Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2013, 54, 401–406
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12060
Personality and Social Psychology
Empathy is a beautiful thing: Empathy predicts imitation only for
attractive others
BARBARA C. N. MÜLLER,1,2 MATTHIJS L. VAN LEEUWEN,2 RICK B. VAN BAAREN,2 HAROLD BEKKERING3 and
AP DIJKSTERHUIS2
1
Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
3
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
2
M€uller, B. C. N., Van Leeuwen, M. L., Van Baaren, R. B., Bekkering, H. & Dijksterhuis, A. P. (2013). Empathy is a beautiful thing: Empathy
predicts imitation only for attractive others. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 54, 401–406.
Research shows that we spontaneously imitate people. Moreover, empathy predicts the degree of this non-conscious imitation. Little is known, however,
if or how this expression of empathy is influenced by stable physical characteristics of our interaction-partners. In two studies, we tested whether attractiveness of others moderated the relation between empathy and imitation. While seeing a woman performing joystick movements, participants either imitated, or non-imitated these movements. Results showed that the higher participants empathy score, the faster they imitated an attractive person. The
level of empathy did not predict the degree of imitation of unattractive targets. The findings demonstrate that the expression of empathy through imitation can be moderated by attractiveness, thereby introducing a new dimension to the conditionality of empathy.
Key words: Empathy, imitation, attractiveness.
Barbara C. N. Müller, Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Leopoldstrasse 13, 80802 Munich, Germany. Tel: + 49 2180 5151;
e-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Empathic responding is not a static trait but has been shown to
be more malleable than previously thought. For example, it was
shown that the prosocial consequences of empathy are moderated by perceived similarity to oneself (Maner, Luce, Neuberg,
Cialdini, Brown & Sagarin, 2002). These authors demonstrated
that participants high in empathy were more willing to help
another person. However, this relationship was completely moderated by perceived similarity. Furthermore, several neuroimaging studies have shown that group membership seems to play an
essential role in empathic responding (Campbell & de Waal,
2011; Mathur, Harada, Lipke & Chiao, 2010; Xu, Zuo, Wang &
Han, 2009). For example, Xu and colleagues (2009) looked at
the activity of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), an area that
is assumed to play a role in the empathic neural responding of
pain. The authors found that observation of out-group members’
pain elicited significant less ACC activity then observation of ingroup members’ pain. The above suggests that indeed, similarity
and group membership can influence the expression of empathy.
Additionally, behavioral studies and fMRI studies demonstrated
that emotional closeness plays an important role in empathic
responding (Beeney, Franklin, Levy & Adams, 2011; Norscia &
Palagi, 2011). An important but unanswered question, however,
is whether highly empathic people feel and react equally caring
towards all people. One expects people high in empathy to be so
irrespective of the target, but could it be that their response is
conditional upon certain, often situation irrelevant, characteristics
of the person they are interacting with?
For example, we know that people are automatically evaluated
on the basis of their appearance. Research has shown that one
highly salient and influential physical characteristic is attractive© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
ness. Interestingly, research suggests a possible universal standard for judging who is attractive and who is not (Langlois,
Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam & Smoot, 2000). The
authors show that both cross-cultural and cross-ethnic analyses
reveal that people highly agreed on attractiveness ratings, which
questions the common assumption that attractiveness is culturally
unique. We seem to favor attractive people, and the axiom
“What is beautiful is good” (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972)
is substantiated by scientific evidence. Implicitly and immediately someone’s beauty is associated with positivity (e.g., Olson
& Marshuetz, 2005; van Leeuwen & Macrae, 2004), attractive
people are evaluated more positively, and perceived as more
social, intelligent, and extraverted (Langlois et al., 2000). In
addition to the obvious advantages for procreation, attractive
people earn more money, and tend to secure better jobs (Cann,
Siegfried & Pierce, 1981; Frieze, Olson & Russell, 1991).
Recent research demonstrated that attractive individuals’ artefacts
are copied more often than unattractive individuals, even when
there is no apparent benefit to do so (van Leeuwen, Veling, van
Baaren & Dijksterhuis, 2009). Considering the wide range of
positive effects of attractiveness on our judgement and behavior
towards others, it may be an important factor that moderates the
expression of empathy. Exploring this issue could make a more
nuanced contribution to the literature of empathy and how it
drives behavior.
A first step in the empathic process is often regarded to be the
tendency of humans and primates to automatically imitate
(Demuru & Palagi, 2012; Norscia & Palagi, 2011; Preston & de
Waal, 2002; Paukner et al., 2009). Work on “mirror-neurons”
has also contributed to the idea that certain neurological structures are both active when we observe someone else performing
a behavior, and when we perform that behavior ourselves
402 B. C. N. M€uller et al.
(e.g., Iacoboni, Woods, Brass, Bekkering, Mazziotta & Rizzolatti, 1999). It has been suggested that such a perception-action
coupling helps to understand others actions, intentions, and emotions (e.g., Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001; Preston and De Waal,
2002; Prinz, 1990). This matches with findings showing that we
use our motor representations to observe and interpret the emotional states of others (Bavelas, Black, Lemery & Mullett, 1987;
Decety & Jackson, 2004). From this perspective, imitation is a
means towards the experience of empathy and empathic understanding (e.g., Dapretto et al., 2006). It is partly through doing
what others do that we can experience what they experience.
Interestingly, research has also shown that imitation can be
viewed as a consequence of empathy: empathic people imitate
more. An interaction between trait empathy and spontaneous
imitation was demonstrated in research by Chartrand and Bargh
(1999). Participants who scored high on the cognitive facet of
empathy, that is, perspective taking, unconsciously imitated the
behavior of the confederate more than those who did not. In
addition, research demonstrated that the presence of affiliation
cues in the environment increases imitation behavior (Cheng &
Chartrand, 2003), as well as increased similarity between interaction partners (Gueguen & Martin, 2009). In addition, research
has shown that mimicry behavior differs depending on whether
people come from an individualistic or collectivistic culture (van
Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter & van Knippenberg,
2003). People who were either primed with interdependency or
came from an Eastern culture mimicked a confederate more than
people from a Western culture. Imitation can thus work as a
“social glue” that binds us together: imitation increases our
empathy for others, and the more we empathize with others, the
more we mimic (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng & Chartrand, 2003).
This link between imitation and empathy is not only true for
humans, but can also be found in other primate species. For
example, a perfect fit in yawn contagion, a sign of empathic
responding, it has been observed among female baboons (Palagi,
Leone, Mancini & Ferrari, 2009).
To test the moderating effect of attractiveness on empathic
responding, an obvious starting point is to examine one of the
first basic stages of the empathic expression process postulated
by the perception-action hypothesis: automatic imitation (e.g.,
Preston & De Waal, 2002). If empathic people automatically
empathize more with attractive compared to unattractive individuals, imitation of attractive individuals should be facilitated. To
test this, we conducted two experiments, both involving a basic
motor imitation task. Perspective taking and empathic concern
(Davis, 1983), the two sub-concepts mainly used in imitation
research, were assessed to measure empathy. Thereby, Perspective taking measures the tendency to spontaneously adopt the
psychological point of view of others, and is associated with
better social functioning (Piaget, 1932). In addition, “perspective-taking ability should allow an individual to anticipate the
behavior and reactions of others, therefore facilitating smoother
and more rewarding interpersonal relationships” (Davis, 1983,
p. 115). Empathic concern, on the other side, assesses otheroriented feelings of sympathy, warmth, and concern for others.
Scores on empathic concern are related to measures that reflect a
concern for other people. Thus, the perspective taking sub-scale
measures how often people report adopting the perspective of
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
another person, while empathic concern focuses on feelings for
other people in need. Both sub-scales are often used in research
about the link between imitation and empathy (e.g., Chartrand &
Bargh, 1999; Pfeifer, Iacoboni, Mazziotta & Dapretto, 2008). In
Experiment 1, participants saw pictures of either an attractive or
unattractive woman pulling and pushing a joystick, after which
their tendency to imitate the target woman was measured.
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants. Thirty-seven white students from the Netherlands
(30 women) participated in return for either course credit or €4.
Two participants were excluded due to problems during data collection. All participants were right-handed.
Materials – imitation task. Participants performed a joystick-task
to measure the speed of automatic imitative movements. The
joysticks were specifically designed so they could only be
moved backwards or forwards. A trial consisted of a two-picture
sequence of a woman moving the joystick from a neutral position either from or toward herself. The first picture always
showed the woman holding the joystick in a neutral position.
The second picture depicted the woman holding the joystick in
either a forward or backward position, which gave the illusion
of either forward or backward movement. Additionally, on the
second picture, a cue was presented (a black star or a black circle) to which participants had to respond with either a pulling or
a pushing movement. The first picture was presented for
500 ms, followed by a movement picture that stayed on-screen
for 1500 ms. Between trials, a fixation cross was presented for
1000 ms. Half of the participants saw an attractive female, the
other half saw an unattractive female. The unattractive female
was constructed using make up on a confederate manipulating
facial features that increased facial asymmetry, eyebrow hairgrowth, and the appearance of unhealthy skin (important features
of attractiveness; see Rhodes, 2006). The attractive female was
constructed using the face of a model on the body of the original
confederate using Adobe Photoshop CS2 (Figure 1).
Questionnaire. We used the shorted version of the official subscales of a Dutch translation of the IRI as a basis (De Corte,
Buysse, Verhofstadt, Roeyers, Ponnet & Davis, 2007), and subsequently formulated new questions which were matched in content to assess empathic concern (e.g., “I often have tender,
concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.”; “Other
people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me.”; “I am often
quite touched by things that I see happen.”), and perspective taking (e.g., “When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put
myself in his shoes” for a while.”; “Before criticizing somebody,
I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.”; “I
sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ‘other guy’s
point of view.”).
Procedure. Participants were seated in front of a computer with
the joystick placed in front of the screen, and were instructed to
hold the joystick with their dominant right hand. They were told
that a person moving a joystick back and forth would appear on
Empathy, imitation and attractiveness 403
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
Fig. 1. Sample images from the unattractive and attractive conditions in experiment 1. Left: The unattractive target person pulling the joystick towards
herself including a star instructing the participant to move the joystick backwards. Right: The attractive target person pushing the joystick away from herself including a circle instructing the participant to move the joystick forwards.
the screen and that, as each movement on-screen was initiated,
either a star or a circle would appear on the joystick. When a
star appeared, they had to move their joystick towards themselves. When a circle appeared, they had to move their joystick
away from themselves. It was emphasized that movements made
by the woman on the screen were irrelevant to how they should
move and they should only focus on the symbol indicating
which movement to perform.
The combination of the joystick movement made by the
woman on the screen, and movements made by the participants
resulted in four possible combinations: Congruent-pull (both the
target person and the participant pulled); congruent-push (both
the target person and the participant pushed); incongruent-pull
(the target person pushed but the participant pulled); and incongruent-push (the target person pulled but the participant pushed).
Thus, in two possible combinations, the participants had to imitate the target, and in the other two possible combinations, they
performed a movement complementary to the movement of the
target. Reaction times were measured for congruent and incongruent trials, and difference scores were calculated by subtracting
incongruent trials from congruent trials, which means that the
lower the difference score, the faster the participants were in imitating the target person. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of the two conditions. Before the experimental trials, all participants were given 20 practice trials with error feedback. Next,
there were 60 experimental trials with no error feedback. Finally,
after an unrelated filler task, participants were presented with the
two sub-scales of empathy, perspective taking (e.g., “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how
things look from their perspective.”), and empathic concern
(e.g., “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less
fortunate than me.”).1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A pilot study revealed that people scored the attractive female
significantly more attractive than the unattractive female on a
10-point scale (M = 6.9 and M = 2.8, respectively), t(39) =
11.82, p < 0.001.
Response errors and all reaction times above 2000 ms and
below 100 ms were omitted from the analysis. Mean RTs were
calculated for both congruent (imitative) trials and motor incon© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
gruent (non-imitative) trials.2 Subsequently, difference scores
were calculated by subtracting incongruent trials from congruent
trials; the lower the difference score, the faster the participants
were in imitating the target person. No participants had mean
RTs more than 3SD above or below the group mean. Prior to
the main analysis, a reliability analysis was done on the perspective taking and empathic concern sub-scales of the IRI. By using
a subset of these items for each scale, their homogeneity was
maximized. Perspective taking (using five of the 11 sub-scale
items) resulted in a maximum alpha of 0.72; and empathic concern (using three of the seven sub-scale items) resulted in maximum alpha of 0.54. Perspective taking and empathic concern
were not significantly correlated.
Emphatic concern
The effect of attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) on the
movement time difference scores was examined in a one-way
ANCOVA with empathic concern as a full-model covariate. Preliminary analyses showed no effects of sex of the participant
(F < 1) and thus, for the remainder of the analysis, the data were
collapsed across this factor.
No main effects of attractiveness were found, F < 1. There
was a marginally significant main effect of empathic concern,
F(1,33) = 4.94, p = 0.07, gq² = 0.09, and a regression analysis
showed that increases in empathic concern predicted an increase
in imitation, b = 0.417, t(35) = 2.77, p = 0.01, R2 = 0.17.
