Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are you feeling what I’m feeling? The role of facial mimicry in facilitating reconnection following social exclusion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work investigated the interpersonal functions of facial mimicry after social exclusion. Specifically, we examined two distinct functions that facial mimicry may serve in promoting reconnection: facilitating the understanding of others’ emotions and/or fostering interpersonal rapport. Using a novel facial mimicry paradigm, we found that although people exhibited both greater facial mimicry (Studies 1 and 2) and superior emotion-decoding accuracy (Study 2) after exclusion, facial mimicry did not mediate the relationship between exclusion and decoding accuracy (Study 2). Instead, we found support for facial mimicry serving to promote interpersonal rapport. Specifically, in Study 3, naïve judges rated videos of target-participant pairs from Study 1 for social closeness. Findings indicated that pairs with a previously-excluded participant were rated as socially closer than pairs with a previously-included participant (Study 3). Importantly, enhanced facial mimicry was found to mediate the relationship between exclusion and rated closeness. Altogether these findings suggest that facial mimicry may promote reconnection after social exclusion by fostering rapport.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Even though the sample size of Study 1 was relatively small, our experimental design necessitated that we collect multiple observations from each participant, thus increasing the statistical power of our analyses. The facial mimicry paradigm we used in Study 1 involved having each participant view a series of five different emotional video clips, each 2-min in duration. As they were watching these video clips, we assessed participants’ emotional expressions in response to a target individual’s emotional expressions. This design allowed us to increase our statistical power by collecting multiple observations per participant. Furthermore, we conducted multilevel analyses using a dyadic, one-with-many analytic approach, which allowed us to examine facial mimicry, nested within each participant, rather than aggregating our observations.

  2. FACES specifies three possible methods of coding the extent of emotional expressiveness: the intensity of individual emotional expressions, which is the coding parameter employed by the current research; the number of individual emotional expressions made during the recorded time period; and, individuals’ overall emotional expressiveness, rated once, for the entirety of the recorded period. Coding any one of these dimensions is sufficient to establish extent of emotional expressiveness.

  3. The interaction between social exclusion condition and target expression valence predicting the valence of participants emotional expressions remained robust in three separate analyses when controlling for participant gender, which emotion way portrayed, and which target individual was viewed, respectively. These three factors did not contribute significantly to their relevant analysis as a main effect or moderate the interaction between social exclusion condition and target expression valence.

  4. The interaction between social exclusion condition and target expression intensity remained robust in three separate analyses when controlling for participant gender, which emotion was portrayed, and which target individual was viewed, respectively. These three factors did not contribute significantly to their relevant analysis as a main effect or moderate the interaction.

  5. As discussed in Note 1, the FACES coding scheme denotes two additional measures of the extent of emotional expressiveness displayed by individuals: the number of individual emotional expressions made during the recorded time period; and, individuals’ overall emotional expressiveness, rated once, for the entirety of the recorded period. In addition to the intensity of their emotional expressions, coders also rated these additional measures of emotional expressiveness. For the number of expressions that participants made while watching the target individuals’ faces, the central interaction between social exclusion condition and the number of expressions made by the target individuals was in the correct direction, but non-significant, B = 0.22, t(84.3) = 1.14, p = .26, perhaps due to high chance of coder error when counting facial expressions. However, for participants’ overall expressiveness across the 2-min videos, the central interaction between social exclusion condition and the overall expressiveness of the target individuals emerged as significant, B = 0.20, t(37.3) = 3.09, p < .01, replicating the effects reported in the text.

  6. In Study 2, we chose to exclude the anger videos from our stimuli because we were concerned that participants would have an especially difficult time mimicking and decoding the target viewers’ discrete expressions of anger. Specifically, we were concerned because we used film clips for eliciting emotional expressions in our target viewers, and anger-eliciting films tend to evoke blended emotional states in viewers (e.g., anger blended with disgust and/or sadness) rather than clean expressions of anger (see Rottenberg et al. 2007). Given that Study 1 focused on the mimicry of valenced emotional expressions (i.e., mimicry of positive vs. negative facial expressions), we were less concerned that the target viewers’ negative expressions would be difficult to mimic. However, Study 2 focused on the mimicry and decoding of discrete emotional expressions (as opposed to valenced emotional expressions), and as such, we chose to exclude anger from our stimuli.

