Imitation is assumed to serve crucial functions in social interaction, such as empathy and learning, yet these functions apply only to the imitating observer. In the two experiments reported here, we revealed a distinct function of imitation for the action model: Anticipation of being imitated facilitates the production of overt motor actions. Specifically, anticipated motor responses of social counterparts serve as mental cues for the model to retrieve corresponding motor commands to orchestrate his or her own actions.
AgnettaB.RochatP. (2004). Imitative games by 9-, 14-, and 18-month-old infants. Infancy, 6, 1–36.
2.
BanduraA.RossD.RossS. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
3.
BertenthalB. I.LongoM. R.KosobudA. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 210–225.
4.
BoyerT. W.LongoM. R.BertenthalB. I. (2012). Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 139, 440–448.
5.
BrassM.BekkeringH.WohlschlägerA.PrinzW. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124–143.
6.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.
7.
CooperR. P.CatmurC.HeyesC. (2013). Are automatic imitation and spatial compatibility mediated by different processes?Cognitive Science, 37, 605–630.
8.
DijksterhuisA.BarghJ. A. (2001). The perception–behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9.
GergelyG.BekkeringH.KirályI. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755.
10.
GriceH. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177.
11.
HeyesC. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from?Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 575–583.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). The theory of event coding: A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
14.
IacoboniM.WoodsR. P.BrassM.BekkeringH.MazziottaJ. C.RizzolattiG. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526–2528.
15.
KellerP. E.KochI. (2006). Exogenous and endogenous response priming with auditory stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 269–276.
16.
KundeW. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.
KundeW.LozoL.NeumannR. (2011). Effect-based control of facial expressions: Evidence from action-effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 820–826.
19.
MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75–78.
20.
NagyE. (2006). From imitation to conversation: The first dialogues with human neonates. Infant and Child Development, 15, 223–232.
21.
NagyE.MolnarP. (2004). Homo imitans or homo provocans? Human imprinting model of neonatal imitation. Infant Behavior & Development, 27, 54–63.
22.
OndobakaS.de LangeF. P.WiemersM.Newman-NorlundR.BekkeringH. (2012). Interplay between action and movement intentions during social interaction. Psychological Science, 23, 30–35.
23.
PaeleckeM.KundeW. (2007). Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644.
24.
PfisterR.JanczykM. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.
25.
PfisterR.KieselA.MelcherT. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316–322.
26.
PfisterR.KundeW. (2013). Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655.
27.
ShinY. K.ProctorR. W.CapaldiE. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.
28.
StelM.VonkR. (2010). Mimicry in social interaction: Benefits for mimickers, mimickees and their interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 311–323.
29.
van BaarenR. B.HollandR. W.KawakamiK.van KnippenbergA. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71–74.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
