ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Validation of an online imitation-inhibition task.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Little evidence for cultural differences in automatic imitation.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- The Social Cost of Perseverative Cognition: Impairing Interpersonal Engagement Propensity Through Cognitive and Autonomic Dysregulation.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation.Psychological research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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). A disadvantage of its original form is, however, that it was validated for laboratory settings-a time-consuming and costly procedure. Here, we present an approach for conducting the imitation-inhibition task in online settings. We programmed the online version of the imitation-inhibition task in JavaScript and implemented the task in online survey software (i.e., Qualtrics). We validated the task in four experiments. Experiment 1 (N = 88) showed that the typical automatic imitation effects can be detected with good psychometric properties. Going one step further, Experiment 2 (N = 182) directly compared the online version of the imitation-inhibition task with its laboratory version and demonstrated that the online version produces similar strong and reliable effects. In Experiments 3 and 4, we assessed typical moderator effects that were previously reported in laboratory settings: Experiment 3 (N = 93) demonstrated that automatic imitation can be reliably detected in online settings even when controlling for spatial compatibility. Experiment 4 (N = 104) found, in line with previous research, that individuals imitate hand movements executed by a robot less strongly than movements executed by a human. Taken together, the results show that the online version of the imitation-inhibition task offers an easy-to-use method that enables the measurement of automatic imitation with common online survey software tools in a reliable and valid fashion.
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.