ArticlePloS one2021
Behavioural mimicry as an indicator of affiliation.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has shown that behavioural mimicry fosters affiliation, and can be used to infer whether people belong to the same social unit. However, we still know very little about the generalizability of these findings and the individual factors involved. The present study intends to disentangle two important variables and assess their importance for affiliation: the matching in time of the behaviours versus their matching in form. In order to address this issue, we presented participants with short videos in which two actors displayed a set of small movements (e.g. crossing their legs, folding their arms, tapping their fingers) arranged to be either contingent in time or in form. A dark filter was used to eliminate ostensive group marks, such us phenotype or clothing. Participants attributed the highest degree of affiliation to the actors when their subsequent movements matched in form, but were delayed by 4-5 seconds, and the lowest degree when the timing of their movements matched, but they differed in form. To assess the generalizability of our findings, we took our study outside the usual Western context and tested a matching sample of participants from a traditional small-scale society in Kenya. In all, our results suggest that movements are used to judge the degree of affiliation between two individuals in both large- and small-scale societies. While moving in different ways at the same time seems to increase the perceived distance between two individuals, movements which match in form seem to invoke closeness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.