1. 1
Close Relationships Lab: ‘Communicating Online’
Neel Sitaramya
Psychology 199
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Nancy Collins
Graduate Advisor: Jeff Bowen

2. 2
Since the summer of 2014, I have been contributing to a study in the Close Relationships
Lab called ‘Communicating Online’. This study investigates the relationship between mimicry
behavior of males in relationships in the presence of female attractive alternatives and the role it
plays in attraction and self-control. To effectively analyze the design of our current experiment,
it is imperative to look at past studies that shaped ‘Communicating Online’. The first two papers
examined address mimicry and its relation to attraction in the opposite sex, while the final two
papers delve deeper into the concepts of self-control and its relationship with shaping mindsets.
Mimicking Attractive Opposite-Sex Others: The Role of Romantic Relationship Status
The study by Karremans and Verwijmeren (K & V) aims to test the general prediction
that people involved in a romantic relationship will be less likely to mimic an attractive opposite-
sex alternative (Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008). To test this hypothesis, K & V put together a
three study experiment filled with 2 groups: those not involved in a relationship and those
involved in a relationship. Study 1 tested people in a romantic relationship to uncover if they
would mimic an attractive alternative less than those not involved in a relationship. In this study,
participants involved and not involved in a romantic relationship interacted with an attractive
opposite-sex alternative, and observations of the amount of mimicry displayed by the participant
were collected (Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008).
Study 2 was designed to extend the findings from study 1. In study 1, participants were
contacted about the study a week before it took place. A pre-survey questionnaire required
responses regarding relationship status among other things, which the two researchers felt
explicitly or implicitly effect the study. In study 2, Karremans and Verwijmeren wanted to
remove extraneous effects the survey may have placed on the participant. To accomplish this,
participants were asked their relationship status only after interactions with the attractive

3. 3
alternative. In addition, the effect of the relationship status was only examined among male
participants in study. Lastly, study 2 measured the level of closeness toward the current romantic
partner and analyzed the relationship between closeness & amount of mimicry displayed toward
an opposite-sex attractive alternative (Karremans & Verwijmeren).
Study 3 was designed to produce similar results found in studies 1 and 2 through a
different procedure. In study 3, the participant and attractive confederate interacted in an indirect
manner by participating in tasks together (Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008). Examination of
whether relationships status influenced the amount of mimicry was effectively analyzed through
observation of the opposite-sex. Additionally, the third study introduced testing of single
opposite-sex alternatives. Those not in a romantic relationship arguably pose a larger threat to
those locked in a relationship, which leads participants to mimic less as a defense mechanism.
This research is performed to uncover if implicit mimicry patterns have any effect on the explicit
information of a relationship.
These three studies provided evidence to support the hypothesis that romantically
involved people mimic attractive alternatives less than those not involved in a relationship
(Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008). Studies 1 and 2 revealed that relationship status influenced
mimicry even when the current relationship status was not known. Additionally, study 2
illustrated that this idea for men and women, while study 3 revealed the effects of relationship
status took place regardless of the attractive alternative’s availability. These results indicate both
mimicry and attraction actively relate to one another due to their bidirectional relationship
(Karremans & Verwijmeren, 2008).
Nonverbal Reaction to an Attractive Stranger: The Role of Mimicry in Communicating
Preferred Social Distance

4. 4
Farley’s latest study determined the significance of nonverbal behaviors and its
association with attractive, romantically-charged confederates. This research uncovered differing
behaviors as a function of relationship status and self-reported love for one’s partner (Farley,
2014). This study exposed participants to a highly attractive confederate to learn how different
nonverbal cues served as signals of preferred social distance (preferred closeness or preferred
distance). In addition, Farley determined the significance in different nonverbal behaviors when
correlated with romantic interest highly attractive confederates. Lastly, Farley investigated how
these behaviors differed as a function of relationship status and self-reported love for one’s
partner (Farley, 2008).
The results of Farley’s study produced significant evidence in unconscious mimicry as a
social distance mechanism. Participants either increased mimicry to communicate interest or
decreased mimicry to communicate desired distance. These results illustrate the implicit side of
mimicry.
Seeing the Forest Beyond the Trees: A Construal-Level Approach to Self-Control
In 2008, Kentaro Fujita investigated the psychological models of self-control and
developed a method based on construal level theory. This theory introduces two levels that
shape the way people exercise self-control in daily situations. Abstract and global understandings
are considered “high-level” construals, which elicit self-control success, whereas concrete and
local understandings or “low-level” construals lead to self-control failures. For example,
consumers who spend more money than they can afford, sacrifice their savings and financial
health. This inability to make decisions is a global dilemma results in continuous self-control
failure. To understand these failures, Fujita introduced three particular methods that govern self-
control.

5. 5
Fujita’s first model was temporal discounting, which involves the problem of inter-
temporal choice in ultimately dictating self-control. The principle idea is people make “decisions
between choices that differ in the timing of their rewards” (Fujita, 2008). An example of this
model is if someone was offered $50 that he or she could have right now versus $100 in a month.
Most people would take the instant $50, which illustrates the lack of overall self-control in the
world today. The idea of smaller, more immediate rewards are desired over larger and delayed
ones. This undermines the global understandings that produce self-control success and instead
promotes a more local agenda. The one limitation of this study is time as a key factor for
analysis.
The second model dealt with the idea of automatic versus effortful control. Automatic
processes take place outside the realm of conscious awareness and suggest the salience of local
rewards invoke thoughts and actions undermining global ones. To prevent acting on automatic
processes, these models suggest a more aware approach to supersede the urge of local stimuli.
Baumeister and his colleagues have suggested motivation plays a larger role in these situations
rather than cognition. However, more research is necessary because in certain situations local
stimuli actually increase self-control enhancing global concerns. In the same way, automatic
processes can both impair and promote self-control demonstrating the necessity of additional
research to predict which process will activate in the presence of a temptation.
The third and final method of analysis by Fujita involved understanding the distinction
between affect and cognition. This model focuses on the different emotional responses elicited
when someone is faced with a decision. People either exhibit ‘hot’ reactions which lead to local
rewards or ‘cool’ thoughtful reactions lacking emotion resulting in a globally geared mindset. In
1975, Mischel and Baker tested this idea on kids eating pretzels. They told one group of kids to

6. 6
focus on the ‘hot’ attributes of pretzels (crunchy and salty) and another to focus on the ‘cool’
properties (thin and long) (Mischel & Baker, 1975). They found that those kids who focused on
long and thin pretzels could delay satisfaction more than those focused on the saltiness of the
pretzel. The one limitation in this method is considered an affective response. It is not clear if
certain emotional states should be considered ‘hot’ or ‘cold’; however, it is shown that a feeling
like guilt, for example, promotes self-control. The findings in this method suggest a need to learn
what conditions promote self control versus those that impair it.
Through analysis of different methods, Fujita and his colleagues proposed a new
approach to understanding self-control. This approach is called Construal level theory and it
proposes that people’s construals of events are influenced by the psychological distance of the
events. Near events are construed as concrete or low-level and removed future events are
considered abstract and high-level. Changes in mental construal can produce changes in
decision-making thus effecting self-control. When people place more emphasis to high-level
versus low-level features they construe events at a global level as opposed to a local level. This
type of switch in thinking can have significant changes on situations that take place in daily life.
People who think in the high-level construct tend to focus on the primary essential features of
product versus those who are in the low-level that focus on secondary, incidental features.
Decisions about distant versus near-future events may reflect greater self-control because of
changes in the level of construal. Unwanted automatic behaviors are often initiated by exposure
to concrete, low-level stimuli, while effortful control of these behaviors are more associated with
high-level control. Fujita’s idea of construal levels is important because it takes into account the
factors that other models have already considered as variables in self-control.
Moving Beyond Deliberative Control of Impulses

7. 7
In 2009, Fujita and Han were interested with the connection between self-control and
impulses that are triggered in the presence of temptations in the natural environment. According
to Fujita and Han, successful self-control involves overriding impulses that may arise through the
conscious and deliberate processing of stimuli. Research suggests that overloading the cognitive
pathways actually leads to an increased preference of smaller, more immediate outcomes over
longer, delayed ones (Hinson, Jameson, & Whitney, 2003; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). In
addition, exercising self-control in previous situations has shown to deplete conscious acts in
subsequent self-control (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). For
example, if someone tells you suppress thoughts about basketball in one task it will reduce the
capacity to suppress the thoughts following basketball no matter what they may be.
In more present research, Fujita and Han investigated the role high-level construals and
low-level construals in regards to temptation. Previous research has shown that high-level
construals are more associated with negative evaluations of external temptations. This past
research relied on self-report measures which show that construal-dependent changes in
evaluation might require conscious deliberation. Fujita and Han hypothesized that even in the
absence of conscious deliberation, ability to associate temptations with negativity would in turn
promote self-control. In order to test for high-level construals without participants having
conscious awareness, Fujita and Han employed the Implicit Association Test or IAT. The IAT is
a reaction time measure that gages the degree to which certain objects are associated with
positive or negative realms (Fujita & Han, 2009). The IAT is useful in determining the non-
deliberative construal-dependent changes in evaluation of temptations.
There are currently three experiments that Fujita and Han put together to evaluate
temptations implicitly. Experiment 1 listed an ends or a means of approaching a particular action,

