Mimicry is pervasive in everyday interactions. We routinely find ourselves converging in speech and mannerisms to our friends and associates, or even the characters of our favorite TV shows. And it is also not unusual that, while engaged in conversation, we subconsciously adjust our posture to be similar to the stance of the person we are talking to. This type of subtle mimicry in social situations has convincingly been shown to have an effect on the person being mimicked; the effect usually occuring to the end that people have more positive feelings for those who mimic them than for those who do not mimic them.
In 1983, for example, Psychologists Richard Maurer and Jeffrey Tindal were able to show that when a counselor mimicked a client's posture, the client would perceive the counselors as possessing higher levels of empathy. Or more recently, a study from the Netherlands found that "a waitress who mimicked the verbal behavior of her customers by literally repeating their order received significantly larger tips".
It has been argued, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, that mimicry might function as a sort of "social glue", and one explanation for why humans like being (subtly) mimicked, entails that mimicry functions as a signal for similarity on other personal traits. However, as a recent study in the context of speed dating finds, mimicry does more than just affect our attribution of personal traits to another person. Mimicry also affects perceived physical attractiveness.
The study design is quickly explained: 66 (self-reportedly) single males were assigned to a speed-dating event, in which three female confederates randomly mimicked/did not mimic their behavior.
The instructions for mimicry included subtle mimicking of verbal and non verbal behavior. For example, if a man would ask "‘Do you really do this?'' the confederate in the non-mimicking condition would simply answer ‘Yes'', while in the mimicking condition there would be a repetition of the spoken words, as in ‘Yes, I really do this'. Non-verbal mimicry included e.g. assuming a similar posture, or repeating gestures such as scratching ones ear. Confederates in the experiment were instructed to mimic 5 verbal and 5 non-verbal cues in each of the mimicry conditions, and were uninformend about the researcher's hypothesis.
A survey session following the speed-dating experiment showed that
"Women who mimicked men during the round of dating were more favorably chosen by men to give them their
contact information than the same women who did not mimic them.
The women's mimicking of men during the round of dating was associated with an increase in the men's evaluation of the quality of the interaction compared to when the women did not mimic them.
The women confederates who mimicked men during the round of dating were evaluated as having greater sexual attractiveness than the women who did not mimic."
While the first two findings can be seen as a mere confirmation of previous findings regarding mimicry, the last of the above findings is surprising in that it indicates the power of mimicry
"to influence not only the perception of the personal or social attributes of the female mimicker but also her physical attributes"
As with so many studies, there remain caveats. For example, we do not know if the mimicry effect also holds when - in contrast to the cited study - men mimic women. Given that women tend to be less concerned with physical attractiveness (as I will discuss in the fourth installment of the science of speed dating series), it is especially unclear whether mimicry would affect women along the dimension of perceived attractiveness in the same way that men seem to be affected. This, along with some statistical concerns, will need to be investigated in greater detail in future studies, but for now at least it seems that mimicry is not only the sincerest form of flattery but also a good strategy for becoming a successful speed-dater.
Main Reference:
Gueguen, N. (2008). Mimicry and seduction: An evaluation in a courtship context Social Influence, 4 (4), 249-255 DOI: 10.1080/15534510802628173
