So I was reading my friend’s blog today and
I noticed a few things going on that made me feel a little frustrated for him.
There were a few trolls on there that would throw in very childish comments to
get a rise out of him and with each insult this friend would shoot back with an
intellectual discourse on the reasons for his posting that would sometimes turn
into a diatribe and/or vengeful retort. Of course each time this happened the
troll would toss out another imbecilic solicitation. My friend took the bait a
number of times but this got me thinking about trolls in our lives in general,
whether it be in response to a blog, written or spoken conversation or
whatever…
The truth is- when we react out of anger,
regardless of the fact that we may be absolutely correct about their ignorance
and regardless of the pleasure we might feel from slapping the snot out of
them, we are sinking to their level and when that happens we lose big time,
there is no resolution.Don’t get me
wrong here, I’m not saying that there is no place for feeling angry, and there
are times when we should defend our persons or others ruthlessly, not only that
but slapping someone is a powerful form of communication but that all requires
the right context and the context I’m referring to is of the general
troll/attention seeker.
(solutions):
Usually, if it’s a troll situation in a
blog or shared online conversation- I’ll try one of two things. First, I’ll
more often than not just ignore them. Why give attention to something that is
counter-productive? I certainly don’t want to jump in the muck with them.
Sometimes though it is kind of fun to use a humor approach. For instance if
someone replies “you are a dick”, perhaps I’ll respond with “yes, and an
unfortunate side effect is that I end up spitting all over people that rub me
the wrong way” or “how could you tell, was it the shape of my head?” This is
the “yes and approach”, it’s useful because once employed the troll often doesn’t
know what to do; they aren’t getting the type of response they had hoped for.
Lastly, since we don’t want to sink to their level, we can raise them to ours.
This approach is useful for in-person encounters. All it takes is a question. “So
when you say [insert word/phrase here] what do you mean exactly?” Or “could you say
more about that?” Obviously the question depends on the response but the idea
is that we are modeling a better example while turning the mirror on them.
Ok, so there’s my little conflict resolution
tip for the day….
Sometimes my mind drives me absolutely
crazy, other times it drives me too normal. One thing though, that has helped
me ease any residual suffering is the process of letting go and forgiveness.
And believe me I know, the word “forgiveness” sometimes triggers in us an
uneasy awkward feeling that sometimes happens from hearing words that are
hijacked from the new age spiritual facade. However, the process of forgiveness
can be very effective…
First, as you are undoubtedly doing and as
I use to do- when I hear “forgiveness” I think of an act in relationship to
someone else but we should consider this for a moment- whatever we need to forgive
someone else of, the problem that is causing us such suffering only exists
within us, so I would argue that we should first turn the lens around to view
ourselves before we attempt to forgive anyone else of whatever…
I like to work
with self-forgiveness at night, just before I go to bed, when I’m processing
the day’s events. This type of processing can be done with things that are very
trivial to things that are extremely profound. And the process is so very
simple with such great effects on our minds.
So here are a few categories I might run into
as I’m processing my day: I didn’t stand up for myself with that one person, I
was too afraid to step up, I totally stuck my foot in my mouth with that one
thing, I let that beautiful girl go without even trying, I gave my power away…..and
the list can go on and on and on…but there is an end. Make a point to process
at night and let these things that effect you roll over or bubble up to the
surface and with each point- forgive. Forgive and let go. Do this and
eventually the process becomes sort of automatic- we see the trivial as trivial
and we constantly clear the bullshit and make room for more meaningful
experiences. And when we get around to forgiving someone else, we will give the
act power because we will have ultimately resolved the issues within ourselves
first….
In the last post I spoke to how one of the negative effects
of culture is the suffocation of authenticity and creativity- replacing
identity with a mirroring of institutional ideals. I also mentioned those that
would control us through fear by derailing our creative process or the process
of change. All of this sort of leads me to the idea of change and the
reciprocal relationship between ourselves and others in the face of change.
Looking back, it isn’t difficult to think of a few examples
where expectations weren’t met in regard to this idea of change. Put simply,
people who’ve known us in the past, will often expect us to be that way and
when we don’t meet that expectation, conflict will occur, either internally or
externally. A few years ago this is exactly what happened with an old friend of
mine. Back in our heyday of wild, youthful and sometimes psychedelic adventures,
we had known each other well. In some ways we were even a sanctuary for each
other, knowing that whatever transpired, the dependability of friendship would
be waiting for us. Now, this could describe more than a few of my relationships
in the past, but this one stands out for reasons I will get to in a moment. First,
I should say, and I will emphasize this point many times- THINGS CHANGE. And as
time rolled over us with its undulating waves of momentum, at first gradual and
then picking up speed as the years progressed, we found ourselves in very
different places living very different lives. Well, as I said, we met up again
a few years back. We talked on the phone and then met in person a few times.
Looking back something struck me as odd. This old friend felt the need to
remind me that, in their words “people never change”. And BAM, just like that
the expectation was set.
The problem was that I had indeed changed and very much. I
was hardly the same person and although there was some likeness of my
personality, I had changed enough to experience a sort of cognitive dissonance,
where on the one hand I felt the pressure to revert back to some old belief
patterns, behaviors and ways of interacting and on the other was myself- who I
had become, yearning to express and share with new insight. After a few
meetings with this person, I couldn’t shake the feeling of being controlled, of
not meeting some imposed expectation and of being made to fit into someone else’s
box of who they thought I was or wanted me to be. I just couldn’t be around
this person and it showed. There was some initial internal conflict that
manifested as external conflict, as we failed to reconcile these differences.
Eventually, I dropped the relationship and filed it under the heading of “friendships
I can no longer have in my life in the pursuit of mental well-being, clarity
and freedom”. This was an unfortunate occurrence and it could have possibly
turned out quite differently but at the time I didn’t have the foresight and
courage to fight for this relationship, or at least fight until the fight
became pointless; because let’s face it many people often have trouble letting
go of their perspectives. But who is to say- as the wheels of time continue to
turn, forever moving their hands around the clock, we may once again find ourselves
with the opportunity of renewed friendship.
But, there is something here that I want to get real
specific with and that is this idea of change that I had mentioned before. I
can’t emphasize the point more- when we hear the words “people never change” we
are absolutely NOT hearing the truth. It is more likely that we are hearing
someone’s personal fears, memories of traumatic events or control mechanisms.
As it happens, everything changes but it is the mind that has the most
resistance to change. We cling to our perspectives because it is what we know;
it is how we believe that we can control our worlds in the face of the unknown.
But even that changes eventually and with the correct practice of awareness
development we can change with even more momentum, letting go and truly becoming
open systems, paralleling the universe and its mandate of constant change. So
when we hear those words “people never change” we are likely hearing the
suffering of someone whose fear and unhappiness is seeking solace with our own.
In a future post I might list many of the various ways in
which we go through a process of change including: cell replacement,
personality theory, recognizing our blind spots and changing perspectives/world
views, open systems- ourselves and the universe, changes in the brain-
chemical/psychological…but at the moment I’m just tired of writing on this
subject- I need some change, lol.
I dig this pic
I will leave you with my idea of three options we encounter
when faced with the “people never change” mindsets. One option, as mentioned
before, is to fight for the relationship. This means we need to stick with
ourselves and keep living by the example of who we are/wish to be. This can be
very difficult at times but is worth it if the relationship in question is one
we want to keep and enrich (such might be the case with many of our family
members), I recommend doing this until we realize that the resistance we
experience with the other is just too great to carry on, then you might file it
away. Another option is to simply walk away, as I did with the relationship I
described before. Be careful here, are you simply avoiding out of fear?
Sometimes this is the best option though. The third option is almost never a
good one and that is to give your power away, revert to old patterns and
experience a lot of internal conflict.
You know, I was just sitting here thinking about why people
are the way they are. I mean, when we hear about two misguided teens beating
the hell out of some other teen for no apparent reason or about a bunch of
people from one group coming together to persecute someone else simply because
they are different or their ideals don’t exactly match our own. I mean, what is
it that makes one person’s world view or moral code so superior to others? What
gives one person the inclination to endanger the welfare of someone else
because something about them is different? Part of me wants to think it’s just
stupidity or simple ignorance and perhaps it is but a couple other ideas also come
to mind. Because this type of behavior is so widespread and is almost always
linked to certain groups, ideologies, institutions or subtle teachings passed
along and conditioned- it must be a cultural dynamic. And then why do these
people so blindly follow the herd? Here I imagine brainless zombies walking
around destroying those that aren’t like them or converting them into the same
mindless go-through-the-motions stupor.
Here are a few ideas: there is a part of human development
that many of us go through, which is essential to developing a healthy mind- a
mind that can be skeptical, capable of critical thinking and independent
thought. It is a stage of questioning, where we separate ourselves from the
ideals of our parents, our institutions or even those that we thought of as
friends and begin to formulate our own ideologies, philosophies and
interests. In many instances this can resemble rebellion but it doesn’t have
to. I think those around us that have some type of invested interested would
rather suffocate us with their own control mechanisms and ideologies instead of
seeing us lead independent lives and the primary motivator must be fear. The
thing is- this is a healthy stage of human development and many people are
forced to skip it. Even schools don’t seem to want to teach critical thinking,
cultural awareness and learning about one’s self. And where does that leave
creativity, human advancement and tolerance?
If we could get inside the heads of the people who are violent
toward other groups, yell at other people because they are being different,
those that take the rights of others away, or those that claim moral superiority,
we wouldn’t see them at all. We would probably see the voices of their fathers
or mothers, their preachers or religious groups, the bigotry of their social
circles, the lies of their governments, the conditioning of their schools- so
much so that the voices would have taken over any resemblance of their original
self, turned it into a tiny shade of gray and replaced it with an identity of
ignorance and/or hate...
I heard a quote not too long ago that got me reflecting on how we can so easily get stuck in certain patterns or psychological modalities. The quote is as follows: “thoughts are like strangers in your house”. It’s so true. If strangers were to enter our house in the middle of the night we would likely ask them what the fuck they are doing there or we would make them leave. If we let them roam around in our house, they would get into stuff and fuck things up. Well then, thoughts are not unlike “strangers in our house”. We too often allow them to roam around, giving them control of how we interact with the world around us.
The long term affects can lead to depression, social and other anxieties, as well as any number of psychological behaviors that inhibit our ability to lead productive meaningful lives. This reminds me of my own experiences with social anxiety. Some time ago when I went to an event with many people I was unfamiliar with, I noticed something new. I was extremely nervous. That’s not to say I’ve never been nervous before but this time I became overly self-conscience of it. The next time I was in a similar situation, the nervousness got even worse- I was even a little shaky. So what did I do? I tried to avoid such situations for fear that others would notice how nervous I was. And any new events looming over the horizon would end up taking up too much space in my mind as I incessantly dwelled upon it. Are you seeing the pattern? Thich Nhat Hanh might suggest that we are putting too much water on the seeds of nervousness, in our garden. That is to say that nervousness like all other emotions/conditions exist within all of us in a subconscious garden. And when we water the seeds, they grow, often hijacking our lives in unexpected ways. Well, eventually my own experience with this condition subsided but not without much observation and diligence.
The answer in most cases is quite simple. In order to ease the suffering that arises in these situations, we must first become aware of the conditions that give rise to the suffering. One way to do this is by observing our thoughts. If we so choose, we can even investigate where the thoughts originate from. It’s amazing the things we find out about ourselves- the culture around us and even our upbringing when we do this. We can also choose to stop the thought process and break the emotional or bodily responses we experience as a result.
One of the problems we may experience along this path is how the brain can often work against us. The problem is- the emotional center in the brain tags certain experiences with emotions. If we are constantly fearful of certain situations, the brain will automatically remember and that fight or flight response may arise before we even knew what hit us. So we have to trick the brain by developing new perspectives and we do this by observing the internal dialogue; we stop it in its tracks; we push it out in front of us so we can see the absurdity of it all and then we can begin to water other seeds, form new experiences we didn’t think ourselves capable of and develop healthier perspectives. This is a great exercise in discovering and breaking habitual patterns that lead to internal and external conflict in our lives.
The Need for Research of Mimetic Structures in Conflict Resolution: A Critical Review
Brook Panneck
INTRODUCTION
The topic of this literary review is mimetic structures within conflict from an interdisciplinary perspective. It examines mimetic structures also known as mirroring from the perspectives of conflict resolution/communication, psychology (both bio-psychology and behavioral), and sociology. For purposes of this paper, mimetic structures represent those phenomena that act as mirrors, aligning with the physical actions, emotional behaviors and psychological characteristics, of various agents as they interact in one form or another. Agent or interactant simply refers to a typical human being as represented by a typical social structure.
Mimetic structures have been discovered and studied from various perspectives and academic disciplines. They have been discovered in the brain as mirror neurons, which is a process of one group of neurons belonging to one interactant mirroring a group of neurons from another interactant. Mimetic structures have also been discovered and worked with in psychology. In psychology we may observe the phenomenon as projection and mirroring. More, psychologists often mirror their patients in therapy processes. There has also been some research done with socio-cultural implications. In this context mimetic structures have been understood as a sharing of identities and a conditioning process. Mimetic structures, to a very large extent, have also been studied from a purely literary function, although this perspective does not satisfy the intent of this paper.
Although there has been much research in various academic disciplines, there is still much exploration needed to understand and discover potential practical functions of mimetic structures. What follows then is a broad-to-specific organization of literature on the topic. This review first explores the problem, identifies gaps in the literature, and analyzes more specific mimetic related phenomena to suggest the need for a more in-depth exploration of mimetic structures and how they affect conflict. The review will also offer possible solutions and further implications of research. As it stands, the research into mimetic structures is woefully inadequate to address and resolve conflict, which might best be approached from an interdisciplinary effort.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
While mimetic structures are often studied within the context of literature there does not exist a large quantity of research relating to mimetic structures within conflict dynamics. There does exist research on the mechanics of mimetic structures as well as how they manifest in interpersonal communication through nonverbal cues, psychological analysis, and physiological processes. However to understand how these mimetic structure contribute to conflict we need more adequate research in the area of conflict resolution relating to mimetic structures from various fields of study. It would be helpful to have more research from the academic fields of sociology, psychology and communication, (specifically conflict resolution) to have a working framework of how the mimetic structures affect conflict and how a mediator or conflict management specialist might better apply their trade. Developing a framework for understanding mimetic structures within the context of conflict management opens the door for a lot of questions relating to human interaction. For instance, when a conflict participant enters a confrontation how much of that participant’s behavior is mirroring the other participant/participants involved? When we make a judgment of someone that might indicate the beginning of a confrontation what signals are we picking up from that person that might contribute to the problem? [And] To what extent do mimetic structures affect groups of people emotionally and behaviorally during conflict? In exploring such questions, a conflict professional might develop techniques that would first isolate the mimetic structures making the actual root of the problems more accessible.
SUMMARY
In examining some of the methodologies related to resolving specific forms of conflict there is an evident gap in the research. For instance Gary Furlong (2005), a conflict resolution expert, in his book The Conflict Resolution Toolbox, addresses specific types of conflicts and methods for resolving them respectively. Furlong lays out eight models for addressing conflict:
The circle of conflict model
The triangle of satisfaction model
The boundary model
The interest/rights power model
The dynamics of trust model
The dimensions model
The social style model
The moving beyond model (22).
More, none of these models deal specifically with mimetic structures or how to resolve conflicts that present them. There are a few models that come close, in that the process for handling conflict in these models could address mimetic structures through specific questioning. For instance, Furlong’s trust model has a specific framework for mediating how each of the conflict participants attributes different components of the conflict toward each other (160). Here is a perfect example of how conflict resolution could incorporate a specific framework for handling issues by addressing how participants attribute through mirroring. Furlong’s work is used here to illustrate how models that are used for reference and training by mediators might be leaving out a crucial element- mimetic structures.
The following literature addresses mimetic structures from a nonverbal communication perspective. Knapp and Hall (2006), in their book Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, address a specific mimetic structure in nonverbal communication known as the “chameleon effect” (246). This mimetic structure mirrors body movements between two or more interactants and typically goes unnoticed by those involved (Knapp & Hall, 246). This is a mimetic structure more commonly studied in communication and could potentially be used to observed indicators of mimetic dynamics within conflict as well. More, Knapp & Hall point out the effect of “postural congruence” as “those occasions when both interaction partners exhibit the same behavior at the same time (247). Another effect which has much potential of being linked to conflict scenarios is referred to by Knapp & Hall as “emotional contagion” (250). This happens when interactants mirror each other’s behavior and as a result an emotional response is produced (Knapp & Hall, 250). Physiologically, there may be cognitive explanations of why these instances of mimetic structures occur.
There occurs, within the brains of interactants, synchronistic responses that indicate neurological explanations for mimetic structures. Dr. Vittorio Gallese points to this research in his study on mirror Neurons. Gallese’s (2009) research indicates “action observation causes in the observer the automatic activation of the same neural mechanism triggered by action execution” (2). In other words, if there are two interactants and one performs an action, whether it be picking up an object or throwing a ball, the observing interactant’s same neurons fire (Gallese, 3). At the basis of this cognitive phenomena Gallese’s research indicates a social/cultural dimension whereupon an agent’s “identification” into a larger social network is in part formed by these mimetic structures (1). This research opens the door for not only physiological explanations for mimetic structures within conflict but a sociological explanation that warrants further exploration into mimetic structures from the academic discipline of sociology.
Unfortunately there also appears to be a gap in the area of research that might explain mimetic functions from a sociological perspective. Although there is a limited amount of literature on the subject, most literature of these mimetic structures are more from a psychoanalytic or cognitive point of view. The need then is for a broader framework for understanding sociological and cultural phenomena in the context of mimetic structures. None the less, the subject has been approached by some authors. For instance, Janet Schaller’s (2008) research analyzes the mimetic structures of mirroring and “failed mirroring” from a cultural paradigm. In Schaller’s research, she points out:
A cultural dimension also exists in mirroring or failed mirroring. When, in daily human
interactions, persons have reflected back to them not themselves but the cultural assumptions of others, they experience failed mirroring. Thus, failed mirroring is not merely an interpersonal interaction, it is a cultural phenomenon when societal representations are assumed and projected. (507)
While Schaller’s work paints the way for sociological inquiry into these mimetic structures, there is much to be said from a psychological point of view.
There is a large quantity of psycho-analytic research that has been done pertaining to differing mimetic scenarios. Although the research is from different psychological points of view their exists some relationships to the study of conflict and would warrant more specific exploration. We can pin point this relationship in the research done by Kipper and Har-Even. In Kippler and Har-Even’s study they assemble various groups of people with differing functions. One group in particular- the “mimetic-pretend” group is asked to imagine they are a teacher at which point they proceed to teach an actor from the control group (937). When the actor fails in their responses, they are then administered shocks from the “teacher” (939). Kipper and Har-Even’s research into mimetic relationships between an individual and their understanding of various cultural personas indicate a basis for role-playing in psycho-therapy (940). This is a unique contribution of research in that the role-playing might also be adapted as a tool for mediators in resolving conflict between disputants. In contrast, some existing communication research takes a different approach establishing solutions to problems related to mimetic structures and language.
According to some research, exploration into the field might produce undesirable results. For instance, Ashlen (2007) in her review of mimetics and language asserts that known models for issues related to language and communication should not be reinvented, discarding what is already known and used but paired with viable solutions involving mimetic analysis (314). Despite some possible drawbacks Ashlen contends “in an updated framework, for explaining human communication and communication disorders, mirroring, coactivation and alignment should have a central place and be studied more closely. Interaction would be seen as basic…” (314).
To this extent, Robert Marshall (2006) points out a case study in which a client who expresses, rather aggressively, a clash between the projections and expectations of others (or mirrors) and how she views herself. Marshall in his research points out an approach to using mimetic structures in therapy sessions. The approach, echoing Ashlen’s concern, not only uses new models based on mimetic research but employs interaction and other basic models. For instance Marshal explains, “joining and mirroring do not cure. They do calm the patient and facilitate the first stage in the treatment…Mirroring techniques are employed when the patient is in a preverbal stage, the sessions may be pleasant, but the therapy may be compromised and prolonged” (292). It is precisely this area of psycho-analytic research that should be explored further for its possible contributions to mediation/conflict resolution.
Where Marshall illustrates for us a case study of a woman who clashes with mimetic structures, Jean Knox (2009) determines the role of mirroring between parents and infants in “self-agency” development. Knox further examines unconscious “indexical” language at a certain stage in an infant’s development and relates it to other adults who are more or less stuck at this stage because they attempt to elicit an emotional response from their interactants (31). Again, this type of research may point to underlying reasons in conflict between conflict participants where mirroring might be employed to reach the underlying cause.
Another piece of research indicating underlying causes of conflict can be seen in Harrison’s (2006) Fracturing resemblances: identity and mimetic conflict in Melanesia and the West. In Harrison’s exploration he points out the phenomenon of “shared” identities in a social context and relates this dynamic to “competition” that can happen when such sharing may produce a perception of diminishing resources (36). More, Harrison points out “…people who share, or appear to each other to share, aspects of their identities, a special type of conflict can arise over these shared characteristics – a type of competition in which icons of group affiliation assume the forms of contested possessions” (37). This is an example of where conflict resolution could use specific frameworks for applying or navigating mimetic structures in confrontation.
In my review the most specific form of mimesis applied toward conflict comes from the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado. The CRC (1988) has identified one particular method for approaching conflict using mimetic structures-“Mirror Imaging”. The CRC defines this as having one side of the conflict circle imagine themselves as others imagine them so they may become aware of unconscious behaviors they in fact accuse the other party of demonstrating. This is a method which shows some potential in applying mimetic frameworks to conflict resolution. The approach may benefit from a more over-arching understanding and practical application of mimetic structures contributed by various academic disciplines mentioned throughout this review.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
While appropriate quantitative research has been done, such as the work presented by Ashlen (2008), it is only suggestive at best. The research points to possible negative impacts of mimetic research without being specific about the consequences and offering specific enough solutions. It is valid in that the research points us in a direction- suggesting we might benefit by paring older forms of treatment with mimetic research. Other qualitative research, particularly that of Kipper and Dov (1984) offer specific contributive solutions to conflict that may result from mimesis. Their research is both valid and specific in that it gives us a technique that conflict resolution could potentially apply toward confrontation. Additionally, Vittirio’s (2009) work on mirror neurons offers us a meta analysis of existing research, it then locates the gaps and offers a new insight into sociological structures. While Psychology offers a substantive amount of work on mimesis Sociology on the other hand only touches the surface of how mimetic structures operate within cultural settings. The question then is how might sociological perspectives of conflict adapt to existing mimetic structures in order that it might offer an explanation of how those structures function in society? Overall communication and conflict resolution do not investigate the phenomenon to an extent that might offer a comprehensive application in relationship to mimetic structures. It is therefore worthy to explore how the academic disciplines of psychology, sociology and communication might collaboratively work to solve conflict related mimesis.
FURTHER IMPLICATIONS AND SOLUTIONS
To answer the question of sociological implications, we can examine conditioned processes, as mentioned earlier in this review from Knox’s research of the subject and then compare adult interactions in conflict which might be indicative of these processes. For instance, if it is true that a child develops, through various stages, a mirroring effect from the relationship of their parents to get certain needs met and one or more of these stages have been compromised then it should follow that the resulting adulthood of that child might be checkered with interpersonal or communicative problems. To compare a child in the developmental process with an adult in their relationships and interactions could give us much understanding of how the adult might get their needs met in the future or how a conflict specialist could work with them. In a conflict scenario, this research could help a conflict specialist separate topical issues, or issues that represent themselves merely on the surface, with underlying developmental or “parent/child” related issues.
Additionally, a social-cultural contribution to conflict resolution on the topic of mimesis could help us understand how cultural conditioning may contribute to conflict. This exploration could examine how culture, through family, environmental and institutional influence shapes our perceptions and world view. Through this examination we could identify how an interactant may be mirroring the values and ideas of their culture where that cultural view conflicts with another’s. This research could help a conflict specialist develop techniques to reveal to the interactants how cultural influences have contributed to the conflict.
On the subject of psychological contributions, the work of Kiper and Dov (1984), as mentioned previously could contribute role-playing methods to help those experiencing mimetic related conflicts. This contribution might benefit from a collaborative effort with techniques such as CRC’s (1988) “mirror imaging”. Role-playing in this way could help conflict specialists develop many different “role-play” scenarios to particular types of conflict.
While conflict, as an independent study, may reside mostly in the domain of communication, it often presents elements of various academic disciplines such as those mentioned throughout this paper. For this reason the specific study of mimesis as it relates to conflict resolution cannot be adequately addressed by the field of communication alone. To have a working understanding of mimetic phenomena and practical approaches of resolving related conflict there must be an interdisciplinary effort.
Bibliography
Furlong, G. T. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley &
Sons.
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Vittorio, G. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social