8. 8
which resulted in a high or a low-level construal response. Participants in the high level
conditional group were asked ‘why they maintain good personal relationships’. The common
response was to ‘feel connected to others’ and researchers then asked why they engaged in their
response (i.e. ‘why feel connected to others?’). Participants were asked to provide four answers
in this way to each ‘why’ question which produced increasingly abstract responses (Fujita &
Han, 2009). Participants in the low-level group were asked ‘how they maintain good personal
relationships’ with the commons response being ‘making time for friends’. Researchers then
asked ‘how’ they took part in making time for friends again asking for four responses. The
responses of participants to ‘how’ questions prompted an increasingly concrete response (Fujita
& Han, 2009). This research revealed that listing the ends of an action or why someone did
something elicited high-level construals and means of action or ‘how’ induced low-level
responses in subsequent unrelated events. Experiments 2 and 3 involved presenting 40 objects in
which participants in the high-level construal condition were asked to provide a category to
which each object belonged and participants in the low-level construal condition were asked to
provide a specific exemplar of each object. Research in these experiments has demonstrated that
creating categories reliably induces high-level construals of subsequent unrelated events and
generating exemplars produces low-level construals of unrelated events. These experiments
revealed categorical thinking is related to global construals while exemplar thinking is involved
in local construals.
Mimicking Attractive Alternatives: The Role of Abstract or Concrete Level Thinking
The current study we are running titled ‘Communicating Online’ incorporates elements
from all four of the papers discussed. Our study takes ideas from both Fujita’s individual study
as well as his study with Han. The ideas regarding self-control come from these two studies and

9. 9
help define how high or low construal levels either produce abstract and global expectations or
concrete and local ones, respectively. In our study, we use examples or categories to effect the
thinking that participants took part in through the use of a pre-survey. Additionally, it builds
upon the study by Kerremans and Verwijmeren’s research that dealt with the way people in
relationships mimic attractive alternatives less than those in not a relationship. Farley’s study
introduces the final component used in our study that engages in the idea that mimicry is a
relationship-maintenance mechanism. This mechanism is used to either communicate attraction
or indifference in an attractive alternative’s current relationship status.
Participants in our study are told that they will ‘communicate’ with another person. The
person on the other end of the online interaction appears in a prerecorded video. The confederate
is trained to stroke her hair and face throughout the entirety of the conversation. These hair and
head touches are what we look for as signs of attraction in relation to mimicry. Overall, this
study is looking to see what happens when both romantically involved and uninvolved people
interact with someone who they might find attractive. Additionally, we are also curious how
mimicry behavior ultimately affects mindset.
The current hypothesis of ‘Communicating Online’ asserts that those in relationships
made to think globally (abstract) will mimic attractive alternatives less than those made to think
locally (concrete) and these implications will not be present in those who are not currently
romantically involved. As we continue our research, we hope to learn about the challenges
people in relationships face in everyday life to resist the temptation of attractive alternatives as
well as how mimicry behavior ties in with self-control.

10. 10
Reference(s)
Baumeister, R.F., & Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Self-regulation failure:An overview. Psychological
Inquiry, 7, 1–15.
Farley, S. D., Hughes, S. N., & LaFayette, J. N. (2013). People will know we are in love:
Evidence of differences between vocal samples directed toward lovers and friends. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 37(3), 123–138.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2008). Construal levels and automatic evaluative processes in self
control. Unpublished data, The Ohio State University.
Hinson, J.M., Jameson, T.L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision
making and working memory. Journal of Experimental
Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive appraisals and transformations in delay behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 254–261.
Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role
of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 939–950.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:
Does self-control resemble a muscle? PsychologicalBulletin, 126, 247–259.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: Theinterplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making.Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278–292.