University of Groningen
Unconscious Bonding Rachl, Judith
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Rachl, J. (2018). Unconscious Bonding: Forming Bonds Quickly in Today's Fast-Paced Society. University of Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Mimicry is Smooth:
On the Embodiment of Social
Smoothness
Rachl-Willberger, J., Leander, N. P., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2018). Mimicry is Smooth: On the Embodiment of Social Smoothness. Manuscript in preparation
We thank Eike Eifler, Fenja Seyffert, Leonie Rose, Marion Stopyra, Nadja Zeiske, Ruth Schlotheuber, Stella Schreiber, and Tabea Flasinski for their excellent research assistance.
Abstract
Smoothness is pleasant, even tempting, and therefore, might be a desirable state for people. An initial experience of smoothness might lead people to pursue and experience more smoothness as well as to sustain it. In this paper, we investigated whether initial exposure to some form of physical or social smoothness leads people to pursue smoothness in some other, disconnected domain. Specifically, we investigated whether an initial experience of smoothness leads people to adjust their decisions, perceptions and behaviors to subsequently experience more smoothness. In Study 1, we faced participants with an initial experience of social smoothness—namely, being nonverbally mimicked by an interaction partner, and asked them to choose between a smooth-surfaced candy bar and a rough one (Study 1a) and we investigated whether nonverbal behavioral mimicry leads people to perceive objects in pictures as smoother and less rough (Study 1b). In Study 2, we examined whether participants who were primed with physically smooth objects increased their social smoothness (i.e., mimicry behavior) in a later interaction. In a meta-analysis we tested whether these studies suggest that initial exposure to some form of smoothness heightening perceptions and behaviors in a pattern suggesting motivation to experience more of it.
Mimicry is Smooth: On the Embodiment of Social Smoothness
The soul music band, Sade, once toured the world singing about a “smooth operator” who “moves in space with minimal waste and maximum joy”. These lyrics speak to the idea that social smoothness is pleasant, even tempting and might, therefore, be desirable for people. In everyday language, smoothness is often associated with a positive experience. For example, people use terms like a “smooth ride” or a “smooth day” to imply a lack of hindrances or stress. Smoothness is desirable and thus people may often be motivated to both experience smoothness and sustain it after it has been experienced. In this paper, we investigate whether initial exposure to some form of physical or social smoothness leads people to pursue smoothness in some other, disconnected domain.
People have a clear preference for smoothness over roughness when rating different surfaces (Ekman, Hosman, & Lindstrom, 1965) and might already hint towards a desire for smoothness. Yet, preferences differ from desires, namely that preferences lack a striving for it. In fact, preferences are “a liking for one thing more than for another” (Reber & Reber, 2001, p. 557) and desires are a motivation to reach a certain goal (Häcker & Stapf, 1998), so a striving or longing for it. Therefore, we propose that people not only prefer smoothness over other things (Ekman et al., 1965), but that people are actually motivated to sustain in the experience of smoothness. This motivation for smoothness might be due to the subjective experience smoothness brings. For example, people enjoy an interaction and like their interaction partner more when it includes smooth nonverbal communication (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
Mimicry as a Means for Smoothness
Smoothness might be experienced in different situations and aspects of life (e.g., a smooth ride or a smooth interaction). Yet, we propose that especially the nonverbal behavior of other people might be a means to experience social smoothness, as people communicate up to 70% nonverbally (Reiman, 2007). Furthermore, it has been shown that mimicry – the copying behavior of people’s postures and mannerisms – influences people’s perceptions of the interaction as they rate them as being smoother (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Yet, it is not fully understood what this means to people. Perhaps mimicry is psychologically
“smooth” in the sense that it is pleasant: Mimicry increases agreement and trust between negotiation partners and thus smoothens the negotiation (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008). Even third party observers rated mimicry interactions as “smoother” (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Mimicry may also be smooth in the sense it is less wasteful – interactions involving mimicry are often less depleting (Dalton, Chartrand, & Finkel, 2010; Ashton-James & Chartrand, 2009). Therefore, given that individuals typically do not notice mimicry when it occurs (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), mimicry may serve as an initial experience of smoothness.