This effect was qualified, however, by a significant interaction of
attractiveness and empathic concern, F(1,33) = 4.94, p < 0.05,
gq² = 0.13. To clarify this effect, separate regression analyses
were conducted for the attractive and for the unattractive condition with empathic concern as a predictor. The analysis revealed
that increases in empathic concern significantly predicted the
tendency to imitate the attractive target, b = 0.696, t(17) =
4.00, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.48, whereas there was no such effect
for the unattractive target, F < 1 (see Figure 2a).
Perspective taking
The effect of attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) on the difference scores was examined in a one-way ANCOVA with perspective taking as a full-model covariate. Preliminary analyses showed
404 B. C. N. M€uller et al.
(a)
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
the attractive and unattractive person was created out of an identical image, to rule out any confounding physical factors
between targets.
EXPERIMENT 2
Method
Participants. Sixty-four white students from the Netherlands (48
women; age range 18–36 years) participated in return for either
€4 or course credit. All participants were right handed.
(b)
Materials and procedure. The experimental procedure was identical to that of Study 1 with a few exceptions. This time, both
attractiveness conditions used images of the same person. However, before use in the unattractive condition, the target person’s
face was manipulated in Adobe Photoshop CS2 by introducing
increased asymmetry, increased facial hair and more skin impurities. Furthermore, the cue location was changed from the joystick to the upper chest for both stimuli to make sure
participants’ attention was close to the face.
Results
Fig. 2. Regression lines for imitation speed of the attractive and unattractive target woman in experiment 1. Lower scores on the Y-axis indicate faster imitation movements non-imitation movements. (a) Increases
in empathic concern lead to faster imitation RTs for the attractive target,
(b) increases in perspective taking lead to faster imitation RTs for the
attractive target and marginally slower RTs to the unattractive target.
no effects of sex of the participant (F < 1), and for the remainder
of the analysis, the data were collapsed across this factor.
No main effects of attractiveness or perspective taking were
found, Fs < 1. Importantly however, the results showed a significant interaction effect between attractiveness and perspective taking, F(1,33) = 6.89, p < 0.02, gq² = 0.17. As before, to further
clarify this effect, separate regression analyses were conducted
for each attractiveness condition with perspective taking as the
predictor. This revealed that increases in perspective taking predicted an increase in the speed that people imitate an attractive
target, b = 0.443, t(17) = 2.04, p = 0.057, R2 = 0.20 (see
Figure 2b). Conversely, there was a marginal effect suggesting
that increases in perspective taking may predict decreases in the
tendency to imitate an unattractive target, b = 0.413,
t(16) = 1.81, p < 0.089, R2 = 0.17.
Thus, seemingly people high in empathy have a greater tendency to imitate an attractive person compared to those who are
not. Interestingly, the effects were obtained for empathic concern
and, although somewhat weaker, for perspective taking. However, at least for empathic concern, analysis revealed a marginal
significant effect of attractiveness, which might be confounding
our results. Additionally, we used different stimulus persons for
the attractive and unattractive conditions. In our second study,
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
A manipulation check, using a 10-point scale, confirmed that the
attractive face was rated as significantly more attractive than the
unattractive face (M = 6.9 and M = 2.3, respectively),
t(63) = 17.52, p < 0.001.
Response errors and all reaction times above 2000 ms and
below 100 ms were omitted from the analysis. Mean RTs were
calculated as in Study 1. One participant had a mean RT more
than 6SDs above average and was excluded from further analyses. No other participants had mean RTs more than 3SDs above
or below the group mean. Prior to the main analysis, a reliability
analysis was done. Perspective taking (using 10 of the 11 subscale items) resulted in a maximum alpha of 0.78; empathic concern (using three out of seven sub-scale items) resulted in a
maximum alpha of 0.74. Perspective taking and empathic concern were not significantly correlated. Preliminary analyses
showed no effects of sex (F < 1) and thus, for the remainder of
the analyses, the data were collapsed across this factor.
Emphatic concern
To main effects of attractiveness or empathic concern were
found, Fs < 1. However, the results yielded a significant
interaction between attractiveness and empathic concern,
F(1,60) = 4.48, p < 0.04, gq² = 0.07. Separate regression analyses were conducted for the attractive and the unattractive condition with empathic concern as the predictor. This revealed that
while empathic concern was positively associated with the tendency to imitate the attractive target, b = 0.438, t(30) = 2.67,
p < 0.02, R2 = 0.44, there was no such evidence for the unattractive target, F < 1 (see Figure 3).
Perspective taking
Next, the effect of attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) on
the difference scores was examined in a one-way ANCOVA
Empathy, imitation and attractiveness 405
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
Fig. 3. Regression lines for imitation speed of the attractive and unattractive target woman in experiment 2. Lower scores on the Y-axis indicate faster imitation movements non-imitation movements. Increases in
empathic concern indicated faster imitation of the attractive target.
with perspective taking as a full-model covariate. Interestingly,
the results showed no significant interaction effect between
Attractiveness and Perspective taking, F < 1.
General Discussion
The present studies were designed to test whether people high in
empathy imitate attractive people to the same extent as unattractive
ones. The findings support our hypothesis that empathic responding through imitation is moderated by target attractiveness. In both
experiment 1 and experiment 2, we found an interaction between
empathic concern and imitation: the higher in empathic concern
people are, the more they imitate attractive targets, but this was
not the case for less attractive targets. Additionally, a similar effect
was found for perspective taking in the first study. Together, these
data add to the few studies showing that empathy might be more
malleable than previously thought, and is to a much lesser extend
a static trait (e.g., Maner et al., 2002; Mathur et al., 2010; Simpson, Blackstone & Ickes, 1995; Xu et al., 2009; see also Campbell
& de Waal, 2011). Given that imitation effects are stronger in collectivistic countries, it might be that the effects found in the present research will be even stronger in these countries.
Our findings demonstrated a moderating effect of empathic
concern. However, the effects of perspective taking were less
stable, and only observed in experiment 1. There is contradictory
evidence for the moderating effects of cognitive and emotional
components of empathy on imitation. Whereas research on spontaneous imitation behavior found an influence of perspective taking on imitation (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), studies in which
participants were instructed to imitate obtained evidence for the
influence of empathic concern (e.g., Pfeifer et al., 2008). Given
these mixed findings, further research is necessary to clarify this
issue. Furthermore, we did not find a main effect of attractiveness on imitation, which has been found in earlier research (van
Leeuwen et al., 2009). This may lie on different ways of operationalize imitation behavior: while van Leeuwen and colleagues
looked at non-motor mimicry, that is, imitation of art pieces, we
investigated motor mimicry. This issue needs also further investigation in the future.
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
While some may expect there to be a difference for men and
women in how they are influenced by an attractive or unattractive woman, recent studies on automatic appraisal of attractiveness neither found effects of participant gender (e.g., Cloutier,
Heatherton, Whalen & Kelley, 2008; Olson & Marshuetz, 2005;
van Leeuwen & Macrae, 2004; van Leeuwen et al., 2009). A
recent paper suggests that mating-relevant processing of attractive faces most likely happens only when normal holistic perception of a face is disrupted and becomes featural (Franklin &
Adams, 2009). We are currently investigating if there is a differential sex effect in automatic evaluation and responding to
attractive men and women.
However, the basic finding that empathy moderates the degree
to which we imitate people based on their attractiveness, and the
fact that imitation leads to rapport and liking, creates more
favorable circumstances for attractive people (e.g., Gueguen &
Martin, 2009; K€
uhn, M€
uller, van Baaren, Wietzker, Dijksterhuis
& Brass, 2010; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; M€
uller et al., 2012).
This effect could potentially create a negative “status quo” in
our perception of unattractive people. Attractive people are imitated more because they are liked more and as a consequence
are liked more because we imitate them more, but unattractive
people would not benefit from this process.
Together, the findings suggest that the expression of empathy
through imitation is moderated by target attractiveness, thereby
introducing a new dimension to the conditionality of empathy. It
seems that empathy
because it is defined by the attention we
pay to others
may make us more sensitive to the characteristics of those we interact with.
This research was conducted at the Behavioral Science Institute of the
Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. We thank Hanneke Ribberink for her help in collecting the data of experiment 1.
NOTES
1
Fantasy and personal distress were not included as these IRI scale subtypes types were not considered relevant for the hypotheses regarding
this study and have not previously been shown to influence imitation
(Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
2
In both experiments preliminary analyses were conducted for general
approach (trials when participant pulled the joystick) and avoidance (trials when participant pushed the joystick). As expected there was no difference in RT for these movements or any interactions with
attractiveness.
REFERENCES
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R. & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor
mimicry as primitive empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.),
Empathy and its development (pp. 317–338). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Beeney, J. E., Franklin, R. G., Levy, K. N. & Adams, R. B. (2011). I
feel your pain: Emotional closeness modulates neural responses to
empathically experienced rejection. Social Neuroscience, 6, 369–376.
