↓ Skip to main content

Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms
Published in
Animal Cognition, September 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10071-006-0039-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas R. Zentall

Abstract

Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
Germany 4 1%
Austria 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 304 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 23%
Researcher 69 21%
Student > Master 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 60 18%
Unknown 40 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 110 33%
Psychology 82 25%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Neuroscience 14 4%
Computer Science 11 3%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 49 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2024.
All research outputs
#7,012,293
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#923
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,486
of 67,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 67,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.