Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Motivation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/l&m

Repeating what children say positively inuences their

learning and motivation
Anglique Martin, Nicolas Guguen
Universite de Bretagne-Sud, UFR DSEG, Campus de Tohanic, 5600 Vannes, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 16 June 2015
Received in revised form 27 August 2015
Accepted 31 August 2015
Keywords:
Mimicry
Chameleon effect
Children
Motivation
Learning
Task performance

a b s t r a c t
Research reports that individuals judge more positively those who mimic them and are
more likely to comply with a request made by a mimicker. We hypothesized that mimicking could also enhance ones motivation, performance and evaluation of an instructor.
Nine- and ten-year-old children were either mimicked or not by an instructor at the beginning of an interaction. Here, mimicry consisted in literally repeating what the children said.
Afterwards, performance in a learning task was measured and the interview ended with the
evaluation of the interaction and the instructor. It was found that children in the mimicry
condition spent more time on a subsequent task and that their recall performance significantly increased. A mimicked child revealed more personal information to the mimicker
and indicated more pleasure and ease with performing the task, in addition to perceiving more interest and attention from the mimicker. These results suggest that mimicry
inuences learning, motivation and evaluation of the learning context.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Mimicry, also called the chameleon effect (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), refers to the imitation of facial expressions,
postures, and mannerisms of a counterpart, as well as the verbal content and expressions displayed by the individual.
Although several forms of mimicry exist and have been studied (e.g., spontaneous mimicry, social learning by observation,
active listening), in this paper, mimicry was studied as a social inuence technique by examining how people reacted when
someone was instructed to mimic them literally. Research on this topic has focused on how the mimicker is perceived by
the person being mimicked and how mimicry inuences the behavior and opinions of the mimicked individual.
2. Mimicry and liking
A host of previous research has consistently reported that individuals like those who mimic them. In the rst experimental
study on nonverbal mimicry, Maurer and Tindall (1983) asked a counselor to mimic a clients arm and leg positions; they then
observed that mimicry enhanced the clients opinion of the counselors level of empathy in contrast with a situation where
the counselor did not mimic the client. Likewise, Chartrand & Bargh (1999) found that participants who were mimicked
by a confederate reported liking that confederate more than those participants who were not mimicked. Similarly, but in
a different context, Jacob, Guguen, Martin and Boulbry (2011) reported that sales clerks who were instructed to mimic
some of the verbal expressions and nonverbal behavior of their customers during the sales process were perceived by the

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nicolas.gueguen@univ-ubs.fr (N. Guguen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.08.004
0023-9690/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A. Martin, N. Guguen / Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

