Source: Lakin et al., "I Am Too Just Like You" | NYU Social Psych, Section 005
Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Intro to Social Psychology concepts (in-groups, out-groups, social identity).
Behavioral mimicry sits at the intersection of social cognition and interpersonal behaviour. Humans unconsciously copy each other's gestures, postures, and mannerisms, and this copying appears to serve a social-bonding function. The Lakin et al. study ("I Am Too Just Like You") asks what happens to that copying behaviour when a person is socially excluded: does exclusion ramp mimicry up as a way of trying to reconnect? You should already be comfortable with in-group/out-group dynamics, the Cyberball paradigm, and the basics of experimental design (IVs, DVs, conditions) before working through these notes.
When people get socially excluded, they automatically start mimicking others more, apparently as a low-effort way to rebuild a sense of belonging. Lakin et al. tested this across two experiments, one showing the basic effect and the other showing that the mimicry is selective, directed more toward people who share traits with the excluders.
Behavioral mimicry
The unconscious, automatic imitation of another person's gestures, postures, facial expressions, or mannerisms during social interaction.
In simple terms, this means you copy someone's body language without realising you are doing it.
Non-conscious mimicry
Mimicry that occurs without deliberate intent or awareness on the part of the imitator. Distinct from intentional imitation.
Think of it as social autopilot: your body mirrors the other person before your conscious mind registers what is happening.
Social exclusion
The experience of being deliberately ignored, rejected, or left out of a social group or interaction.
Think of it as being frozen out of a conversation or group activity, the way the Cyberball game simulates it.
Cyberball paradigm
A computerised ball-tossing game used in social psychology experiments to manipulate feelings of inclusion or exclusion. Participants believe they are playing with real people, but the other "players" are computer-controlled.
In simple terms, this means it is a fake online catch game rigged so you either get the ball fairly (inclusion) or get cut out after a few throws (exclusion).
Inclusion condition
The experimental condition in which participants receive the ball as frequently as the other players throughout the Cyberball game.
Exclusion condition
The experimental condition in which participants receive the ball only a few times at the start of the Cyberball game and are then ignored.
In-group / out-group
In-group: the social group a person identifies with or belongs to. Out-group: any social group the person does not identify with.
Think of it as "us" versus "them" in any social setting.
Affiliative behaviour
Actions aimed at forming or maintaining social bonds. Mimicry is considered one such behaviour because copying someone signals liking and similarity.
Dependent variable (DV)
The outcome measured by the experimenter to assess the effect of the manipulation. In Experiment 1, the DV was recognition of a partner's mannerisms. In Experiment 2, the DVs included belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and self-control.
Independent variable (IV) / manipulation
The factor the experimenter deliberately changes across conditions. In Experiment 1, inclusion versus exclusion. In Experiment 2, the gender composition of the excluding group was added as an additional manipulation.
Why study mimicry after exclusion? Mimicry is low-effort, low-risk, and low-cost. It requires no planning, no conversation skills, and no explicit social overture. For someone who has just been excluded, it is the path of least resistance back toward social connection.
Overall (directional) hypothesis: Individuals who are socially excluded will be more likely to engage in non-conscious mimicry than those who are included. The mimicry functions as an automatic affiliative response, compensating for the lost sense of belonging.
The study builds on prior work showing that mimicry increases liking and rapport. The new contribution is linking mimicry specifically to the experience of exclusion, rather than treating it only as a general social-bonding mechanism.
Design: Two conditions (between-subjects), both using the Cyberball paradigm.
Inclusion condition: Participants received the ball as frequently as the other (computer-controlled) players.
Exclusion condition: Participants received the ball only a few times at the start and were then ignored.
Procedure (two parts):
Part 1: Cyberball game to induce inclusion or exclusion.
Part 2: Participants interacted with a confederate and were then tested on their recognition of that partner's mannerisms.
Dependent variable: The extent to which participants recognised (and had therefore attended to and encoded) their partner's mannerisms. Greater recognition = greater mimicry.
Key finding: Excluded participants showed significantly greater recognition of their partner's mannerisms than included participants, supporting the hypothesis that exclusion increases non-conscious mimicry.
Overarching goal: To test whether non-conscious mimicry after exclusion is selective. Specifically, do excluded people mimic everyone equally, or do they target their mimicry toward people who share traits with those who excluded them?
New manipulation (not in Experiment 1): The gender of each member of the excluding group was manipulated. This allowed the researchers to test whether excluded participants would selectively mimic a new interaction partner who shared the gender of the excluders.
Dependent variables: Participants' self-reported belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and self-control. These measured the psychological effects of non-conscious mimicry after exclusion.
Key finding: Mimicry behaviours increased when participants had information about the leading traits (e.g. gender) of those who had excluded them, suggesting that post-exclusion mimicry is not indiscriminate. It is directed toward people who resemble the excluding group, as though the excluded person is trying to re-affiliate specifically with that group.
