The Chameleon Outcast: When Social Mimicry Goes Awry
Being a chameleon is good only if your colors are changing in the right direction.
Maria Konnikova is the New York Times bestselling author of The Confidence Game (Viking/Penguin 2016) and Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes (Viking/Penguin, 2013). She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker, where she writes a regular column with a focus on psychology and culture, and her writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, California Sunday, Pacific Standard, The New Republic, WIRED, and The Smithsonian, among numerous other publications. Maria is a recipient of the 2015 Harvard Medical School Media Fellowship, and is a Schachter Writing Fellow at Columbia University’s Motivation Science Center. She formerly wrote the “Literally Psyched” column for Scientific American and the popular psychology blog “Artful Choice” for Big Think. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, where she studied psychology, creative writing, and government, and received her Ph.D. in Psychology from Columbia University.
Two people are talking to each other. One nods his head to emphasize a point. The other follows suit, just a moment later. One crosses his foot over his knee. Soon, the other is doing the same. One shifts to the right. The other, across from him, shifts to the left, mirroring the movement. A few minutes later, the two get up in unison, exchange a few words, and walk away in opposite directions.
The chameleon effect in regular interaction
Chances are, you have just observed a successful social interaction: one participant was mimicking—unconsciously—the physical actions of the other. And as a result, the mimickee was likely drawn to the mimicker—provided, of course, that he himself did not note the behavioral reflection. This is the famous chameleon effect, described in detail by Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh in 1998. In essence, the effect is one of nonconscious person-to-person mimicry, a tendency to match posture, facial expressions, mannerisms, and even speech patterns to those of our social environment (most often, a single conversation partner). As a result of this mimicry, interaction partners tend to like each other more and work together more effectively. They also tend to be more empathetic. Call it, if you will, a social glue of sorts.
However, for the effect to work, the nonconscious part is crucial: in a regular interaction, the behavior must be passive and unintentional. Indeed, if someone’s attention is drawn to it, the opposite effect becomes equally likely.
The phenomenon is simple; the social and interpersonal repercussions profound. But now, new studies suggest that in a larger social situation, where an outside observer watches a dyadic interaction—such as the one that opened this piece—unfold, the effect may not always be positive. If the person being mimicked is perceived in a negative light, the one doing the mimicking will pay a social cost for mirroring him. In other words, being a chameleon is good only if your colors are changing in the right direction.
When the chameleon effect goes wrong
In a series of experiments forthcoming in Psychological Science, researchers at UC-San Diego first had people watch two taped interviews each, one where the interviewee mimicked the interviewer and one where he did not. The interviews further differed in the nature of the interviewer: one group of participants saw videos where the interviewer was cordial, regardless of mimicry, and the other, where the interviewer was condescending. It is in this latter group where the potential downside of the chameleon effect came out.
Whereas in the set-up with the cordial interviewer, the expected effect was found—namely, interviewees were ranked as more competent—in the condescending interviewer scenario, those who mimicked were seen as less competent than those who didn’t – and as less competent overall than those who mimicked in the cordial scenario. But with non-mimickers, there was no difference at all. Mimicking someone who was ill-perceived by an outsider observer thus carried with it a significant social cost—even though it might have paid off, potentially, in the interaction itself.
In a follow-up study, the researchers manipulated one further item: before participants watched the videos—this time, with a cold and abrupt interviewer—one group was told that the interviewer was active in humanitarian work; the other was told nothing. That information actually served to counteract the negative effect: whereas those who were told nothing continued to view the mimicking interviewee as less competent than his non-mimicking counterpart, those who had positive information on the interviewer did not.
Knowing when to mimic
Mimicry is usually good – but sometimes, it can carry hidden costs. Not only mimicking, but knowing when and whom to mimic seems to be essential for the optimally successful social player. And that requires a greater perception of the social situation, the players involved, and the specific goals of the interaction at hand. Do you care more about your interaction partner liking you? If so, mimic away. Are the opinions of others more important? In that case, if you are in a wider social setting, evaluate who you are mimicking and why much more carefully.
A good chameleon knows when to camouflage—but also when to remain just as he is. Not every background is equally conducive to positive cover.
If you'd like to receive information on new posts and other updates, follow Maria on Twitter @mkonnikova
[Photo credit: Male Leopard Chameleon; Creative Commons, from col.hou flickr photostream]
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
Journalism got a big wake up call in 2016. Can we be optimistic about the future of media?
- "[T]o have a democracy that thrives and actually that manages to stay alive at all, you need regular citizens being able to get good, solid information," says Craig Newmark.
- The only constructive way to deal with fake news? Support trustworthy media. In 2018, Newmark was announced as a major donor of two new media organizations, The City, which will report on New York City-area stories which may have otherwise gone unreported, and The Markup, which will report on technology.
- Greater transparency of fact-checking within media organizations could help confront and correct fake news. Organizations already exist to make media more trustworthy — are we using them? There's The Trust Project, International Fact-Checkers Network, and Tech & Check.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.