Campbell, M. W. & de Waal, F. B. M. (2011). Ingroup-outgroup bias in
contagious yawning by chimpanzees supports link to empathy. PLoS
ONE, 6, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018283.
Cann, A., Siegfried, W. D. & Pearce, L. (1981). Forced attention to specific applicant qualifications: Impact on physical attractiveness and
sex of applicant biases. Personal Psychology, 34, 65–75.
406 B. C. N. M€uller et al.
Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh. J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 893 910.
Cheng, C. M. & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1170–1179.
Cloutier, J., Heatherton, T. F., Whalen, P. J. & Kelley, W. M. (2008).
Are attractive people rewarding? Sex differences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20,
941–951.
Dapretto, M., Davies, M., Pfeifer, J., Scott, A., Sigman, M., Bookheimer., S. & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Understanding emotions in others:
Mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorder.
Nature Neuroscience, 6, 28–30.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Decety, J. & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human
empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3,
71–100.
De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L. L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K. &
Davis, M. H. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: Reliability and
validity of the Dutch version of the interpersonal reactivity index.
Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235–260.
Demuru E. & Palagi E (2012). In bonobos yawn contagion is higher
among kin and friends. PLoS ONE, 7. e49613.
Dijksterhuis, A. & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception and social behavior. In
M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
30, pp. 1–40). New York: Academic Press.
Dion, K. K., Berscheidt, E. & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is
good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.
Franklin J. R. G. & Adams J. R. B. (2009). A dual-process account of
female facial attractiveness preferences: Sexual and nonsexual routes.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1156–1159.
Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E. & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness and
income for men and women in management. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 21, 1039–1057.
Gueguen, N. & Martin, A. (2009). Incidental similarity facilitates behavioral mimicry. Social Psychology, 40, 88–92.
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C. &
Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation.
Science, 286, 2526–2528.
Kaplan, J. T. & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Getting a grip on other minds: Mirror neurons, intention understanding, and cognitive empathy, Social
Neuroscience, 1, 175–183.
K€uhn, S., M€uller, B. C. N., van Baaren, R. B., Wietzker, A.,
Dijksterhuis, A. & Brass, M. (2010). Why do I like you when you
behave like me? Neural mechanisms mediating positive consequences
of observing someone being imitated. Social Neuroscience, 5,
384–392.
Lakin, J. L. & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral
mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14,
334–339.
Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M. & Chartrand T. L. (2003).
The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary
© 2013 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations
Scand J Psychol 54 (2013)
significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145–162.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M.
& Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic
and theoretical review Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. &
Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1601–1610.
Mathur, V. A., Harada, T., Lipke, T. & Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Neural basis
of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation. NeuroImage, 51,
1468–1475.
M€
uller, B. C. N., Maaskant, A. J., van Baaren, R. B. & Dijksterhuis, A.
(2012). Prosocial consequences of imitation. Psychological Reports,
110, 891–898.
Norscia, I. & Palagi, E. (2011). Yawn contagion and empathy in Homo
sapiens. PLoS ONE, doi: 12, e28472/journal.pone.0028472.
Olson, I. R. & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in
a glance. Emotion, 5, 498–502.
Palagi, E., Leone, A., Mancini, G. & Ferrari, P. F. (2009). Contangious
yawning in gelada baboons as a possible expression of empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 106, 19262–19267.
Paukner, A., Suomi, S. J., Visaberghi, E. & Ferrari, P. F. (2009). Capuchin monkeys display affiliation towards humans who imitate them.
Science, 325, 880–883.
Pfeifer, J. H., Iacoboni, M., Mazziotta, J. C. & Dapretto, M. (2008). Mirroring others’ emotions relates to empathy and interpersonal competence in children. NeuroImage, 39, 2076–2085.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
Preston, S. & De Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action.
In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception
and action (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
Simpson, J. A., Blackstone, T. & Ickes, W. (1995). When the head protects the heart – empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641.
van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., de Bouter, C. &
van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 1093–1102.
van Leeuwen, M. L. & Macrae, C. N. (2004). Is beautiful always good?
Implicit benefits of facial attractiveness Social Cognition, 22, 637–649.
van Leeuwen, M. L., Veling, H., van Baaren, R. B. & Dijksterhuis, A.
(2009). The influence of facial attractiveness on imitation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1295–1298.
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X. & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain?
Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses
Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8525–8529.
Received 1 July 2012, accepted 27 March 2013