  7. The results for Study 1 remain the same regardless of whether we control for the repeated effect of video or instead use a random-intercept model.

  8. In Study 3, we chose to exclude anger and fear videos from our split-screen video stimuli, because we thought these emotions would be particularly confusing for our judges to interpret without being provided with any context for these expressions (see Barrett et al. 2011).

  9. The effect of previous social exclusion on naïve participants’ judgments of closeness between the Study 1 participants and target individuals they viewed remained robust in four separate analyses when controlling for Study 1 participant gender, Study 3 participant gender, which emotion was portrayed, and which target individual was paired with the Study 1 participants, respectively. These three factors did not contribute significantly to their relevant analysis as a main effect or moderate the effect of previous exclusion on judgments of closeness, with one exception. Female Study 3 participants (coded female = 1, male = −1) show greater interpersonal sensitivity (e.g., Hall and Bernieri 2001), rating the stimulus pairs as closer than male Study 3 participants, Bgender = .23, t(34.12) = 2.03, p = .05.

References

  • Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 947–961. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., & Gendron, M. (2011). Context in emotion perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 286–290. doi:10.1177/0963721411422522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. H. Ross & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 43, pp. 43–92). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). ‘I show how you feel’: Motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 322–329. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., & Knee, C. (1994). Interactional synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid of sound and facial affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(3), 303–311. doi:10.1177/0146167294203008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri, F., Gillis, J., Davis, J., & Grahe, J. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 110–129. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Brown, C. M., Young, S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). A preference for genuine smiles following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 196–199. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19(10), 981–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blairy, S., Herrera, P., & Hess, U. (1999). Mimicry and the judgment of emotional facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 5–41. doi:10.1023/A:1021370825283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 395–408). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14–28. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burbridge, J. B., Magee, L., & Robb, A. L. (1988). Alternative transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(401), 123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, E., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F., Smith, N., Erickson, E., & Gross, J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48–67. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caporael, L. R. (2001). Parts and wholes: The evolutionary importance of groups. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 241–258). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, T. L., & van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 219–274). London UK: Elsevier Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Senghas, A., Brandt, F., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The effects of BOTOX injections on emotional experience. Emotion, 10(3), 433–440. doi:10.1037/a0018690.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1498), 1307–1312. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2034.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does exclusion hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. doi:10.1126/science.1089134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W., Pickett, C., & Brewer, M. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496. doi:10.1177/0146167200266007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W., Pickett, C., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1549–1560. doi:10.1177/0146167205277208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I., & Sripada, C. (2005). Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition. Cognition, 94(3), 193–213. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grahe, J. E., & Bernieri, F. J. (1999). The importance of nonverbal cues in judging rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(4), 253–269. doi:10.1023/A:1021698725361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grahe, J. E., & Bernieri, F. J. (2002). Self-awareness of judgment policies of rapport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1407–1418. doi:10.1177/014616702236872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, H. M., Ishii, K., & Ambady, N. (2011). Misery loves company: When sadness increases the desire for social connectedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1438–1448. doi:10.1177/0146167211420167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., Blanch, D. C., & Frankel, R. M. (2009). Observer-rated rapport in interactions between medical students and standardized patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 76(3), 323–327. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, U., & Blairy, S. (2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40(2), 129–141. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00161-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, U., & Fischer, A. (2013). Emotional mimicry as social regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 142–157. doi:10.1177/1088868312472607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, U., & Fischer, A. (2014). Emotional mimicry: Why and when we mimic emotions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 45–57. doi:10.1111/spc3.12083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, U., Philippot, P., & Blairy, S. (1999). Mimicry: Facts and fiction. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman, E. J. Coats, P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman, & E. J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 213–241). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 223–229. doi:10.1177/026540758900600205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W., Gesn, P., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, L. C., Suhler, C. L., Churchland, P. S., & Winkielman, P. (2011). When it’s an error to mirror: The surprising reputational costs of mimicry. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1274–1276. doi:10.1177/0956797611418678.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K., & Hodges, S. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730. doi:10.1177/0146167201276007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Benefits of membership: The activation and amplification of group identities in response to social rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1200–1213. doi:10.1177/0146167208320062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kring, A. M., & Sloan, D. M. (2007). The Facial Expression Coding System (FACES): Development, validation, and utility. Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 210–224. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 934–949. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.934.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19(8), 816–822. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leander, N. P., Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). You give me the chills: Embodied reactions to inappropriate amounts of behavioral mimicry. Psychological Science, 23(7), 772–779. doi:10.1177/0956797611434535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, G. M., Knowles, M. L., Gardner, W. L., Molden, D. C., & Jefferis, V. E. (2010). Increasing social engagement among lonely individuals: The role of acceptance cues and promotion motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1346–1359. doi:10.1177/0146167210382662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., DeWall, C., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the ‘porcupine problem’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90(3), 215–238. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., & Maner, J. K. (2013). How and when exclusion motivates social reconnection. In C. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 121–131). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motley, M. T., & Camden, C. T. (1988). Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/10570318809389622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, D. T., & Chartrand, T. (2011). Embodied emotion perception: Amplifying and dampening facial feedback modulates emotion perception accuracy. Social Psychological and Personality Science,. doi:10.1177/1948550611406138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002–1005. doi:10.1126/science.1136930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M., & Hess, U. (2010). The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(6), 417–433. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000865.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberman, L. M., Winkielman, P., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). Face to face: Blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. Social Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 167–178. doi:10.1080/17470910701391943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, C., & Gardner, W. (2005). The social monitoring system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response to social exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, exclusion, and bullying (pp. 213–226). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rottenberg, J., Ray, R. D., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion elicitation using films. In J. A. Coan & J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 9–28). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K., John, O., & Gross, J. (2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883–897. doi:10.1037/a0014755.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stel, M., Blascovich, J., McCall, C., Mastop, J., van Baaren, R. B., & Vonk, R. (2010). Mimicking disliked others: Effects of a priori liking on the mimicry-liking link. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 867–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stel, M., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). The role of facial mimicry in the recognition of affect. Psychological Science, 19(10), 984–985. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02188.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2010). Mimicry in social interaction: Benefits for mimickers, mimickees, and their interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 101(2), 311–323. doi:10.1348/000712609X465424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tickle-Degnen, L. (2006). Nonverbal behavior and its functions in the ecosystem of rapport. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 381–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918–928. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van der Schalk, J., Fischer, A., Doosje, B., Wigboldus, D., Hawk, S., Rotteveel, M., & Hess, U. (2011). Convergent and divergent responses to emotional displays of ingroup and outgroup. Emotion, 11(2), 286–298. doi:10.1037/a0022582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 213–220. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. (2011). Thin-slice vision. In R. B. Adams Jr, N. Ambady, K. Nakayama, & S. Shimojo (Eds.), The science of social vision (pp. 228–247). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and inclusion. Behavioral Research Methods, 38, 174–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yabar, Y., & Hess, U. (2007). Display of empathy and perception of out-group members. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Elaine O. Cheung & Wendi L. Gardner

  2. Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

    Erica B. Slotter

Authors
  1. Elaine O. Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica B. Slotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendi L. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine O. Cheung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheung, E.O., Slotter, E.B. & Gardner, W.L. Are you feeling what I’m feeling? The role of facial mimicry in facilitating reconnection following social exclusion. Motiv Emot 39, 613–630 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9479-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9479-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation