik ing o he emoion was direced a he perceiver

personally. I he anger is no direced a he perceiver personally he perceiver is imiaing he

same behaviour bu because he signal is no direced a he perceiver personally he social

message o disconen ha is associaed wih he emoion will also no be direced a he sender.

Imiaing his behaviour can even have posiive consequences because he imiaion can be seen

as empahic: ‘I eel he same way, I share your anger’.I here is no imiaion, we do no expec direcion o he emoion o have an effec on

lik ing. Some people migh dislike someone ha is angry a hem, however, oher people migh

have more o an inclinaion o eel guily when someone is angr y a hem and will no ake

offence. Furhermore, someone who is angry a someone else is no necessarily more likeable

han someone who is angry a he observer personally: i is jus as likely ha such a person will

be equally disliked.

Te direcion o he anger does, noneheless, give he observer inormaion abou how he

anger should be inerpreed. Oher acors can do he same: siuaional acors such as specific

acial eaures can also give people inormaion abou how a person’s expression should be

inerpreed. Facial eaures indicaive o, or insance, gender, age, healh, or dominance may be

used o iner he meaning behind he expression. Gender has, or example, been shown o have

an influence on how anger is seen: Anger is seen as especially non-affiliaive when shown by

men (Hess, e al., ). Men are also in general seen as more likely o ac aggressively (Swim,

), and men are oen seen as more aggressive han women, even when hey show exacly he

same angry behaviour (Harris & Knigh-Bohnhoff, ). All o hese known effecs migh make


32/96

Chaper 332

people eel ha when a man expresses anger, i is also a non-affiliaive signal owards hem, even

hough he direcion o he anger migh indicae oherwise.

Tus, when people hink anger is direced a hem we expec acial eaures indicaing

aggression will add o our expeced effecs o imiaion: people will like he person even

less. And even when anger is no direced a people personally we expec ha people will

neverheless inerpre he anger as a non-affiliaive signal owards hem when he anger is shown

by a man and hus lead o less liking. In his case he simulus isel gives inormaion abou how

he emoion is o be inerpreed.

Te lieraure on imiaion and mimicr y oen described hese as he cemen o sociey and

as social glue (e.g., Lakin e al ., ). Siuaions ha enable imiaion o have an adverse effec

on liking should, hereore, lead o less mimicr y. Tus, precisely because we expec imiaing

anger wil l have negaive effecs, we should also expec anger will generally no be imiaedsponaneously. Tis makes i necessary o insruc people o imiae, in order o be able o

sudy he effecs o imiaing such non-affiliaive behaviour. In much o he previous research

on imiaion and liking, however, paricipans were unaware hey were imiaing (sponaneous

imiaion). Tis difference in mehods could creae a problem or comparing his research wih

pas findings. However, recen research shows ha inenional imiaion does have similar

effecs on lik ing compared o sponaneous imiaion (Sel & Vonk, ). Moreover, oher

sudies comparing he wo kinds o imiaion sugges inenional imiaion migh acually be

less likely o have an effec, making i a more conservaive es o our hypoheses: Inenionalimiaion is slower and more efforul (Dimberg, Tunberg, & Grunedal, ), and inenional

imiaion is more sensiive o siuaional demands and culural influences (Ekman, ).

In sum, we expec ha people will like ohers less aer imiaion when he behaviour o

he oher is non-affiliaive oward he imiaor or when oher acors, such as aggressive acial

eaures, sugges he behaviour should be inerpreed as non-affiliaive. hen he behaviour

is no seen as non-affiliaive or when he non-affiliaiveness is no direced a he imiaor, we

expec imiaion migh even lead o more liking. hen he emoion is no imiaed, we do

no expec any such arge effecs. e invesigae hese hypoheses in wo sudies. In boh

sudies we looked a he impac o arge o he emoion (is ha person angry a me or no?)

and imiaion on liking. In Sudy . we also looked a how using an aggressive simulus can

influence he effec o arge and imiaion on liking.


