title: Players of Matching Pennies automatically imitate opponents' gestures against strong incentives.
abstract: There is a large body of evidence of apparently spontaneous mimicry in humans. This phenomenon has been described as "automatic imitation" and attributed to a mirror neuron system, but there is little direct evidence that it is involuntary rather than intentional. Cook et al. supplied the first such evidence in a unique strategic game design that gave all subjects a pecuniary incentive to avoid imitation [Cook R, Bird G, Lünser G, Huck S, Heyes C (2012) Proc Biol Sci 279(1729):780-786]. Subjects played Rock-Paper-Scissors repeatedly in matches between fixed pairs, sometimes with one and sometimes with both subjects blindfolded. The frequency of draws in the blind-blind condition was at chance, but in the blind-sighted condition it was significantly higher, suggesting automatic imitation had occurred. Automatic imitation would raise novel issues concerning how strategic interactions are modeled in game theory and social science; however, inferring automatic imitation requires significant incentives to avoid it, and subjects' incentives were less than 3 US cents per 60-game match. We replaced Cook et al.'s Rock-Paper-Scissors with a Matching Pennies game, which allows far stronger incentives to avoid imitation for some subjects, with equally strong incentives to imitate for others. Our results are important in providing evidence of automatic imitation against significant incentives. That some of our subjects had incentives to imitate also enables us clearly to distinguish intentional responding from automatic imitation, and we find evidence that both occur. Thus, our results strongly confirm the occurrence of automatic imitation, and illuminate the way that automatic and intentional processes interact in a strategic context.
authors: School of Economics,  University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JT,  United Kingdom.
authors: Michèle
authors: M
authors: Belot
authors: Vincent P
authors: VP
authors: Crawford
authors: Cecilia
authors: C
authors: Heyes
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:653-70
references: 18793090
references: Psychol Sci. 2009 Jan;20(1):1-5
references: 19152536
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Feb;22(2):233-40
references: 15653296
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2008 Sep;28(6):1208-15
references: 18783371
references: Psychol Sci. 2004 Jan;15(1):71-4
references: 14717835
references: Science. 1999 Dec 24;286(5449):2526-8
references: 10617472
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 22;279(1729):780-6
references: 21775334
references: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Mar;34(4):575-83
references: 19914284
references: J Neurophysiol. 1995 Jun;73(6):2608-11
references: 7666169
references: Exp Brain Res. 1992;91(1):176-80
references: 1301372
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1996 Mar;3(2):131-41
references: 8713554
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Nov;141(4):774-87
references: 22428612
references: Neuroimage. 2007 May 1;35(4):1674-84
references: 17395490
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jun;76(6):893-910
references: 10402679
references: Early Dev Parent. 1997 Sep;6(3-4):179-192
references: 24634574
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Aug 22;279(1741):3231-3
references: 22553091
references: Curr Biol. 2003 Mar 18;13(6):522-5
references: 12646137
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2352-62
references: 20946056
references: Psychol Bull. 2011 May;137(3):463-83
references: 21280938
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2369-80
references: 19620108
references: Brain. 1996 Apr;119 ( Pt 2):593-609
references: 8800951
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Dec;26(6):1746-59
references: 11129371
references: Neuroreport. 2000 Jul 14;11(10):2289-92
references: 10923687