49

customers as being more competent, agreeable and friendly during the sales interaction than sales clerks who did not mimic
the customers. In speed-dating sessions, Guguen (2009) observed that men evaluated mimicking women more positively.
The effect of mimicry in an immersive virtual reality situation has also been reported. Bailenson and Yee (2005) conducted
a study in which a virtual agent verbally presented a persuasive argument (a message advocating a campus security policy)
to a participant. In half of the cases, the virtual agent mimicked the participants head movements with a 4-s delay while for
the rest of the participants, the agent mimicked the prerecorded movements of another participant. After each interaction,
participants indicated whether they agreed with the message delivered by the agent and then gave their impression of
the agent. It was observed that the mimicking virtual agent was more persuasive and received more positive trait ratings
than the non-mimicking agent. Recently Kulesza et al. (2015) reported the same results in a situation where a confederate
mimicker interacted with a participant in a computer-mediated communication situation. Again, there was greater liking
for the confederate in the mimicry condition than in the non-mimicry condition.
Mimicry has been associated with a greater liking for mimickers and a greater feeling of afliation: studies have also
reported that mimicry leads the participant to help the mimicker. Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, and Van Knippenberg
(2003) observed that mimicking the verbal behavior of customers in a restaurant by repeating the patrons orders increased
the size of tips received by a waitress. Similarly, Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, and Van Knippenberg (2004) observed
that a participant previously mimicked by a confederate helped more often when the latter accidentally dropped some
pens on the oor. When an explicit request for help was made (i.e., asking a student participant for written feedback about a
student-confederate essay or asking for directions in the street) more compliance with the request was observed when the
participant had previously been mimicked by the confederate (Fischer-Lokou, Martin, Guguen, & Lamy, 2011; Guguen,
Martin, & Meineri, 2011; Kulesza, Dolinski, Huisman, & Majewski, 2014). In a business interaction context, Jacob, Guguen,
Martin, and Boulbry (2011) reported that customers in a store complied more favorably with the sales clerks suggestion
during the sales process after being mimicked. Again, Kulesza, Szypowska, Jarman, and Dolinski (2014) reported that female
customers in a cosmetics shop spent more money when a female sales clerk mimicked them. Research has also reported
that behavioral mimicry can facilitate the outcome of negotiations. It has been demonstrated that mimicry facilitates a
negotiators ability to uncover underlying compatible interests and increases the likelihood of closing a deal in a negotiation
where a prima facie solution was not possible (Fischer-lokou et al., 2014; Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008).
3. Mimicry, afliation and rapport
Overall, research on mimicry has reported that mimicking a stranger is a good way for the mimicker to be perceived
more positively by the individual and to increase the probability of compliance with the mimickers request or suggestion. To explain these results, most scientists stated that mimicry created afliation and rapport (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, &
Chartrand, 2003), which explained why we perceive the mimicker more positively and why we comply more favorably with
the solicitation made by a mimicker. Yabar, Johnston, Miles, and Piles (2006) observed that participants were more likely
to mimic nonverbal behavior of members of their in-group than members of their out-group. They explained their results
as a consequence of the desire for afliation and rapport with the in-group individuals. The higher this desire, the more
participants used mimicry in order to be perceived more positively and to show their intent to interact with the in-group
members. LaFrance (1979) conducted a longitudinal survey designed to explore the relationship between measures of nonverbal synchrony and self-reported indications of rapport in a group of college students. LaFrance found that posture sharing
between the instructor and the students was positively related to rapport and concluded that postural mimicry is inuential
in establishing rapport. Further research reported that afliation and rapport created by mimicry led participants to reveal
more intimate information. Guguen, Martin, Meineri, and Simon (2013)
All together, these studies seem to show that mimicry positively inuences how we judge the mimicker and comply with
his/her request. Research also found a link between cognitive processes and mimicry. Kouzakova (2009) reported higher
scores on the Stroop effect test with mimicked participants. Research also found that mimicry interacted with emotion
recognition. Stel and van Knippenberg (2008) reported that female participants who were constrained from mimicking faces
with emotional expressions were slower to recognize the affective valence of the faces. However, a recent study conducted
by Kulesza et al. (2015) found that participants who were instructed to mimic an actress presented on a prerecorded video
were less accurate at identifying her facial displays of emotion.
4. Objective and hypothesis
Several objectives were pursued in this study. First we wanted to examine whether mimicry had an effect on children. It
appears important to know if humans at a young age are also inuenced by mimicry in social interaction. In fact, all the studies
reported above used adult mimickers and adult participants. The effect of mimicry on children has never been previously
examined. Second, and most importantly, if mimicry leads individuals to perceive the mimicker more positively and to
create greater intimacy, afliation, rapport and desire to help, we would expect mimicry to also increase the motivation
of the individuals who are mimicked to perform a task suggested by the mimicker. Accordingly, if motivation to complete
a task increases, task performance should increase. Third, in most of the studies where the perception of the mimicker
was measured, the participant rated how much he/she liked the mimicker. However, it could also be hypothesized that
individuals who are mimicked perceive the mimicker as someone who understands him/her.

