Display options
Cite
Butler EE, Ward R, Ramsey R. The Influence of Facial Signals on the Automatic Imitation of Hand Actions. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1653doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653.
Butler, E. E., Ward, R., & Ramsey, R. (2016). The Influence of Facial Signals on the Automatic Imitation of Hand Actions. Frontiers in psychology, 71653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653
Butler, Emily E, et al. "The Influence of Facial Signals on the Automatic Imitation of Hand Actions." Frontiers in psychology vol. 7 (2016): 1653. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653
Butler EE, Ward R, Ramsey R. The Influence of Facial Signals on the Automatic Imitation of Hand Actions. Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 26;7:1653. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27833573; PMCID: PMC5080362.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 26;7:1653. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653. eCollection 2016.

The Influence of Facial Signals on the Automatic Imitation of Hand Actions.

Frontiers in psychology

Emily E Butler, Robert Ward, Richard Ramsey

Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Wales Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, Bangor University Bangor, UK.

PMID: 27833573 PMCID: PMC5080362 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01653

Abstract

Imitation and facial signals are fundamental social cues that guide interactions with others, but little is known regarding the relationship between these behaviors. It is clear that during expression detection, we imitate observed expressions by engaging similar facial muscles. It is proposed that a cognitive system, which matches observed and performed actions, controls imitation and contributes to emotion understanding. However, there is little known regarding the consequences of recognizing affective states for other forms of imitation, which are not inherently tied to the observed emotion. The current study investigated the hypothesis that facial cue valence would modulate automatic imitation of hand actions. To test this hypothesis, we paired different types of facial cue with an automatic imitation task. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that a smile prompted greater automatic imitation than angry and neutral expressions. Additionally, a meta-analysis of this and previous studies suggests that both happy and angry expressions increase imitation compared to neutral expressions. By contrast, Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that invariant facial cues, which signal trait-levels of agreeableness, had no impact on imitation. Despite readily identifying trait-based facial signals, levels of agreeableness did not differentially modulate automatic imitation. Further, a Bayesian analysis showed that the null effect was between 2 and 5 times more likely than the experimental effect. Therefore, we show that imitation systems are more sensitive to prosocial facial signals that indicate "in the moment" states than enduring traits. These data support the view that a smile primes multiple forms of imitation including the copying actions that are not inherently affective. The influence of expression detection on wider forms of imitation may contribute to facilitating interactions between individuals, such as building rapport and affiliation.

Keywords: automatic; face signals; imitation; social cognition

References

  1. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Nov;63(11):2273-87 - PubMed
  2. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 12;364(1535):3453-8 - PubMed
  3. Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863 - PubMed
  4. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 12;366(1571):1660-70 - PubMed
  5. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Dec;85(6):1170-9 - PubMed
  6. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:519-45 - PubMed
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Oct;9(10):489-95 - PubMed
  8. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9 - PubMed
  9. Biol Psychol. 2008 Mar;77(3):343-52 - PubMed
  10. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 May;8(5):216-22 - PubMed
  11. Psychiatry Res. 2009 Aug 15;168(3):242-9 - PubMed
  12. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Mar;20(3):227-40 - PubMed
  13. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 24;11(8):e0161064 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1359-66 - PubMed
  15. Brain Res. 2011 Oct 28;1420:80-92 - PubMed
  16. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57889 - PubMed
  17. Emotion. 2007 May;7(2):447-57 - PubMed
  18. Soc Neurosci. 2007;2(3-4):167-78 - PubMed
  19. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013 Mar;43(3):616-28 - PubMed
  20. Am Psychol. 2005 Feb-Mar;60(2):170-80 - PubMed
  21. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2381-9 - PubMed
  22. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Dec;38(6):1353-61 - PubMed
  23. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:285-308 - PubMed
  24. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e90876 - PubMed
  25. Cognition. 2005 Jan;94(3):193-213 - PubMed
  26. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60 - PubMed
  27. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jun 22;107(25):11163-70 - PubMed
  28. Psychol Sci. 2008 Aug;19(8):816-22 - PubMed
  29. Biol Lett. 2011 Feb 23;7(1):7-10 - PubMed
  30. Psychol Assess. 2006 Jun;18(2):192-203 - PubMed
  31. Brain Cogn. 2000 Nov;44(2):124-43 - PubMed
  32. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jun;4(6):223-233 - PubMed
  33. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012 Jun;42(6):1045-51 - PubMed
  34. Cortex. 2015 Sep;70:49-67 - PubMed
  35. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Dec;12(12):455-60 - PubMed
  36. Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716 - PubMed
  37. Psychiatry Res. 2013 Jun 30;208(1):47-53 - PubMed
  38. Psychol Bull. 2011 May;137(3):463-83 - PubMed

Publication Types