We base this logic on the notion that nonverbal behavioral mimicry carries embodied information (Winkielman, Niedenthal, Wielgosz, Eelen, & Kavanagh, 2015). Indeed, embodiment research has already shown that haptic experiences influence people in their behaviors and decisions (e.g., Ackerman, Nocera, & Bargh, 2010). The term embodiment refers to behaviors, feelings and thoughts that are rooted in sensory experiences and bodily states (see Meier, Schnall, Schwarz, & Bargh, 2012). For example, people holding a cup with a hot drink rate another person as friendlier and warmer than people holding a cup with a cold drink (Williams & Bargh, 2008); a person who nods vertically (implying yes) agrees more with a message than a person who nods horizontally (implying no, Wells & Petty, 1980). It seems that bodily experienced actions and perceptions are integrated in mental processes and people use these experiences for judgments and decisions. We, therefore, assume that when people experience smoothness (e.g., by being mimicked), they integrate it in their perceptions and decisions.
Importantly, embodiment effects are modality specific (Lee & Schwarz, 2010), so an exposure to smoothness will only lead to people to pursue smoothness and no other positive experiences. For example, people engaging in unethical behavior remove their “physical dirt” by evaluating hand sanitizer vs. mouthwash as more desirable when their unethical behavior was carried out by writing an email (hands) vs. leaving a voice mail (mouth, Lee & Schwarz, 2010). In other words, the embodied behavior needs to be directly linked to people’s performances. If mimicry is indeed embodied social smoothness and mimicked people have the desire to pursue smoothness, mimicry should lead to smooth perceptions and behaviors.
We suggest the effect of initial smoothness is not merely semantic – it is motivational. In fact, an initial experience of smoothness should increase the pursuit of more smoothness. We base this logic on the idea that activated goals lead people to evaluate cues in a different way as their perceptions are biased. For example, people primed with a mating goal indicate more liking for “at peak” bananas compared to green or too ripe bananas, suggesting that people are biased by goal-activated evaluation effects (Huang & Bargh, 2008). Therefore, people, who experience smoothness, might be more likely to see or rather are more aware of “smoothness opportunities” in their environment.
Furthermore, we propose that this smoothness effect is bidirectional. We mean by this that mimicry as a mean to increase smoothness can also function as a mean to stay in smoothness. In other words, we assume that people who experience smoothness (e.g., through haptic behavior) are motivated to stay in smoothness and show it by engaging in mimicry. We base our idea on the bidirectional embodiment findings. For example, people holding a warm cup and, therefore, experiencing physical warmth are influenced in their perception of social warmth in others (Williams & Bargh, 2008). On the other hand, the experience of a “cold shoulder” lead people to judge the room temperature as lower (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). We, therefore, assume that mimicry cannot only be a means to evoke the perception of smoothness, but also a means to engage in the motivation for more smoothness.
The Present Research
We propose that people could pursue more smoothness via their consumer choices (Study 1a) and perceptions of everyday objects (Study 1b) or they may try to smoothen their own social behavior, such as via increased nonverbal behavioral mimicry (Study 2). We suggest that such activation can be observed in people’s consumption behavior (Study 1a) – as non-conscious goals have motivational content (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008) – and their perceptions of the world around them (e.g., pictures; Study 1b). Though, being mimicked by an interaction partner might not only motivate the pursuit of more smoothness, but mimicry could also be a means to pursue more smoothness after another initial smoothness experience in a disconnected domain (e.g., haptic sensations; Ackerman, Nocera, & Bargh, 2010). This would mean that handling smooth
surfaces, representing an initial experience of smoothness, leads to a motivation of engaging in more smoothness (e.g. through mimicry).