33/96

Are you angry a me?


C h a p t e r 3

33

Sudy .

Method

Participants and design. One hundred and eigh women and eighy hree men paricipaedin Sudy .. Te sudy had an imiaion insrucion (imiaion, yes / no) versus arge

insrucion (perceiver is arge, yes / no) design wih ‘firs impression o he simulus person’ as

he dependen variable. Men and women were randomly assigned o he our condiions.

Material . Te paricipans were shown a shor video in which a woman’s acial expression

changed rom neural o angry. For boh sudies we used compuer generaed aces (avaars) as

simulus maerial.

Procedure. Paricipans were old ha hey would look a and evaluae videos in order o

es maerial or uure research. Tey were also old ha in order o preven hem hinkingo much during he video, hey would ge specific assignmens o carr y ou. In he imiaion

condiion paricipans were asked o imiae he simulus person. In he conrol condiion

paricipans were asked o jus look a he video. All paricipans knew hey were being recorded

wih a webcam in order o be able o check wheher hey were ollowing our insrucions.

Al l paricipans knew hey would see an angry person in he video. Paricipans in he arge

condiion were asked o imagine ha his person was angry a hem and paricipans in he non

arge condiion were asked o imagine ha his person was no angry a hem. Aer he video

he paricipans compleed several quesions including he main dependen measure. Aer ha

paricipans were asked wha hey hough he sudy was abou and hey were debrieed.

Dependent measure . o measure lik ing we used he quesion ‘wha was your firs impression

o he person in he video’. Paricipans answered by dragging a marker on a l ine rom negaive

o posiive. Te posiion on he line corresponded wih a number beween and . e asked

people abou heir ‘firs impressions’ because we el ha direcly asking abou o wha exen

hey “liked” he arge would be likely o bias heir responses in a posiive direcion (see

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, ; Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, ).

o give credibiliy o he cover sory and o be able rule ou or conrol or oher

explanaions we asked several oher quesions, including quesions abou he video (“wha was

your firs impression o he video isel ”), perceived emoion (“How angry do you hink he

For more inormaion abou he simuli conac he firs auhor. e used a conrol condiion ha simply asked paricipans o look a he video. I could be argued ha his i s no a

suiable conrol condiion because people end o sponaneously mimic (cerain ypes o ) behaviour (see Lakin e al.,

or an overv iew). A more widely used conrol condiion is o ask par icipans no o imiae. However as we noed

beore, we did no ex pec sponaneous mimic ry when mim icry migh have adverse effecs. e waned o make sure

ha par icipans could do wha hey would ‘normally’ do when encounering such a person. Our earlier sud ies showha indeed people do no (visibly) imiae anger (Van der Velde, Sapel, & Gordijn, in press).


34/96

Chaper 334

person in he video is?”) experienced emoions (“Do you eel…?”) and experienced effor (“How

easy did you hink i was o (insrucion)?”). For hese measures he same scales were used as or

he main dependen measure.

Results

Manipulation check. In order o deermine wheher he paricipans ollowed our

imiaion insrucion we scored our webcam recordings on he presence and inensiy o

acial expressions. Because some paricipans disappeared ou o view o he camera, we

were able o score o he oal number o recordings. wo experienced judges, who were

blind o condiions, independenly scored he recordings on inensiy o expressions, anger

among ohers, on scales rom o (a score o was used when he expression was absen). odeermine iner-raer reliabiliy we compued inraclass correlaions, using a wo way random

model and consisency definiion (McGraw & ong, ; Shrou & Fleiss, ). Te score was

. or anger, which is good according o he crieria specified by Cicheti and Sparrow ().

e conduced an ANOVA wih arge insrucion and imiaion insrucion as independen

variables and he average o he judges’ score as he dependen variable. e ound a significan

effec o imiaion on anger expressions, F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= .. Paricipans showed

sronger anger expressions when hey were asked o imiae, compared o when hey were asked

jus o look ( M = ., SD = . vs M = ., SD = .). Tis shows ha paricipans did ollowour insrucions. Tere was no effec o arge insrucion on occurrence o imiaion and no

ineracion, F ’s < . Oher expressions han anger hardly occurred and did no occur in such

quaniies ha analysis on hese was possible.

Outlier Analysis. Nex, we analyzed he resuls o arge insrucion and imiaion

insrucion on lik ing o he simulus. Analysis showed one oulier. Tis poin deviaed more

han . Inerquarile Range (IQR) rom he mean. e excluded his poin rom urher

analyses. Resuls were comparable wihou removal o he oulier.

Effects on liking. e did an ANOVA wih arge insrucion and imiaion insrucion as

independen variables and liking as he dependen variable. In our analyses we also looked a

he effec o paricipan gender. Because here were no par icipan gender effecs (F s < ), we

collapsed across his variable. In line wih our expecaions here was a significan ineracion

beween arge insrucion and imiaion insrucion on he dependen variable liking,

F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. See able . or he means. Furher analysis showed ha when

paricipans imiaed he angry simulus person hey liked her less compared o he conrol

condiion when hey imagined hey were he arge o he anger, F (,) = ., p = .,

ηp

= .. hen hey imagined hey were no he arge o he anger here was no effec, F < .


35/96

Are you angry a me?


C h a p t e r 3

35

able .

Firs impression o he simulus person as a uncion o imiaion insrucion and arge insrucion or Sudy ..

Imiaion InsrucionImiaion Jus Look

arge Insrucion arge 36.9a (22.1) 47.6 b (27.6)

Non-arge 48.8 b

(24.9) 45.0 b

(23.1)



Other variables. I here were differences in perceived anger o he simulus hese could

have had an effec on liking independenly o he inerpreaion o ha anger. An A NOVA wih‘how angry do you hink he person in he video was?’ as he dependen variable showed only

a main effec or imiaion insrucion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. hen paricipans

imiaed he simulus hey hough she was less angry ( M = ., SD = .) han when hey had

no imiaed her ( M = ., SD = .). Tis can no explain our ineracion on liking however.

Furhermore we analyzed he resuls conrolling or his perceived anger and ound he exac

same ineracion and patern o means as beore, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ..

Paricipans own anger could also affec liking. I paricipans are angrier hey migh reac

more negaively o he simulus. However here was only a main effec o arge insrucion onhis variable, F (,) = ., p = ., η

p = .. hen par icipans imagined he person o be

angry a hem hey were angrier ( M = ., SD = .) hen when hey imagined he person no

o be angry a hem ( M = ., SD = .). Tis canno explain he ineracion resuls we ound.

Also conrolling or his variable si ll resuled in he same inerac ion and patern o means,

F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ..

Insrucion difficuly migh also have influenced liking. Perceived ease o perorming he

insrucion did show an ineracion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. Paricipans hough

imagining ha he simulus was angr y a hem was easier o do when hey were no also asked o

imiae ( M = ., SD = .) compared o when hey were asked o imiae ( M = ., SD = .),

F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= .. Te insrucion o imagine ha she was no angry a hem

was hough by paricipans o be equally easy wheher hey were asked o imiae ( M = .,

SD = .) or no ( M = ., SD = .), F < . So he condiion ha was he mos difficul, he

combinaion o imiaing and imagining he simulus was angry a hem, also showed he leas

lik ing or he simulus. However conrolling or perceived difficuly in he original ANOVA

resuled in he same ineracion and patern o means as beore, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ..


36/96

Chaper 336

Discussion

Te resuls o his sudy show ha when sudying he effecs o imiaion i is indeed

imporan o keep in mind how his behaviour is inerpreed. Imiaing an angry expression has

an effec when people imagine hemselves o be he target bu no when people imagine hey are

not he arge.

As we noed earlier, non-emoional acial eaures may also be inormaive or he imiaor

and help o give meaning and evaluae a acial expression. Ta is why, or example, men are

oen seen as more aggressive han women, even when heir (anger-relaed) behaviour is similar

(Harris & Knigh-Bohnhoff, ). Since such eaures migh influence how he behaviour is

seen and affec our resuls we waned o ake a closer look a our simulus. e used a emale

simulus in Sudy .. Since a man is probably seen as more aggressive his could influence heresuls o arge and imiaion on liking.

o ge a beter idea o how women and men are seen when hey are angry we did a pilo

sudy wih paricipans. e examined how paricipans rae angr y women and men on how

aggressive and righening hey come across on scales rom (no a all) o (very). e used he

angry woman rom Sudy . and a newly creaed angry man. Even hough hey were perceived

as equally angry, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ., he angry man was seen by paricipans as more

aggressive ( M = ., SD = .) han he woman (M = ., SD = .), F (,) = ., p = .,

ηp = .. Te man was also seen as more righening ( M = ., SD = .) han he woman( M = ., SD = .), F (,) = ., p < ., η

p = .. So an angry man is indeed seen as more

aggressive and more righening han an angry woman. Tus compared o angry women, angry

men possess acial eaures ha are more likely o indicae aggressiveness. In Sudy . we will

use a male simulus o examine wheher direcion o anger is irrelevan when he simulus is

seen as very aggressive.

Sudy .

In Sudy . we repeaed Sudy . wih he male simulus we used in he pilo sudy. As

angry men are perceived o be very aggressive, we expec his acial eaure o influence our

expeced effecs o imiaion: people will like he person even less, independen o wheher

people hink he anger is direced a hem or no. Tus unlike Sudy ., in which we used an

angry woman, we expec only a main effec o imiaion in Sudy ., because an angry man is

used as he simulus.


37/96

Are you angry a me?


C h a p t e r 3

37

Method

Sudy . had emale and male paricipans. Tis ime he simulus person was a man.

Te res o he sudy was idenical o Sudy ..

Results and discussion

Manipulation check. In order o deermine wheher he paricipans ollowed our

imiaion insrucion we scored our webcam recordings on he presence and inensiy o

acial expressions. Because some paricipans disappeared ou o view we were able o score

o he oal number o recordings. wo experienced judges, who were blind o condiions,

independenly scored he recordings on inensiy o expressions (anger among ohers) on scalesrom o (a score o was used when he expression was absen). e compued he iner-

raer reliabiliy he same way as in Sudy .. Te score was . or anger, which is seen as good

(Cicheti & Sparrow, ). e did an ANOVA wih arge insr ucion and imiaion insrucion

as independen variables and he average o he judges score as he dependen variable. e

ound a significan effec o imiaion on anger expressions, F (,) = ., p < ., ηp

= ..

Paricipans showed sronger anger expressions when hey were asked o imiae ( M = .,

SD = .) compared o when hey were asked jus o look ( M = ., SD = .). So hese

paricipans did ollow our insrucions. Oher expressions han anger hardly occurred and didno occur in such quaniies ha analysis on hese was possible. Tere was no effec o arge

insrucion on occurrence o imiaion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ., and no ineracion, F < .

Outlier analysis. Nex, we analyzed he resuls o arge insrucion and imiaion

insrucion on liking o he simulus. Analysis showed hree ouliers. Tese poins deviaed

more han . Inerquar ile Range (IQR) rom he mean. e excluded hese poins rom urher

analyses. Resuls were comparable wihou removal o he ouliers.

