Development of the online imitation-inhibition task to investigate modulations of automatic imitation

People automatically imitate a wide range of different behaviors. One of the most commonly used measurement methods to assess imitative behavior is the imitation-inhibition task (Brass et al., 2000). However, in its original form, the task is only suited to be carried out in a laboratory setting – a time-consuming and costly procedure. In this dissertation, I will present a method for investigating automatic imitation in an online environment (i.e., introducing an online imitation-inhibition task). This online version allows for a more economically investigation of automatic imitation. Using this task, I investigated different modulations to address theoretically relevant questions and contribute to the research field of automatic imitation. Specifically, there have been problems replicating some findings with the imitation-inhibition task recently, particularly regarding findings that involved social modulations. This is likely due to the fact that social effects with the imitation-inhibition task are very small. However, the online-imitation task provides an opportunity to examine the impact of social and other modulations on automatic imitation with high statistical power. It can thus be used to detect very small effect sizes. In six chapters, I will first review the literature on automatic imitation. I will then test the impact of different social and non-social modulations (i.e., belief in free will, finger movement size, finger movement speed, animacy beliefs, and group membership) on automatic imitation using the online imitation-inhibition task. Finally, I will discuss possible reasons for the failed and successful replications and provide further insight into possible explanations and implications

Imitation and interindividual differences: Belief in free will is not related to automatic imitation

It is well known that individuals have the tendency to automatically imitate each other and that such imitative behavior is fostered by perceiving intentions in others’ actions. That is, past research has shown that perceiving an action as internally driven enhances the shared representation of observed and executed actions increasing automatic imitation. An interpersonal factor that increases the perception that a behavior is internally driven is belief in free will. Consequently, we hypothesized that the more individuals believe in free will, the more they automatically imitate others. To test this prediction, we conducted two high-powered (total N = 642) and preregistered studies in which we assessed automatic imitation with the imitation-inhibition task. Contrary to our predictions, belief in free will did not correlate with automatic imitation. This finding contributes to current findings challenging the assumption that automatic imitation is modulated by interindividual differences. Further theoretical implications are discussed

Imitation and interindividual differences: Belief in free will is not related to automatic imitation

It is well known that individuals have the tendency to automatically imitate each other and that such imitative behavior is fostered by perceiving intentions in others' actions. That is, past research has shown that perceiving an action as internally driven enhances the shared representation of observed and executed actions increasing automatic imitation. An interpersonal factor that increases the perception that a behavior is internally driven is belief in free will. Consequently, we hypothesized that the more individuals believe in free will, the more they automatically imitate others. To test this prediction, we conducted two high-powered (total N = 642) and preregistered studies in which we assessed automatic imitation with the imitation-inhibition task. Contrary to our predictions, belief in free will did not correlate with automatic imitation. This finding contributes to current findings challenging the assumption that automatic imitation is modulated by interindividual differences. Further theoretical implications are discussed

Online Imitation-Inhibition Task

Code to run the imitation-inhibition task online using jsPsyc

Automatic imitation of in- and out-group members

Individuals have the automatic tendency to imitate each other. A key prediction of motivational theories explaining automatic imitation is that individuals imitate in-group members more strongly than out-group members. However, the empirical basis for this prediction is rather inconclusive. Only few experiments have investigated the influence of group membership using classic automatic imitation paradigms and these experiments led to mixed results. To put the group membership prediction to a critical test, we carried out six high-powered experiments (total N = 1,538) in which we assessed imitation with the imitation-inhibition task and manipulated group membership in different ways. Evidence across all experiments indicates that group- membership does not modulate automatic imitation. These results have important implications for motivational theories explaining automatic imitation and contribute to the current discussion of whether automatic imitation can be socially modulated

Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation

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

Automatic imitation of in- and out-group members

Individuals have the automatic tendency to imitate each other. A key prediction of motivational theories explaining automatic imitation is that individuals imitate in-group members more strongly than out-group members. However, the empirical basis for this prediction is rather inconclusive. Only few experiments have investigated the influence of group membership using classic automatic imitation paradigms and these experiments led to mixed results. To put the group membership prediction to a critical test, we carried out six high-powered experiments (total N = 1,538) in which we assessed imitation with the imitation-inhibition task and manipulated group membership in different ways. Evidence across all experiments indicates that group- membership does not modulate automatic imitation. These results have important implications for motivational theories explaining automatic imitation and contribute to the current discussion of whether automatic imitation can be socially modulated

Similarity and automatic imitation

Individuals automatically imitate a wide range of different behaviors. Previous research suggests that imitation as a social process depends on the similarity between interaction partners. However, some of the experiments supporting this notion could not be replicated and all of the supporting experiments manipulated not only similarity between actor and observer, but also other features. Thus, the existing evidence leaves open whether similarity as such moderates automatic imitation. To directly test the similarity account, in four experiments, we manipulated participants’ focus on similarities or differences while holding the stimulus material constant. In Experiment 1, we presented participants with a hand and let them either focus on similarities, differences, or neutral aspects between their own hand and the other person’s hand. The results indicate that focusing on similarities increased perceived similarity between the own and the other person’s hand. In Experiments 2 to 4, we tested the hypothesis that focusing on similarities, as compared with differences, increases automatic imitation. Experiment 2 tested the basic effect and found support for our prediction. Experiment 3 and 4 replicated this finding with higher-powered samples. Exploratory investigations further suggest that it is a focus on differences that decreases automatic imitation, and not a focus on similarities that increases automatic imitation. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed