Male and Female Differences in Nonconscious Mimicry: A Systematic Review

Authors	Aim	Stimulus	Sample	Measure	Results
Lundqvist & Dimberg (1995)	To explore the association between facial mimicry and emotional contagion.	Photographs	28 males; 28 females	Facial EMG	A trend towards increased mimicry of happy facial expressions among females.
Blairy et al. (1999)	To examine whether nonconscious mimicry can facilitate empathy.	Photographs	15 males; 15 females	Facial EMG	No significant gender differences in facial mimicry were identified.
Sonnby-Borgström (2002)	To investigate the association between empathy and mimicry behaviour at different levels of processing	Photographs	21 males; 22 females	Facial EMG	Gender had a significant effect on mimicry only at the automatic processing level.
Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2003)	To examine how facial mimicry behaviour is related to emotional empathy at different levels of information processing.	Photographs	36 males; 34 females	Facial EMG	Males and females did not differ on level of mimicry.
Vrana & Gross (2004)	To test whether the viewing of emotional facial expressions elicits facial mimicry.	Photographs	10 males; 9 females	Facial EMG	No significant gender differences in facial mimicry were identified.
Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2008)	To identify whether sex differences in facial mimicry related to stimulus exposure length.	Photographs	51 males; 51 females	Facial EMG	Females mimicked happy photographic expressions to a greater extent than males at the supraliminal level (2,500ms).
Hermans et al. (2009)	To examine whether autistic traits impact facial mimicry.	Photographs	10 males; 6 females	Facial EMG	Females showed significantly higher levels of facial mimicry.
Rymarczyk et al. (2011)	To test whether dynamic faces would enhance facial reactions.	Photographs & Video	12 males; 15 females	Facial EMG	No significant gender effects were identified.
Bush et al. (1989)	To examine the impact of facial control on reactions to comedy routines.	Video	39 males; 34 females	Facial EMG	No gender differences in facial mimicry were identified.
Laird et al. (1994)	To explore the role of mimicry and self-perception processes in emotional contagion.	Video	Study 1: 18 males; 28 females. Study 2: 29 males; 28 females.	Coded observations	No gender differences in behavioural or facial mimicry were observed.
Estow et al. (2007)	To examine the role of self-monitoring in mimicry.	Video	17 males; 45 females	Coded observations	No gender differences in facial or behavioural mimicry were identified.
Stel et al. (2010)	To investigate whether a priori liking of an individual can influence mimicry of that person.	Video	9 males; 41 females	Coded observations	No effect of gender was identified.
Moody & McIntosh (2011)	To explore whether mimicry involves a motor-matching mechanism or an emotional processes.	Video	15 males; 22 females	Facial EMG	No effect of gender was identified.
Niedenthal et al. (2012)	To investigate the impact of pacifier use on mimicry and emotional competence.	Video	61 males; 45 females	Coded observations	Only boys mimicry was affected by pacifier use.
Stel et al. (2013)	To investigate the association between just world views and mimicry.	Video	23 males; 26 females	Coded observations	No gender differences in behavioural or facial mimicry were identified.
Soussignan et al. (2013)	To examine the impact of direct and averted gaze on facial mimicry.	Video	21 males; 21 females	Facial EMG	Men mimicked anger more than women; Women mimicked fear and sadness more than men.
Schneider et al. (2013)	To examine the influence of expressive suppression and mimicry on facial affect sensitivity.	Video	39 males; 57 females	Facial EMG	No gender differences were found.
Joyal et al. (2014)	To assess concomitants and construct validity of a newly developed set of virtual faces.	Video	20 males; 21 females	Facial EMG	No gender differences were identified.
Korb et al. (2014)	To investigate how people perceive different types of smiles and judge their authenticity.	Video	11 males; 20 females	Facial EMG	Males showed less AU6 and more AU12 activity when mimicking smiles than females.
Rauchbauer et al. (2015)	To investigate whether and how mimicry is modulated by social-affective variables.	Video	23 males; 18 females	fMRI	No gender differences were identified.
Cheung et al. (2015)	To investigate the interpersonal functions of facial mimicry after social exclusion.	Video	9 males; 13 females	Coded observations	Women and men did not differ on level of mimicry.
Chartrand & Bargh (1999)	To test the association between mimicry, liking, and empathy.	Interaction partner	39 male and female participants	Coded observations	No gender differences were observed.
van Baaren et al. (2003)	To test the prediction that self-construal orientation affects nonconscious mimicry.	Interaction partner	18 males; 33 females	Coded observations	No effects of gender were identified.
Karremans & Verwijmeren (2008)	To examine the association between mimicry and participant relationship status.	Interaction partner	31 males; 22 females	Coded observations	Women mimicked their interaction partners more so than men.
van Straaten et al. (2008)	To examine the role of mimicry in short-term mate preference.	Interaction partner	60 males; 59 females	Coded observations	Men mimicked pen playing more than women. Women mimicked postural shifting more than men.
Hess & Bourgeois (2010)	To investigate the role of emotional and social context on mimicry.	Interaction partner	Study 1: 48 male pairs; 48 female pairs Study 2: 72 opposite sex pairs	Coded observations & facial EMG	Men showed less mimicry than females in angry versus happy conditions.
Kulesza et al. (2014)	To examine and define verbal mimicry, and the link between verbal mimicry and prosocial behaviours.	Interaction partner	165 males; 165 females	Coded observations	No gender differences were identified.
Rueff-Lopes et al. (2015)	To explore the occurrence of vocal mimicry in a natural setting.	Interaction partner	Call centre employees (31 Female; 10 Male) Callers (754 Female; 213 Male)	Coded observations	Males showed more negative vocal mimicry while females showed more positive vocal mimicry.
Kurzius (2015)	To evaluate whether and how broader concepts of personality are related to mimicking behaviour.	Interaction partner	8 males; 24 females	Coded observations	No gender differences were observed.
Kurzius & Borkenau (2015)	To explore the antecedents and consequences of mimicry, facial and behavioural, and the role of personality in a natural setting.	Interaction partner	92 males: 90 females	Coded observations	No effect of gender was identified.