Effects on liking. e did an ANOVA wih arge insrucion and imiaion insrucion as

independen variables and liking as he dependen variable. Tere was an effec o paricipan


38/96

Chaper 338

gender in hese analyses , bu his effec was no relevan or our hypoheses. Tere was no

ineracion beween arge insrucion and imiaion insrucion on he dependen variable

liking, F < . As expeced, here was a main effec o imiaion insrucion, F (,) = .,

p = ., ηp

= .. Aer imiaion ( M = ., SD = .) paricipans always liked he man less

compared o no imiaion ( M = ., SD = .). In his case i did no mater i paricipans

imagined themselves to be the target o the anger or not.

Other variables. Similar o Sudy . we waned o rule ou some alernaive explanaions.

Difference in perceived anger was again no a suiable explanaion. An ANOVA wih ‘how

angry do you hink he person in he video was?’ as he dependen variable showed no effecs

or imiaion insrucion or arge insrucion, F < . As in Sudy . we analyzed he resuls

conrolling or his perceived anger and ound he same main effec or imiaion insrucion,

F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. Paricipans own anger also urned ou no o explain heresuls. Paricipans own anger only showed a main effec or arge insrucion, F (,) = .,

p = ., ηp

= .. hen paricipans imagined he person o be angry a hem hey were angrier

( M = ., SD = .) hen when hey imagined he person no o be angry a hem ( M = .,

SD = .). Conrolling or his variable sil l resuled in he same main effec or imiaion

insrucion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= ..

Differences in difficuly o he ask also did no explain our resuls. Perceived ease o

perorming he insrucions showed a main effec o arge insrucion, F (,) = ., p < .,

ηp = ., and a main effec o imiaion insrucion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp = .. Paricipanshough imagining ha he simulus was no angr y a hem was easier o do ( M = ., SD = .)

han imagining he simulus was no angry a hem ( M = ., SD = .). Paricipans also

hough no imiaing was easier o do ( M = ., SD = .) han imagining he simulus was

no angry a hem ( M = ., SD = .). Conrolling or his variable in he original ANOVA

resuled in he same main effec o imiaion insrucion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. Tis

shows ha our resuls once again canno be easily explained by oher acors.

Tese resuls show ha indeed he acial eaure indicaing gender is imporan or he

effecs o imiaion o anger. As expeced we ound ha imiaion led o less liking compared

Tere was a main effec o paricipan gender on lik ing, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= . and an ineracion effec

o paricipan gender and arge insrucion, F (,) = . , p = ., ηp

= .. Men liked he angry man more when

hey imagined he was no angr y a hem ( M = ., SD = .), compared o when hey imagi ned he was ( M = .,

SD = .), F (,) = ., p = ., ηp

= .. omen however liked he angr y man less when hey imag ined he was

no angry a hem ( M = ., SD = .), compared o when hey imagined he was ( M = ., SD = .), F (,) = .,

p = ., ηp

= .. ih par icipan gender as an independen variable in he ANOVA here was however sil l an effec

o imiaion on liking and no wo-way or hree-way ineracions wih imiaion F s < . Conrolling or paricipan

gender in he original ANOVA sil l resuled in he same main effec or imiaion, F (,) = ., p = ., ηp = .. Teresul or par icipan gender hereore did no affec our hypo heses.


39/96

Are you angry a me?


C h a p t e r 3

39

o no imiaion regardless o he arge o he emoion. Presumably his was because he acial

eaure gave inormaion abou how he emoion was o be inerpreed. In his case he anger

was perceived o be unriendly (aggressive) regardless o he arge.

General discussion

Behaviour is meaningul and oen has a communicaive uncion. Emoional behaviour

in par icular is inherenly social and communicaive in naure. hen people show emoions

hey oen do his o le ohers know wha hey are eeling. Expressing anger, or example, is

oen a way o inimidae or show disconen. Te presen sudies suppor he noion ha when

behaviour is meaningul, imia ion will no always lead o increased liking o he one who is

imiaed. Specifically, imiaing unriendly behaviour, such as an angry rown, may lead o lessraher han more liking.

Ineresingly, his imiaion-may-decrease-liking effec is conradicory o a hos o

recen social cogniion sudies o imiaion effecs (see Lakin e al., or an overview). Te

behaviour ha was mimicked or imiaed in previous sudies, however, was oen neural or

riendly. Conrary o hese well-known imiaion-increase liking sudies, our sudies show ha

imiaing an unriendly angry expression may increase disliking o he simulus.

Furhermore, our sudies sugges ha suble bu meaningul arge cues may change

he impac o imiaion on lik ing when such cues sugges how an angry expression may beinerpreed. Ta is, we showed ha exacly he same angr y acial expression had an effec when

people imagined hemselves o be he arge o his anger, bu no effec when people imagined

hey were not he arge, as we expeced.

Final ly, we showed ha non-emoional acial cues may also deermine he effec o

imiaion on liking. Ta is, he effecs o arge cues were only presen when people imagined

a woman o be angry or no angry a hem. Sudy . showed ha when he angry person was a

man, arge cues did no mater anymore: paricipans always liked he man less aer hey had

imiaed him. Here i seems he inormaion ha he ace was male provided inormaion on

how he emoion should be inerpreed (as aggressive regardless o he direcion o he anger).

In our sudies, we manipulaed he meaning o emoional acial expressions by providing

paricipans wih he reasons or sources o he expressed emoion (‘she is angry a you’; ‘she

is angr y bu no a you’). Gaze direcion migh have been anoher effecive manipulaion o

wheher or no he acial expression is direced a he observers. In he presen research we

did no choose o manipulae gaze direcion, because we waned o be able o conrol he

meaning or he observers raher han leave he change in meaning up o he observers own


40/96

Chaper 340

inerpreaions. Tis had he addiional benefi o being able o keep he simulus maerial

idenical across condiions.

e did no expec any sponaneous imiaion o anger o occur, which made i necessary

o sudy inenional imiaion in our sudies, o be able o sudy he limis o he imiaion-

lik ing link. However, because previous sudies oen used sponaneous imiaion he possibiliy

remains ha he resuls were obained merely because o he difference in imiaion ype. For

insance, he ac ha people were aware ha hey had o imiae he oher person could have

resuled in more people guessing he real purpose o he research and hus influencing he

resuls. Our debriefing resuls, however, clearly did no show any such effecs: people were

compleely unaware why hey were asked o imiae. Furhermore, research suggess inenional

imiaion is likely o be an equal or more conservaive choice han sponaneous imiaion

(Dimberg e al, ; Ekman, ; Sel & Vonk, ). Tus, alhough a comparison o he woorms o imiaion in one design would be good, we neverheless hink based on he available

lieraure ha i is likely ha sponaneous imiaion o non-affiliaive behaviour will also have a

negaive effec on liking, perhaps even sronger han he effec o inenional imiaion.

An obv ious disincion o invesigae when looking a effecs o imiaion on liking is he

disincion beween non-affiliaive and affiliaive behaviour. And his disincion indeed proved

o be very influenial or he effecs o imiaion on liking. Te presen sudies suppor he noion

ha since social behaviour is rarely meaningless, i is wise o ake meaning o behaviour ino

consideraion when sudying he impac o imiaion on social behaviour.o conclude wih some well-mean advice, when you wan o be liked by ohers, imiaing

hem is no always he bes roue o ollow. Raher, you migh be beter o ocusing on wha

he behaviour o he oher conveys and how you can reply o his message in a meaningul

and empahic way. Someimes liking can be achieved by imiaion, bu someimes li e is more

complex and i is beter o choose a differen approach.


41/96


42/96


43/96

Chapter 4

I hate it whenyou are happyHow liking and disliking

influence emotion imitation


44/96

Chaper 444

Imagine ha you have a colleague ha you really can no sand. You encouner her in

he caeeria downsairs when you are going or some coffee. She is siting here alone and is

obviously very happy; she seems almos unable o sop hersel rom laughing. ha would you

do? Probably you would no join in wih her laugher and perhaps even eel like leaving o go

somewhere else or coffee. ha i he colleague was no someone you despised bu a colleague

you really liked? In all likelihood your reac ion would be compleely differen: you would be

more likely o share he happiness by reurning her happy expression and even join in wih her

laugher.

Alhough o a lay audience he above wi ll probably sound rue and unsurprising, in conex

o he relevan lieraure on imiaion such differen reacions owards he same behaviour

are unexpeced. Te mere idea ha disancing onesel as well as smiling could be a reacion

owards a happy person goes agains recen heories and findings in hose fields (see Lakin, Jefferis, Chang, & Charrand, or an overview). Tese imiaion heories predominaely

argue ha a wide variey o behaviour is imiaed and imiaion, alhough lessened by cerain

acors, almos always occurs and he findings seem o suppor his (see Lakin e al., or an

overview). e hink, however, ha i makes sense o expec ha people will no always reac

wih he same behaviour. In he curren research we examined his issue. e argue ha liking

plays an imporan role in he case o imiaion. I he disliked colleague laughs exuberanly, or

insance, we do no expec even a small amoun o imiaion o ha behaviour. Raher we expec

dissimilar reacions, such as disancing behaviour.

Disliking and Imitation

Alhough liking is oen associaed wih imiaion ( Jefferis, van Baaren, & Charrand,

; Lakin e al., ; Sel, Blascovich, McCall, & Vonk, ), disliking is ypically only

argued o lead o less or a mos no imiaion, bu not o he opposite o imiaion or oher

dissimilar reacions. Teoreically dissimilar reacions are, however, no impossible. Lakin and

Charrand () showed ha an acive affiliaion goal leads o more imiaion, and hey argued

ha liking probably leads o more imiaion because people generally are more likely o have

an acive affiliaion goal owards liked ohers. Alhough hey do no menion he possibiliy

o dissimilar reacions owards disliked ohers, such reacions would sill be in line wih heir

reasoning. One merely has o ake Lak in and Charrand’s () reasoning one sep urher:

Tus, we argue ha i is possible ha people do no merely have less or no desire o affiliae wih

disliked ohers, bu migh also have an acive desire o not affiliae or even distance hemselves

rom disliked ohers. Since imiaion can ulfil an affiliaion goal, such a desire o no affiliae

could be ulfilled by dissimilar reacions. e hereore argue ha dissimilar reacions owards


45/96

I hae i when you are happy

H o w l i k i n g a n d d i s l i k i n g i n fl u e n c e e m o t i o n i m i t a t i o n

C h a p t e r 4

45

disliked ohers are ar more likely han similar (imiaive) reacions. Tus, we predic ha a

happy disliked person will no be me wih imiaion bu is more likely o be me wih disancing

behaviour.

Alhough he principle ha people migh reac dissimilarly o disliked ohers’ behaviour

could apply o any behaviour, we hink cerain behaviours are more likely o show such an effec.

Some behaviour clearly includes a message o he oher person: Research shows or example ha

emoions differ widely on how affiliaive or non-affiliaive hey are (Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, ;

Knuson, ). Happiness is usually shown o encourage conac and show riendly inenions

and is indeed seen by ohers as highly affiliaive, sadness is oen shown o elici empahy and

helping behaviour in ohers alhough i is seen as neural on affiliaion, and anger is oen

expressed o show disconen or hosiliy owards someone and is seen as highly non-affiliaive

by ohers (Hendriks & Vingerhoes, ; Hess e al., ; Knuson, ). e argue haaffiliaive behaviour in paricular will lead o imiaion o liked ohers and o dissimilar reacions

owards disliked ohers, because affiliaive behaviour can serve an affiliaive goal beter han

any oher ype o behaviour. I people like someone and wan ha person o like hem back,

hey are more likely o show behaviour ha is affi liaive, such as happiness. Since we already

know imiaion can serve an affiliaive goal, he combinaion o he wo, imiaing happiness, is

likely o serve an affiliaive goal even beter and lead o more liking because o his. However,

ollowing he same line o reasoning, affiliaive behaviour is very unlikely o be able o serve a

desire not o affiliae, making imiaion o a disliked happy oher very unlikely and dissimilar(non-affiliaive) behaviour in response o his oher more likely.

