The Chameleon Effect: The Relationship Between Imitation and Interdependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most chameleon effect studies focus on the relationship between mimicry of nonverbal behaviors and rapport during interactions. However, verbal behaviours and the role of self-construals should be studied. We investigated mimicry of verbal and nonverbal behaviours and interdependence in explaining the relationship between mimicry and rapport. We hypothesized no differences in the magnitude of verbal and nonverbal mimicry and that interdependence was a mediator of mimicry and rapport. Using interdependence self-reports, participants’ level of mimicry (the difference between the monologue and the dialogue), and a rapport questionnaire regarding their interaction with the confederate, significant differences between the monologue and the dialogue emerged. There were no statistically significant results for the association between imitation and rapport. A significant association between interdependence and rapport was obtained. The findings suggest a revision to the chameleon effect, an expansion to the type of imitated behaviours and aid in fostering and understanding social interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".