"Mimicry after exclusion is deliberate." It is not. The whole point of the study is that the mimicry is non-conscious. Participants are not choosing to copy their partner as a strategy; it happens automatically.
"Excluded people mimic everyone equally." Experiment 2 specifically showed that post-exclusion mimicry is selective, directed toward people who share traits with the excluding group, not spread evenly across all available interaction partners.
"The DV in Experiment 1 was the amount of mimicking observed." The DV was actually recognition of the partner's mannerisms, not a direct count of mimicking behaviours. This is an indirect measure of how closely the participant attended to and encoded the partner's movements.
"Mimicry proves a causal link to restored belonging." The studies demonstrate a correlation between exclusion and increased mimicry, but mimicry as measured here does not on its own prove cause and effect for emotional recovery.
⚠️ Know the difference between the two experiments: Experiment 1 shows the basic exclusion-mimicry link; Experiment 2 adds the selectivity question. Exam questions often ask you to distinguish them.
⚠️ Be precise about the DV in Experiment 1. It is recognition of the partner's mannerisms (Part 2 of the experiment), not a direct measure of mimicry frequency.
⚠️ The Cyberball paradigm is a classic tool for studying exclusion. Expect questions asking you to describe it, identify the IV (inclusion vs. exclusion), and explain why computer-controlled players are used.
⚠️ The unique manipulation in Experiment 2 was the gender of the excluding group members. This is the key design difference and a likely exam target.
⚠️ Understand why mimicry is described as "low-effort, low-risk, low-cost." This is the rationale for studying it as a coping mechanism, and it distinguishes mimicry from more deliberate affiliative strategies.
True or False: Behavioral mimicry in the Lakin et al. study is a deliberate, conscious strategy used by excluded individuals. (False. The mimicry is non-conscious and automatic.)
Fill in the blank: In the Cyberball paradigm, the exclusion condition involves participants receiving the ball only ______ at the beginning of the game. (A few times.)
True or False: The dependent variable in Experiment 1 was the frequency of foot-shaking mimicry. (False. It was the recognition of the partner's mannerisms.)
Fill in the blank: The new variable manipulated in Experiment 2 that was not manipulated in Experiment 1 was the ______ of each member of the excluding group. (Gender.)
True or False: Experiment 2 found that excluded participants mimicked all interaction partners equally, regardless of their traits. (False. Mimicry was selective, directed toward people sharing traits with the excluders.)
Q: What was the overall research goal of the Lakin et al. ("I Am Too Just Like You") study?
A: To explore the effect of unconscious behaviours that emerge when individuals are socially excluded, specifically how out-group members are prompted to associate with in-group members via non-conscious mimicry as an automatic response to rebuild belonging.
Q: Why did the authors choose to study behavioral mimicry rather than other affiliative behaviours?
A: Because mimicry is low-effort, low-risk, and low-cost, making it an accessible coping mechanism for people who have been socially excluded.
Q: Describe the two conditions in Experiment 1.
A: Inclusion condition: participants received the ball as frequently as the other Cyberball players. Exclusion condition: participants received the ball only a few times at the start and were then ignored for the rest of the game.
Q: What was the main dependent variable in Experiment 1, and in which part of the experiment was it measured?
A: The DV was recognition of the partner's mannerisms, measured in the second part of the experiment (after the Cyberball game, during interaction with a confederate).
Q: What was the overarching goal of Experiment 2?
A: To explore whether non-conscious mimicry after exclusion is selective, and whether mimicry increases when participants have information about the traits of those who excluded them.
Q: What variable was manipulated in Experiment 2 that was not manipulated in Experiment 1?
A: The gender of each member of the excluding group.
Q: What were the main dependent variables in Experiment 2?
A: Belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and self-control.
Q: Give one methodological criticism of these experiments.
A: Mimicry as measured here does not establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship. Individual differences (gender, education, cultural background) could moderate the effect, and the studies do not fully control for these. The sample may also lack cross-cultural generalisability.
Social identity theory and self-categorisation: Mimicry after exclusion connects to the broader idea that people are motivated to maintain positive social identities. Exclusion threatens identity, and mimicry is one route to restoring it.
Sherif's Robbers Cave and the Contact Hypothesis: The source assignment draws a parallel to superordinate goals that reduce intergroup prejudice. Mimicry can be seen as a micro-level, automatic version of the affiliative processes those theories describe at a group level.
Need to Belong (Baumeister and Leary): The fundamental motivation to form and maintain social bonds. Exclusion thwarts this need, and the increased mimicry observed by Lakin et al. is consistent with a system that ramps up bonding behaviours when belonging is threatened.
behavioral mimicry, non-conscious mimicry, social exclusion, Cyberball paradigm, Cyberball game, inclusion condition, exclusion condition, in-group, out-group, affiliative behaviour, chameleon effect, imitation, unconscious imitation, social bonding, need to belong, Lakin et al., "I Am Too Just Like You," social psychology, NYU social psych, interpersonal behaviour, automatic response, social rejection, ostracism, belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, self-control, selective mimicry, group affiliation, coping mechanism