Roderick I Swaab
email: roderick.swaab@insead.edu.

William W Maddux

Marwan Sinaceur

Insead We

Anne Lorgeoux

Anna Gyarmati

Alvaro San

Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes

Keywords: Negotiation, Mimicry, Timing, Computer Mediated Negotiation, Culture

We hypothesized that in online, virtual formats, negotiators receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language; furthermore, we predicted that this strategy would be more effective when occurring early in the negotiation rather than at the end, and should also be effective across both independent and interdependent cultures. Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was conducted in Thailand and demonstrated that negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's language in the first 10 minutes of the negotiation obtained higher individual gain compared to those mimicking during the last 10 minutes, as well as compared to control participants. Experiment 2 replicated this effect in the United States (with Dutch and American negotiators) and also showed that trust mediated the effect of virtual linguistic mimicry on individual negotiation outcomes. Implications for virtual communication, strategic mimicry, and negotiations are discussed.

A C C E P T E D

M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry

As the internet continues to increase its presence in society, people rely more and more on text-based, virtual communication channels (e.g., email, instant messaging) for their professional interactions and negotiations. Although these channels enable rapid back-and forth communication, they can also make it more difficult than face-to-face or phone interactions to establish a positive interpersonal connection (especially trust) between negotiators. This sort of "human" connection can be invaluable to computer mediated negotiations. For example, research has shown that a simple, short "schmoozing" session between negotiators prior to an online negotiation increased the value of subsequent deals [START_REF] Moore | Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Schmooze or loose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations[END_REF]. And in a recent meta-analysis on computer mediated negotiations and group decisionmaking, researchers found that the inability to see, hear, and directly respond to others acts as a detriment to final outcomes for negotiators who were previously unacquainted, or for those who had not yet established a positive interpersonal connection prior to their online conversation (Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2011). In online contexts in particular, and negotiations situations in general, establishing positive interpersonal capital is crucial because it facilitates trust between parties, thus helping to improve the negotiation climate, and as a result, final negotiation outcomes [START_REF] Fisher | Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in[END_REF]Thompson, 1991).

However, it is currently unclear how parties might create interpersonal capital when already immersed in a challenging, mixed-motive setting such as an online negotiation. In the current paper, we propose that one efficient way to build a positive connection with others in online interactions is through mimicry. Over the past decade, research has clearly demonstrated the powerful impact of imitating others' behavioral expressions in face-to-face interactions (for reviews, see [START_REF] Chartrand | Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of nonconscious mimicry[END_REF][START_REF] Chartrand | Human Mimicry[END_REF]. Mimicry involves matching the facial expressions, postures, affective responses, and

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry other mannerisms of interaction partners, which typically increases liking, rapport, and, especially trust in the mimicker [START_REF] Chartrand | The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction[END_REF]. Although mimicry is usually done nonconsciously, mimicry can also be used strategically. For example, waitresses who consciously mimicked their customers' tone of voice received bigger tips (Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & Van Knippenberg, 2003). And, in face-to-face negotiations, negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's nonverbal behavior increased the mimickee's trust, thereby generating more creative and mutually beneficial agreements [START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF].

To our knowledge, however, the impact of mimicry has not yet been examined in online, text-based communication environments. This is an important shortcoming given the difficult nature of establishing positive interpersonal capital in environments that strip away critical nonverbal communication cues (e.g. [START_REF] Gick | Aero-tactile integration in speech perception[END_REF]. Although there is extant empirical evidence that people do spontaneously mimic speech characteristics of interaction partners (e.g., [START_REF] Chartrand | Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of nonconscious mimicry[END_REF], it is currently unclear whether linguistic mimicry occurs in online text-based formats, and whether it proves to be helpful in complex, mixedmotive formats like negotiations.

The Importance of the Timing of Mimicry: Early vs. Late

We also sought to examine the role of timing of mimicry, which previous research has not yet examined; most studies have simply examined the amount of spontaneously occurring mimicry, or manipulated whether mimicry was either present or absent (e.g., [START_REF] Chartrand | The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction[END_REF][START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF]. However, we propose that linguistic mimicry will be more beneficial to negotiators' outcomes when it is applied early rather than late in the negotiation. The rationale for this prediction is that mimicry fosters trust, and the most critical time for people to develop trust is at the beginning of their interaction [START_REF] Lewicki | Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships[END_REF][START_REF] Mcknight | Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships[END_REF]. A failure to build trust at the start of an

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry interaction makes subsequent cooperation more difficult and can have negative long-term consequences [START_REF] Komorita | Betrayal and reconciliation in a two-person game[END_REF][START_REF] Lount | Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust[END_REF].