In the present research, we investigated whether an initial experience of smoothness leads people to adjust their decisions, perceptions and behaviors to subsequently experience more smoothness. In Study 1a and 1b, we operationalized the exposure to smoothness by a social smoothness manipulation, namely nonverbal behavioral mimicry. As an indicator for our prediction that people engage in more smoothness, we measured people’s choices for a smooth candy bar (over a rough) to show that mimicry by an interaction partner increases a tendency to choose physically smooth objects (Study 1a). We, further, measured people’s perception of objects, namely that an initial exposure to smoothness inflates the perception of smoothness in these objects (Study 1 b). Additionally, we tested whether mimicry can be a means to sustain in smoothness after an initial exposure to smoothness (Study 2). Participants were primed with smooth (vs. rough) pictures and we measured their engagement in social smoothness (e.g., mimicry behavior) in a subsequent interaction. Altogether, these studies share the common feature of testing different consequences that imply motivation— namely, increased preferences and decisions, inflated perceptions of smoothness-related stimuli, and subsequent behavioral pursuit of smoothness.
Study 1a (Pilot)
We conducted a small field study to test whether an initial experience of psychological smoothness increases motivation for more smoothness. We tested this in the form of choosing between two indulgent candy bars—one that was physically smooth and another that was physically rough. Research in consumer behavior suggests that both mimicry and implicit motivations can influence product choice (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008; Tanner, Ferraro, Chartrand, Bettman, & Van Baaren, 2008). According to these findings, if mimicry indeed creates a motivation for smoothness, we should see this motivation in people’s decision behavior, namely that they choose the smooth candy bar over the rough one.
Method
Participants & Design. Forty-nine participants (30 females) volunteered for
a field study. Their age ranged from 16 to 32 years (M = 21.33 SD = 3.42) and most participants were of German origin (94%). The study used a one-way (mimicry vs. no mimicry) design wherein the dependent measure was choice of a smooth vs. rough candy bar. Specifically, the smooth candy bar was Milchschnitte by Ferrero®; the rough candy bar was Corny Milch Dark & White by Schwartau®.
Procedure & Material. Participants were approached on the street in
two German cities and were asked whether they like to volunteer in a research study. After agreeing, participants were shown five paper cutouts printed on DIN A4 paper (for an example see Appendix B). Participants were asked to describe each paper cutout in a few sentences. During this time, the experimenter either mimicked or did not mimic the posture and mannerisms of the participants (see Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Afterwards, participants were shown two different kinds of candy bars and asked to pick one of them. A pilot test indicated that these two candy bars differed in ratings of physical roughness (t (16) = -6.11, p < .001) and smoothness (t (16) = 4.08, p <.01), but not in likability (t (7) = 0.51, p = .63) and people’s perceptions of being appealing (t (15) = -0.74, p =.47). After participants made their choice, they answered some questions about the candy bars and reported their demographics before they were debriefed.
Results & Discussion
We used a Chi-square to determine whether being mimicked leads to a motivation for smoothness, as indicated by their subsequent choice in candy bar – picking a rough vs. smooth candy bar. No effect was found, χ2(1) = 0.98, p < .32.
Participants who were mimicked picked the smooth candy bar (N = 12) as often as the rough candy bar (N = 12). The candy bar measure we picked was unfortunately closely related to health and dieting behavior why we proposed that the effect might be invisible due to 61 % of our participants being female who are more concerned about their weight and dieting behavior. Note that the smooth candy bar has a reputation of being unhealthy and the brand of the rough candy bar of being healthy. Therefore, we run two separate Chi-square tests, although the number of participants is very small. Yet, a significant effect was found for men, χ2(1) = 4.34,
p < .05, but not for women, χ2(1) = 0.14, p = .71. Men were more likely to pick the
smooth candy bar when being mimicked (N = 7) compared to not being mimicked (N = 3). However, mimicked women (N = 5) did not differ in their smooth candy bar choice compared to non-mimicked women (N = 6). Men who were mimicked choose the smooth candy bar over the rough one, whereas men who were not mimicked showed an opposing pattern instead. Women did not differ in their decision on a candy bar, which might be caused by their health and dieting behavior as the “healthy” candy bar was chosen more often independent of mimicry.
This finding provides initial evidence for the idea that an initial experience of smoothness, in the form of nonverbal behavioral mimicry, might lead to increased motivation for more smoothness. However, this small field study is limited by the even smaller subsample of men and the possibility that the candy bar conflicted with women’s dieting goals. Thus, we conducted a follow-up study 1b to replicate this effect in a lab study to ensure the reliability of the observed effect.
Study 1b
This study tested whether the motivation for smoothness also manifests in people’s subsequent goal-directed perceptions. People base their perceptions on the instrumental goals they try to attain and New Look theorists have long suggested that people perceive valued objects as larger than they are (Bruner & Goodman, 1947). More recent studies showed that not only are valued objects perceived as larger, but initially neutral objects can result in increased size perception when being paired with positive valenced objects (Veltkamp, Aarts, & Custers, 2008). We think a craving for smoothness could inflate perceptions of target smoothness much in the same way. If an initial experience of smoothness increases motivation to experience more smoothness, this could inflate the perception of smoothness in physically smooth objects in one’s environment.
Method
Participants & Design. Eighty-three German participants (53 female) took
part in an experiment in exchange for partial course credit. Their age ranged between 18 and 25 years (M = 21.02, SD = 1.43). This study used a 2 (mimicry vs. no mimicry) x 2 (object ratings: smoothness vs. roughness) mixed design.
Procedure & Material. Participants signed an informed consent on arrival.
They then engaged in a pictures description task (see Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) with a confederate. Note that we also manipulated whether the interaction occurred face-to-face versus over a full-length webcam, but this had no bearing on the results. Afterwards participants filled out a computerized questionnaire battery. The dependent measure was participants’ ratings of four different pictures (clouds, sandpaper, icicles, and a spider). Participants rated the pictures on how smooth and rough the object(s) in the image appeared to them. For discriminant validity they also rated them on various other qualities (disgusting, appearance, enjoyable, vivid, and cold; 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). Finally, participants indicated their demographics and suspicion (see Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) and were debriefed.
Results & Discussion
To test whether participants who were mimicked rated the pictures as smoother and less rough, a 2 (mimicry vs. no mimicry) x 2 (smoothness vs. roughness) mixed-model MANOVA was performed.1 Note that we standardized
the smoothness and roughness ratings, as we were not interested in the absolute difference between the pictures, but rather in the relative difference between the rating for smoothness and roughness. Results indicated a significant interaction effect, F(1, 81) = 4.94, p = .029, ηp2 = .057, but no other effect (Fs < 1.4). As illustrated
in Figure 2, non-significant trends show that participants who were mimicked rated the pictures as smoother and less rough (p = .13) whereas participants who were not mimicked rated the pictures as less smooth and rougher (p = .15). Although the simple slopes were not significant, they were in the predicted direction and the non-significance is presumably due to insufficient statistical power. Subsequently we tested for discriminant validity by running separate MANOVAs over all the other various qualities people rated.
The results show no significant effect (Fs > 1) beside the ratings for vividness, F(1, 78) = 3.61, p =.009, ηp2 = .16. Yet, this effect was driven by the picture of the
spider, F(1, 81) = 3.64, p = .008, ηp2 = .084. Participants who were not mimicked
(M = 4.59, SE = .11) perceived the spider as more vivid compared to mimicked participants (M = 4.17, SE = .11). This effect was not predicted and was statistically independent of the link between mimicry and perceptions of smoothness and
roughness. Else, mimicry did not affect any other ratings.
These results suggest that people who were mimicked are motivated to stay in this state of smoothness and they infl ated their perceptions of smoothness in objects in their environment. This helps to suggest that an initial experience of smoothness indeed triggers a craving for more smoothness and people not only are motivated to adjust their preferences, but also their perceptions to receive this goal. In a next step we tested whether mimicry could not only be a trigger for more smoothness, but also a means to stay in smoothness when initially experiencing smoothness.
Figure 2: Standardized smoothness and roughness ratings under mimicry and no mimicry.
Study 2
In Study 2, we tested whether the relationship between mimicry and smoothness is bidirectional – that is, whether an initial experience of smoothness also increases nonverbal behavioral mimicry. In other words, we reverse the
primed with the idea of smoothness increases motivation for more smoothness, as manifested in increased mimicry.
We base this idea on the logic that people often use mimicry as a means to attain their goals. For example, research has shown that people who feel excluded use mimicry to feel included again (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013). High self-monitors use mimicry as an interaction strategy (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) and narcissistic people use mimicry to fulfill their high motivation to form social alliances (Ashton-James & Levordashka, 2013). Yet, people who experience a craving for smoothness due to initial brief exposure to smooth concepts might use mimicry as a means to keep pursuing smoothness. Given that simple pictures of objects can be a way smoothness is conveyed (Study 1b), we used pictures as a priming technique to trigger a motivation for more smoothness. A picture depicting smoothness (compared to roughness) may lead to more mimicry behavior in a subsequent interaction. As a measure of mimicry we picked two often used observed behaviors in mimicry research: face rubbing and foot shaking (e.g., Van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, De Bouter, & Van Knippenberg, 2003).
Method
Participants & Design. Eighty-four German participants (46 female) took
part in an experiment. Their age ranged from 18 to 24 years (M = 20.77, SD = 1.24). The study used a 2 (between factor: smoothness vs. roughness prime) x 2 (within factor: face rubbing vs. foot shaking) mixed model design.
Procedure & Method. On arrival, participants filled out an informed
consent on a computer followed by a subliminal priming task. In this task, participants were focally instructed to indicate whether a 3-digit number (e.g., 375) is even or odd by pressing the F key (for even numbers) or the J key (for odd numbers). Before the 3-digit number occurred, participants were primed (16ms) with either smooth (billiard ball, smooth glass, fossil, waves, & stones) or rough (golf ball, rough glass, fossil, waves & stones) pictures. Before the prime and the number, a string of asterisks (********) appeared to direct participant’s attention to the center of the screen. Participants completed 107 trails.
Afterwards participants engaged in an interaction game with the experimenter. Participants had to recall as many words as possible including the letter K and P, each for three minutes whilst the order was counterbalanced (no effect: F < 1). During this game the experimenter engaged in face rubbing and foot shaking – one of the behaviors either the first or second half of the game (each behavior for three minutes) (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). As recent research indicates that foot shaking is not a valid measurement (Duffy, Stanton, Chartrand, & Harris, 2015) and Cronbach’s α was small (α = .25), we only performed the analysis with the face rubbing DV (Cronbach’s α = .80). Due to technical issues we lost six video clips.
Results
To test our hypothesis whether a smoothness (compared to a roughness) prime increased mimicry, we conducted a one-way ANOVA (prime: smoothness vs. roughness). Results indicated a marginally significant main effect of condition, F(1, 76) = 3.17, p = .079, ηp2 = .04. Participants who were primed with smoothness
tend to engage in more mimicry (M = 4.88, SE = 0.72) than participants who were primed with roughness (M = 2.97, SE = 0.78). This suggests participants primed with smoothness increase their mimicry behavior and might signal a pursuit for more smoothness.
Meta-Analysis
As recently suggested by Goh, Hall, and Rosenthal (2016), we performed a analysis over our three studies. In terms of Study 1, we performed the meta-analysis with the non-significant result of the study. Specifically, we calculated Cohen’s d and Pearson’s correlation for each of the three studies. Then, we transformed the correlations to Fisher’s z (see Table 2 for relevant parameters). The effect showed a highly significant result, Mr = .41, Z = 5.23, p < .001, two-tailed. Thus, across the three studies, an initial experience of smoothness evokes a motivation for more smoothness.
General Discussion
This chapter aimed to investigate how the concept of smoothness can build a desire in people to pursue more (social) smoothness. Particularly, we tested
t /χ2 N r
Study 1a 0.98 49 .14
Study 1b 2.22 83 .24
Study 2 1.78 78 .20
Table 2: Relevant parameters for the meta-analysis
smoothness, as manifested in people’s decisions, perceptions and behaviors. In Study 1a, we found initial evidence that nonverbal behavioral mimicry leads people to choose a smooth candy bar over a rough one – yet this only accounted for males. In Study 1b, we observed that mimicked participants perceived pictures as smoother and less rough compared to participants who were not mimicked. In Study 2, we found that mimicry not only serves as a means to evoke a motivation for more smoothness, but also as a means for satisfying the motivation for it (bidirectionality). A concluding meta-analysis revealed that this effects of experienced smoothness was consistent and significant across the three studies.
Theoretical Implications
Our set of findings offers theoretical implications on goal pursuit, embodiment, and mimicry. First, our results suggest that an initial experience of smoothness creates a motivation for more smoothness, supporting the notion that activated goals bias people’s perceptions and lead them to evaluate cues differently. Indeed, in the same way as mating goal activation lead people to evaluate bananas as more desirable when they were “at their peak” (Huang & Bargh, 2008), people who experienced smoothness desired more smoothness and were motivated to engage in smooth behavior or adjust their perceptions. This suggest that people who are exposed to smoothness might be more likely to see and are more aware of “smoothness opportunities” in their environment, namely that their smoothness goal is activated.
Secondly, embodiment research has shown that haptic experiences influence people in a way that it affects their decisions, behaviors and perceptions. For example, people holding a cup with a hot drink rated another person as more
friendly and warmer than people holding a cup with a cold drink (Williams & Bargh, 2008). In the same way as people’s judging behaviors are influenced by, for example, the kind of cup they hold, we showed that a means for smoothness influences people in their decisions, behaviors and perceptions. However, we extended the findings by not only showing that it influences people, but also by demonstrating that it activates people’s decisions, behaviors and perceptions to pursue more smoothness, namely to choose a smoother candy bar, to perceive pictures as smoother, and to engage in smoother interactions.
A third implication supports the notion that embodied information is modality specific. We mean by modality specific that an experience of smoothness only evokes a desire for more smoothness, but no other desires (e.g., enjoyment). Indeed, we showed in Study 1b that mimicry does not influence participants’ smoothness and roughness ratings, but also that other qualities as disgust, enjoyment or coldness were not influenced by the mimicking behavior of the interaction partner. These findings are in line with modality specific embodiment findings. For example, unethical behavior carried out by writing an email was only removed by evaluating hand sanitizer as more desirable, but could not be removed when evaluating mouthwash was more desirable (Lee & Schwarz, 2010). In the same way, mimicked participants rated pictures as smoother and rougher compared to non-mimicked participants, but ratings on disgust, enjoyment and coldness were not influenced by the manipulation.
Fourthly, our research aimed to show that people not only change their behavior according to such an influence, but also that they have a motivation for staying in such an initial state. We mean by that that it can also create a motivation, namely that people are influenced by this initial experience and motivated to sustain it. For example, holding a heavy clipboard and thus judging an interaction as more seriously, might indicate that people have a motivation of staying in the same mindset. This motivation might point towards the idea that people like to reduce their investment of resources, as people’s mental resources are limited (e.g., see Chapter 4). So whenever people are confronted with certain haptic concepts or nonverbal cues, they might try to act according to the activated concept to stay in harmony.
A fifth implication supports the notion that mimicry carries embodied information as suggested by Winkielmann and colleagues (2015). These authors suggest that mimicry is a form of embodiment as mimicry is moderated by the same contextual information as embodied information is. For example, mimicry only leads to a positive and warm reaction (e.g., the interaction partner is more liked) within one’s ingroup (e.g., Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008). Yet, research has shown that people who are mimicked by an out-group member actually feel colder (Leander, Chartrand, & Bargh, 2012). These findings support the notion of our studies that mimicry carries embodied information, namely that mimicry triggers feelings of embodied information as warmth or smoothness.
Practical Implications
This research may have, beside theoretical implications, also practical implications for marketing because people`s choices for particular products can be influenced by nonconscious goals. For example, the activation of a prestige vs. a thrift goal made participants to choose a higher-priced brand good over a lower-priced brand good (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008). In the same way mimicry influences people in their choices and perceptions as has been shown in Study 1a and 1b. Marketing campaigns and product presentations might be able to use this information to influence people in their consumption behavior. For example, products should be presented in a smooth way, namely that customers are able to easily reach them and that they can smoothly walk their way through the store. We suggest so as people most of the time experience nonverbal communication (e.g., Reiman, 2007) and the likelihood of being in a smooth mindset is high due to mimicry. Therefore, customers might search for smooth ways to process in their shopping and easily reachable products and clear paths within the supermarket will support this mindset.