50

A. Martin, N. Guguen / Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

All these suggestions were examined in this study where 9- to 10-year-old children were either mimicked or not by an
instructor in the rst part of an interaction. Afterwards, performance in a learning task was measured and the interview
ended with the childrens evaluation of the interaction. It was hypothesized that mimicry would enhance the childrens
performance and that the instructor would be perceived as someone who had made an effort to understand and to listen to
the children.
5. Method
5.1. Participants
The participants were 56 children (28 boys and 28 girls) aged 910 years. They were enrolled in a French elementary
school located in a medium-sized town on the West Atlantic coast in France. The participants were randomly assigned to
one of two experimental conditions (N = 28 per group: 14 boys and 14 girls). Randomizing software using the complete list
of the girls and the complete list of the boys selected those who were in one experimental condition and those who were in
the other experimental condition. The instructor who interacted with the children was instructed to consult her list and to
strictly assign each child to the condition selected by the software.
5.2. Procedure
This study was approved by the ethical committee of our laboratory, and all the ofcial authorizations of the regional
school authorities necessary to conduct this study were obtained. The consent of childrens teachers and their parents was
also obtained before carrying out the experiment. However, the parents and the teachers were not informed of the experimental objectives of the study; they were only informed that we were conducting a study where some stories concerning
food and vegetables were used to evaluate how children learn and memorize such information. A full debrieng was done
at the end of the study.
Before beginning the experiment, three female students in the social and educational sciences were chosen to act as
instructors. They were unaware of the hypothesis and received no information concerning studies examining mimicry. A
pretesting phase was used to ensure that they acted in the same way in both conditions. They were instructed to repeat the
procedure with both children in the mimicry condition and children in the non mimicry condition (but not those who were
used in the study). During this stage their accent, conversational style, gesture, body position and the way they interacted
with the children were observed, commented on and modied. This phase ended when the instructor was able to act in the
same way in the two conditions.
Each interview lasted around 30 min. The instructors and the children stayed alone in a separate room near the childrens
classroom. The experiment was presented as a study on childrens food tastes, preferences and habits. This topic was used
because it is easy, not-problematic and generally leads children to respond easily to the interviewer. The interview process
was broken down into four stages. During the rst stage, the instructor told the child that she was trying to understand what
the child eats in the canteen or at home and what he/she likes or dislikes. Several questions concerning the childrens food
consumption were asked verbally (i.e., the names of their favorite vegetables, the names of their least favorite meals, their
preferred afternoon snack etc.). This step was a pretext to manipulate the experimental conditions. In this study, we used
the method of mimicry employed by Van Barren et al. (2003), which consisted in literally repeating what the participant
said to the experimenter. The instructor was trained in a post-test to strictly repeat the participants verbal content and
was carefully instructed and trained not to reformulate what the children said because it has been recently reported that
reformulation exerted a lesser effect on compliance than strict mimicry of verbal content (Fischer-Lokou, Lamy, & Guguen,
in press). In our experiment, the instructor was instructed to either mimic the response of the child throughout the survey
or not at all. In the mimicry condition, the instructor was instructed to mimic verbal behavior by literally repeating some of
the words, verbal expressions, or statements used by the child. For example, if the child said, Yuck. . . I dont like the spinach
at the canteen or I love oranges, the interviewer was instructed to repeat these words when noting down the response
(Yuck. . . I dont like the spinach at the canteen or I love oranges). The instructor was also instructed to mimic the tone of the
childs verbal response. In the non-mimicry condition, the interviewer simply said Okay Im noting this on my form with a
neutral tone and wrote the response on a form. The survey had exactly eight questions and in the mimicking condition, the
children were mimicked seven times.
At the end of the interview, that lasted around 8 min, the instructor smiled at the child and warmly thanked him/her.
The instructor then explained the second step by saying that she had prepared a text that would probably be presented to
all the children in France. During this stage, the instructor was asked not to mimic the verbal and non verbal behavior of the
children. The instructor then added that for this reason, she needed his/her help in order to be sure that the text was clear for
all the children in France. Then the instructor gave a 21 30 centimeter sheet of paper to the child. The text contained two
types of information: A 200 word text that told a story of a brother and a sister (Tom and Juliette), 9 and 10 years old, who
decided to make a meal for the whole family to celebrate Toms birthday. The description of the meal and the ingredients
used were then written. Four 4 4 centimeter colored photos were displayed across the sheet. Two of them presented a 10
year old boy carrying a plate of vegetables and a 9 year old girl with two apples in her hands. The two other photos presented
wicker baskets: one with several different well-known fruits and the other with several well-known vegetables. The photos

A. Martin, N. Guguen / Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

51

Table 1
Means (SD in brackets) of time used for the text task and recall performance of information on the text.

Time used to read the text (in seconds)

Number of vegetables recalled
Number of fruits recalled
Number of photos recalled
Number of photos correctly recalled

Mimicry

No mimicry

Test

101.27 (53.22)
4.21 (1.80)
4.31 (1.51)
4.07 (1.00)
3.48 (1.53)