Tere have been ew sudies ha have looked a he effec o liking on imiaion and only

one o hose, o our knowledge, ocused on he effec o liking on he imiaion o emoions

(Likowski, Mühlberger, Seib, Pauli, & eyers, ). Tis sudy showed ha boh happiness

and sadness were imiaed more when paricipans had a more posiive atiude owards he

oher person. Imporanly, hey also ound some suble indicaions o dissimilar acial muscular

reacions (smiling) owards disliked sad ohers. Tis suppors our idea ha people do no jus

imiae disliked ohers less, bu can indeed show dissimilar reacions. e would expec even

sronger dissimilar reacions owards disliked happy ohers han owards disliked sad ohers,

however, such a dissimilar reacion was no ound in he case o happiness by Likowski and

colleagues (). However, because heir main ineres was in imiaion o happiness and

sadness, hey only ocused on muscle aciviy consisen wih sadness and happiness. e argue

ha disliked happy ohers should also elici dissimilar reacions, bu hose reacions are unlikely

o involve sadness.


46/96

Chaper 446

Liking and imitation

Even when he oher is liked, however, i does no seem logical o always expec more

imiaion. Imagine or example wha would happen i a colleague who you really like showed

anger insead o happiness. Ten, we argue, you would probably be more inclined o calm he

oher down han o ge angry yoursel. Even hough he relevan lieraure ypically argues ha

liked ohers should be imiaed more (Jefferis e al. , ; Lakin e al., ; Sel, e al., ),

a non-imiaive reacion owards a l iked oher noneheless makes perec sense i we again ake

he meaning o he behaviour ino accoun. Anger is non-affiliaive and hus showing anger

in response o he oher’s anger (imiaion) is ambiguous: I could be consrued as empahic

behaviour (e.g., ‘ogeher we are angry a someone else’), bu could also be consrued as a non-affiliaive message (e.g., ‘I am angr y a you’). e consequenly expec, conrary o he research

on non-emoional behaviour, ha anger will not be imiaed i he oher is liked: People will be

especially unlikely o risk sending a non-affiliaive message owards someone hey like. Tey

will be more likely o wan o be unmisakably affiliaive, or example by ry ing o help he

oher in some way. I he oher person is no liked people are more likely o show non-affiliaive

expressions. However, as beore showing anger i he oher is already showing anger (imiaion)

is ambiguous: as well as possibly being consrued as a non-affiliaive message i could also be

consrued as empahic behaviour. Tereore we do no expec people o imiae anger owardsdisliked people eiher. People wil l be more likely o wan o be indispuably non-affiliaive, or

example by urning heir back on he oher person (disengaging).

o summarize, we expec ha i a arge expresses an emoion ha is affiliaive, or neural

on affiliaion, liking o his arge will lead o imiaion whereas disliking will lead o dissimilar

(non-affiliaive) reacions. However, i he expressed emoion is non-affiliaive, we expec

here will be no imiaion, regardless o wheher he arge is liked or disliked. In ha case we

expec liking o lead o clear affiliaive behaviour and disliking o lead o clear non-affiliaive

behaviour. o es hese hypoheses we examined emoion imia ion in an inerpersonal conex

and compared he effecs o happiness, sadness and anger in a single design, where we pited a

srongly liked arge and a srongly disliked arge agains each oher.

Sudy .

Our goal was o sudy a variey o siuaions in which oher people’s emoions play a key

role and he effec o liking could be sudied. o keep he simulus maerial

mutual imitation and connection or anatagonism

Documents