Our research findings might also be important in terms of office design. Purely touching the surface of one’s computer desk or the papers out of the copying machine might influence people and activate certain mindsets. This activation can influence people in their forthcoming behaviors and actions and influence the outcome of their working process. Indeed, a study has shown that people who were mimicked and worked in a group were more likely to reduce their effort compared to people who were not mimicked (Chapter 4). For example, a meeting
in a room with smooth surfaces, round tables and soft chairs might influence the outcome of the meeting (e.g., finding a solution, signing a contact) compared to a meeting in a room with rather rough surfaces, edged tables and wooden chairs.
Limitations and Strengths
Our studies are not without limitations and are especially characterized by small sample and effect sizes. Sample size is an issue in interaction studies due to individual testing and might have influence the effect sizes. However, to address this issue, we performed a meta-analysis across the three studies in which we used a variety of different methods in terms of measuring people’s motivation for more smoothness, namely their consumer choices, their perception (of pictures) and their interaction behavior (engaging in mimicry). This meta-analysis supports our notion that an initial experience of smoothness leads to a motivation for more smoothness. Nevertheless, we encourage researchers to replicate our effects with bigger sample sizes.
Another limitation is the use of laboratory studies. Although we conducted a filed study to increase external validity, this study failed to show significant results. However, these negative findings might be due to the research design as the dependent variable seemed to be heavily influenced by females’ dieting goals. Furthermore, this research used mainly psychology students as research participants. Yet, research on mimicry in a management environment showed that mimicry has the same effects in a natural setting (Sanchez-Burks, Bartel, & Blount, 2009). Therefore, we are confident that the research findings are generalizable.
Future Research
Our research focused on investigating the choice, perception and behavior of people. However, we did not investigate the whole range of human decision making, namely that we did not investigate how this process could actually improve people’s decision behavior or even harm them. For example, most unhealthy food has rather a smooth texture (pudding, cream, ice cream). Yet, meals are most often consumed in the presence of other people and mimicry is
in a restaurant might be more willing to (1) order desert, which is rather an unhealthy food option and (2) stay longer in this interaction with the person and might therefore consume more food than their body would actually need. Future research can investigate how the motivation for more smoothness could harm or even help people to profit from it in their everyday life.
Future research can also investigate whether the way people act or interact might already point towards the intentions they have. For example, might a person who orders soup be more open for a smooth interaction compared to a person who orders a crunchy starter? If that is indeed the case, then a person in a dating bar might be more successful in approaching another person when offering a smooth or rather a drink enjoyed by a majority compared to a very unusual drink. It might even give outside observers a hint about the quality of the social interactions. Future research could investigate how the intention of people towards certain interactions influence their (consumption) behavior beforehand.
This research opens also unanswered questions to how mimicry is pursued and its clear meaning. For example, one theory suggests that mimicry can be seen as pure communication tool, a social glue binding and bonding people (for a review see Chartrand & Van Baaren, 2009). So the question arises what people actually intend when they mimic each other. Is it that they like to re-experience fluency and smoothness as suggested by our studies, namely staying in the same mindset or would they like to experience belonging and liking with another person which has been shown by numerous studies (e.g., Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). Future research should investigate what people intend when they mimic each other or rather what they actually see as their benefit from mimicking each other.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we found that an initial experience of smoothness creates a motivation so that people like to pursue more of it. Although people prefer to have full control of their actions (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008), people are often not conscious about the influence around them and are almost guided by an invisible hand. For these reasons, organizations have to reflect on how they influence people in presenting products, building offices or meeting people on a round versus edge business table.
Notes
1 The four pictures varied in their content why we were unable to compute
a scale (αsmooth = .27; αrough = .36). We, therefore, performed a mixed-model MANOVA over all the dependent measures.