76.29 (37.81)
2.58 (1.14)
2.85 (1.59)
3.27 (1.08)
2.31 (1.35)

t(54) = 2.02, p = .048, d = 0.55

t(54) = 4.05, p = <.001, d = 1.10
t(54) = 3.52, p < .001, d = 0.95
t(54) = 2.88, p = .006, d = 0.78
t(54) = 3.03, p = .004, d = 0.83

showed eight different fruits and eight different vegetables. The instructor asked the child to carefully read the text and
added that he/she could take as much time as needed and that he/she just had to inform her when nished. The instructor
then gave the sheet to the child and discretely started-up a chronometer that was hidden in her pocket. Then the instructor
turned to her right and pretended to read and complete several forms. When the child informed the instructor that he/she
had nished reading the text, the instructor stopped the chronometer. Then she smiled at the child and warmly thanked
him/her before asking the child to give her back the sheet with the story of Tom and Juliette. Then the instructor explained
that she wanted to evaluate the childs memory of the the text and the photos presented on the sheet. The instructor then
asked the child to remember the fruits and vegetables used by Tom and Juliette to prepare the meal for Toms birthday.
The instructor then noted the childs responses on a sheet but was instructed not to look at the child and not to mimic
him/her. Next, the instructor asked the child for the number of photos presented on the sheet and, after that, asked the child
to describe what was presented in each photo. This way, it was possible to measure the number of good recollections. This
second stage lasted around 10 min.
At the end, the instructor smiled again at the child and warmly thanked him/her and began the third stage that lasted
around 5 min. She explained that she wanted to know if the child had ever done anything silly in the past and if he/she could
explain what he/she had done. The instructor added that this information would be a secret between her and the child and
that she would never say anything to anyone. Then, the instructor asked the child if he/she would be ok revealing a secret
to her. Compliance with the request was measured, and, for those who revealed a secret, the instructor added that it would
be their secret between them only. These two latter dependent variables were used as the measure of intimacy between the
child and the instructor. Again, the instructor noted the childs response, smiled and warmly thanked him/her. During this
stage, the instructor was asked not to mimic the verbal and non verbal behavior of the children. Then, the instructor added
that she had nished, would see another child and asked the child to wait until another woman came into the room. The
instructor then left the room and the fourth stage began.
This latter stage last around 5 min. A different young woman interviewer, unaware of the experimental condition that
the child had been placed in, entered in the room. After introducing herself, the interviewer told the child that she just
wanted him/her to respond to several questions about the interview with the instructor. All the children agreed and then
the interviewer asked each child to evaluate the pleasure taken during participation, how at ease they felt during the task,
how well they had understood what the instructor had asked them, how much they felt heard by the instructor, and how
well he/she felt understood by the instructor. Each evaluation was made on a 7-point Lickert-type scale going from 1 No
pleasure to 7 High pleasure for the pleasure taken during participation or 1 Felt unheard to 7 Felt heard for the measure of
how well the child felt heard by the instructor. The child gave his/her responses verbally to the interviewer who noted them
on a form. The interviewer was instructed not to mimic the verbal and nonverbal behavior of the children. After responding,
the interviewer smiled, warmly thanked the child and took the child back to his/her classroom.
6. Results
Preliminary analysis reported no interaction effect between the experimental conditions and the gender of participants.
Accordingly, data were collapsed across participant gender. The rst part of the study measured the time the children spent
on the text task and their recall performance. Data are presented in Table 1.
Comparison between the two experimental conditions was evaluated using the Student-Fisher independent test. Results
of the analysis including two-tailed probability and effect-size of the difference are reported in the last column of Table 1.
The results show that children in the mimicry condition spent signicantly more time reading the text. It was also reported
that mimicry enhanced recall of the verbal content. Children in the mimicry condition had better recall of the vegetables
and the fruits named in the text. The recall of visual information was also inuenced by the experimental condition, with
better recall of the number of photos and of the contents of the photos on the sheet in the mimicry condition.
The third step of the experiment consisted of measuring the childrens willingness to reveal secret and silly things to the
instructor. Data according to experimental condition are presented in Table 2.
With the number of silly things revealed, a signicant difference was reported (t(54) = 4.70, p < .001, d = 1.57), showing
that children in the mimicry condition revealed more things to the instructor than those in the non-mimicry condition. With
the number of children who revealed a secret to the instructor, a Chi-square independent test was performed and revealed
a signicant effect (2 (1, N = 56) = 22.17, p < .001, r < .53). Mimicked children revealed a secret signicantly more often than
non-mimicked children.

52

A. Martin, N. Guguen / Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

Table 2
Silly things admitted by the child to the instructor and compliance with the secret request.

Number of silly things admitted

Revealing a secret

Mimicry

No mimicry

5.92 (4.23)
82% (23/28)

1.92 (1.52)
25% (7/28)

Table 3
Means (SD in brackets) of evaluation of the task and the interviewer.

