Mimicry and law: Experiments in a natural setting of a law company.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
14
04
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
1
11
2023
pubmed:
12
10
2023
entrez:
12
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This paper joins an effort to build a relational approach to law practice by testing mimicry as a vehicle for building trust in a legal context. Mimicry research indicates that this phenomenon leads to benefits, like greater trust, willingness to help, and satisfaction from interactions, which shows a potential for practical applications in, for example, a legal context. In two experiments conducted in the natural setting of a legal company, the tendency to trust the mimicker on a yet unresearched and deep level, namely putting one's legal future and security in the hands of an attorney, was measured. Both experiments consistently showed a greater tendency to give legal representation to an attorney when she verbally (Experiment #1) as well as both verbally and nonverbally (Experiment #2) mimicked the client. This paper explores the potential of applying mimicry in a legal service environment, focusing on fostering cooperation in professional conversations. Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing literature on mimicry by examining its effect on trust. Possible dangers, future studies and limitations are also discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37824560
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292699
pii: PONE-D-23-10321
pmc: PMC10569552
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0292699Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Kulesza et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Child Dev. 1983 Jun;54(3):702-9
pubmed: 6851717
Behav Sci Law. 2002;20(1-2):69-87
pubmed: 11979492
Psychosom Med. 1966 Jul-Aug;28(4):305-15
pubmed: 5966662
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014 May;9(3):278-92
pubmed: 26173264
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jun;76(6):893-910
pubmed: 10402679
Br J Soc Psychol. 2013 Sep;52(3):397-411
pubmed: 22150433
Appetite. 2018 Feb 1;121:50-54
pubmed: 29111152
Behav Sci Law. 2002;20(1-2):89-107
pubmed: 11979493
Psychol Rep. 2012 Jun;110(3):891-8
pubmed: 22897091
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011 Jun;79(3):284-95
pubmed: 21639608
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2019 Jul 8;26(4):659-668
pubmed: 31984102
Front Psychol. 2023 Mar 14;14:1016125
pubmed: 36998361
Biol Bull. 2002 Jun;202(3):296-305
pubmed: 12087003
Psychol Sci. 2009 Jun;20(6):693-9
pubmed: 19422628
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Psychol Sci. 2004 Jan;15(1):71-4
pubmed: 14717835
Behav Sci Law. 2004;22(2):197-214
pubmed: 15048859
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Feb 17;112(7):2115-20
pubmed: 25646487
Psychol Rep. 2011 Apr;108(2):599-605
pubmed: 21675573