Pleasure participating
Feeling at ease during the task
Understanding the instructor
Feeling heard by the instructor
Feeling understood by the instructor

Mimicry

No mimicry

Test

5.69 (0.76)
5.90 (1.01)
6.10 (0.86)
6.52 (0.69)
6.21 (0.74)

4.93 (1.27)
5.04 (1.51)
5.44 (1.05)
5.56 (1.53)
5.19 (1.11)

t(54) = 2.71, p = .009, d = 0.74

t(54) = 2.51, p = .015, d = 0.68
t(54) = 2.57, p = .013, d = 0.68
t(54) = 3.02, p = .004, d = 0.82
t(54) = 4.05, p < .001, d = 1.10

The last part of the study measured how the children perceived the situation and the instructor. Data are presented in
Table 3.
Comparison between the two experimental conditions was evaluated using the Student-Fisher independent test. Results
of the analysis including two-tailed probability and effect-size of the difference are reported in the last column of Table 3.
The results showed that children in the mimicry condition indicated having taken more pleasure during participation than
those who were not mimicked. They also indicated more ease in the mimicry condition and that they had understood the
instructor more than those in the non-mimicry condition. They also felt they had been better understood and heard by the
instructor in the mimicry condition.
7. Discussion
To our knowledge this is the rst time that the effect of mimicry on children was evaluated. These results suggest that
individuals at an early age, like adults, are positively inuenced by mimicry. Important new ndings were also reported
in this study. First, we reported that mimicked children spent more time doing a task solicited by the mimicker and that
their recall performance signicantly increased in this situation. These results suggest that being mimicked by an instructor
inuenced motivation to learn and to work harder. It was also observed that mimicked children revealed more personal
information about themselves. Such data suggest that in the teacher/student interaction, using mimicry could be a way for
the instructor to obtain some information from the children when he/she is reluctant to reveal such personal information
(i.e., some problem in their family). Finally, we also reported that mimicked children indicated more pleasure and ease with
the task and perceived more interest and attention from the instructor. These results suggest that positive perception of an
instructor and a school task could be increased by mimicry when the instructor interacts with a child.
Some of these ndings are congruent with those reported in previous studies while others appear to be new. The nding
that mimicked children revealed secret and silly things to the instructor more readily is congruent with a recent study
revealing that adult participants were less reluctant to respond to intimate questions associated with their sexual behavior
when they were mimicked by the interviewer (Guguen et al., 2013) conrming that mimicry is an effective technique for
inuencing behavior even when the solicited behavior is difcult to perform and suggesting that mimicry probably created
a high level of intimacy between the mimicker and the mimicked. In this study the instructor stated that she would not
reveal the information given by the child. Perhaps mimicry increases the trust associated with such promise. Maddux et al.
(2008) reported that mimicry increased trust toward the mimicker in adult dyads.
Previous research also found that mimicry between adults increased how well liked the mimicker was (Chartrand &
Bargh, 1999; Guguen, 2009; Guguen, Martin, & Boulbry, 2011). How well the instructor was liked was not measured in
this study, but we reported that the children perceived the interaction with the mimicker to be more pleasant and felt more
ease in the situation. The children also estimated that the instructor paid close attention to them. These ndings accord with
the statement of Maurer and Tindall (1983) that mimicry creates a higher perception of the mimickers empathy level.
Interestingly we reported for the rst time that mimicry enhanced learning performance of children and their involvement
in a task. This suggests that by increasing afliation and rapport between the instructor and the children, mimicry leads
children to become more involved in the task, which in turn improves their nal performance. It could also be argued
that mimicry increases cognitive functioning. Kouzakova (2009) found that participants who had been mimicked had a
better score on the Stroop effect test than those who were not mimicked. Her results also show that participants who are
mimicked have better verbal uency (better access to vocabulary in memory). Other research has reported a link between
emotional recognition and mimicry (Kulesza et al., 2015; Stel & van Knippenberg, 2008). Thus, perhaps by increasing cognitive
functioning, mimicry caused recall performance to be enhanced in our study.
This study has some practical interest for teachers and parents. Repeating the childrens responses during a single survey
was sufcient to increase their involvement in a task, aid recall performance, increase self-revelation to the instructor and
to perceive the situation more positively. Mimicry, particularly verbal mimicry, is easy to perform and to use in various

A. Martin, N. Guguen / Learning and Motivation 52 (2015) 4853

53

learning situations. This study suggests that further studies should examine the effect of mimicry in learning situations to
conrm that mimicry enhances childrens performance and creates positive feelings toward learning situations.
Of course, this study also has a number of limitations. In this experiment, the sample was limited to 9- and 10-year-old
children, and all the instructors were women. Thus, replication of this study using children of various ages as well as male
instructors is now necessary. In this situation we examined only the effect of verbal mimicry, but it has also been reported
that nonverbal mimicry exerts an effect on how well liked the mimicker is (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Therefore, it could
be interesting in further experiments to study the effect of nonverbal mimicry of children to evaluate if both verbal and
nonverbal mimicry cause the positive effects reported in this study. We also reported that children took a longer time to
read the text in the mimicry condition than in the control condition but we do not know how this time was used (repetition
of reading, slower reading, more attention to the photo...). It would be interesting in a future study to more closely investigate
this aspect by using an eye-tracker. At last, in this study focusing on the task and on the learning performance of the children,
we did not measure how much the children liked their instructor. It would be interesting in future studies to examine if
mimicry in a school context leads children to judge their teacher more positively when he/she mimics them.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, in this study, using a classical method consisting in literally repeating what a child said during a short
interview, we reported that mimicry increased the time spent on a learning task by the children and increased their recall. It
was also observed that a child mimicked revealed more personal information to the instructor and indicated more pleasure
and ease with the task in addition to perceiving more interest and attention from the instructor. Such results expanded the
importance of mimicry in the literature by showing that mimicry not only inuenced the judgment of the mimicker and
compliance with some requests made by the mimicker but also inuenced task performance and increased motivation to
learn. This study should have practical interest for all instructors who interact with children and who want to increase their
motivation to learn and to perform.
References
Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological
Science, 16, 814819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01619.x
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 893910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.451593
Fischer-lokou, J., Guguen, N., Lamy, L., Martin, A., & Bulllock, A. (2014). Imitation in mediation: effects of the duration of mimicry on reaching agreement.
Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 189195. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sb2014.42.2.189
Fischer-Lokou, J., Lamy, L., & Guguen, N. (2015). Chameleons are more effective than reformulators: effects of imitation and reformulation on mediator
success. Psychological Reports (in press).
Fischer-Lokou, J., Martin, A., Guguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2011). Mimicry and propagation of prosocial behavior in a natural setting. Psychological Reports, 108,
599605. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/07.17.21.PR0.108.2.599-605
Guguen, N. (2009). Mimicry and women attractiveness: an evaluation in a courtship context. Social Inuence, 4, 249255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510802628173
Guguen, N., Martin, A., Meineri, S., & Simon, J. (2013). Using mimicry to elicit answers to intimate questions in survey research. Field Methods, 25, 4757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12449710
Guguen, N., Martin, A., & Meineri, S. (2011). Mimicry and altruism: an evaluation of mimicry on explicit helping requests. The Journal of Social Psychology,
151, 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366701
Jacob, C., Guguen, N., Martin, A., & Boulbry, G. (2011). Retail salespeoples mimicry of customers: Effects on consumer behavior. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 18, 381388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.11.006
Kulesza, W., Cislak, A., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., Czekiel, M., & Bedynska, S. (2015). The face of the chameleon: the experience of facial mimicry for the
mimicker and the mimickee. Journal of Social Psychology, 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1032195
Kulesza, W., Dolinski, D., Huisman, A., & Majewski, R. (2014). The echo effect: the power of verbal mimicry to inuence pro-social behavior. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 33, 185203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13506906
Kulesza, W., Szypowska, Z., Jarman, M., & Dolinski, D. (2014). Attractive chameleons sell: The mimicry-attractiveness link. Psychology and Marketing, 31,
549561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20716
Kouzakova, M. (2009). Subtle signs of exclusion: how lack of mimicry affects the self and other perception. Social psychology thesis. Netherlands: Radboud
University Nijmegen., 128 p.
LaFrance, M. (1979). Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 6670.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jes2014.02.002
Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: evidence for the evolutionary signicance of
nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025389814290
Maddux, W. W., Mullen, E. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates
negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 461468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.003
Maurer, R. E., & Tindall, J. H. (1983). Effects of postural congruence on clients perception of counselor empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,
158163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.2.158
Stel, M., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). The role of facial mimicry in the recognition of affect. Psychological Science, 19, 984985.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02188.x
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behaviour. Psychological Science, 14, 7174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501012.x
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Steenaert, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2003). Mimicry for money: behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of
Experimental Society Psychology, 39, 393398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00014-3
Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry: Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 30, 97113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0010-6.123