Thus, the early stages of the negotiation is when establishing a good relationship and good negotiation climate is crucial. When trust between negotiators develops early, it can color the entire subsequent interaction, leading to more positive outcomes [START_REF] Morris | How emotions work: The social functions of emotional expression in negotiations[END_REF][START_REF] Pruitt | Negotiation behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Rubin | The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation[END_REF]. In fact, brief periods of exchanging personal information early in the negotiation have been shown to establish a positive interpersonal connection between negotiators and, as a result, improve their final outcomes [START_REF] Moore | Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations[END_REF]. These findings imply that it should be easier to build trust through mimicry at the beginning of the negotiation rather than at the end, a prediction which is consistent with other research showing that whereas a negotiator's early moves are instrumental in shaping the way s/he is positively perceived, later moves are not [START_REF] Rubin | The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation[END_REF][START_REF] Sinaceur | Not all threats are created equal: How implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations[END_REF]. Thus, as a strategy that facilitates interpersonal trust, mimicry may be most beneficial early in the negotiation, at the very point where the relationship between negotiators is most malleable; mimicry late in the negotiation may have less utility when trustworthiness (or untrustworthiness) has already been solidified.

Finally, we expected that the advantage of early virtual linguistic mimicry would hold across different cultural contexts. Although some research has shown that individuals from interdependent cultures mimic more than those in independent cultures (van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter, & van Knippenberg, 2003), several studies have shown strategic mimicry to be common and highly effective in independent cultures as well (e.g., [START_REF] Chartrand | The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction[END_REF]van Baaren et al., 2003;[START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF]. Given the increasingly globalized nature of social interactions, and the typical overreliance on American sample populations [START_REF] Arnett | The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American[END_REF][START_REF] Henrich | The weirdest people in the world?[END_REF], we wanted to investigate

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry the generalizability of our predicted effects across both independent and interdependent cultures.

Overview

Two experiments explored the hypotheses that negotiators would receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language in online formats early in the negotiation rather than late, and that this strategy would hold across cultures. Experiment 1 manipulated the timing of linguistic mimicry in an online negotiation in Thailand.

Experiment 2 sought to conceptually replicate the effect in the United States with Dutch and American negotiators, and further examined the mediating role of trust.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants, task, and procedure. Participants were 66 MBA students (58% women) at a large business school in Thailand who were enrolled in a negotiations course. The negotiation was conducted using an online, synchronous chat program, so that students could not see or hear each other during the negotiation.

Students participated in a negotiation exercise called "New Recruit" [START_REF] Neale | New Recruit[END_REF]. In this negotiation, negotiators' preferences were created by assigning points to each issue, with a higher number of points indicating a stronger preference. Two issues were distributive (parties' preferences were opposite), two were compatible (parties' preferences were identical), and four issues were integrative (one party had a stronger preference for two issues and the other party had a stronger preference for the other two issues). Success in this task is primarily contingent upon negotiators discovering mutually beneficial trade-offs (i.e., exchanging issues of low priority for issues of higher priority) to expand the total amount of resources available to both parties (value creation) which can allow parties to take more resources for themselves (value claiming).

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry Participants were given confidential role instructions one day before the negotiation and told to prepare by themselves. In addition, the instructions indicated that participants' objective was to maximize their number of points. The exercise was conducted in English, which all participants were fluent in. Students negotiated the exercise on campus, were given 60 minutes to complete the negotiation, and told to keep track of the end time of their negotiation.

Experimental manipulation. Negotiating dyads were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: early mimicry, late mimicry, or control. Because of concerns with adequate power, and because prior research using the same exercise demonstrated that mimicry is equally effective for both recruiter and candidate [START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF], we only instructed the recruiter to mimic. Participants were randomly assigned to roles and to experimental conditions.

Recruiters in both early and late mimicry conditions were given "an important message" before their negotiation that began as follows (adapted from [START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF]:

Successful negotiators recommend that you should mimic the language and mannerisms of your negotiation partner to get a better deal. For some reason, As in [START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF], we provided participants in the non-mimicking roles (candidates) and in the control condition (candidates and recruiters) with the following instructions, which was redundant with information given to all students earlier in the academic period:

Successful negotiators recommend that you should focus on the information in your planning document, and to negotiate with this always in the back of your mind. For some reason, this will help get you through the negotiations and get a good deal.

Manipulation check and dependent measures. Recruiters in the mimicry conditions were asked after the negotiation, 1) what percentage of time they actively mimicked their counterpart in the first 10 minutes and, 2) what percentage of time they actively mimicked their counterpart in the last 10 minutes.

Our primary dependent measure was individual gain, the total number of points that each negotiator obtained individually. This measure captures how much both parties claimed value for themselves. In addition, we also measured joint gain, the sum of negotiators'

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry individual gain. This measure captures how much the parties created value by discovering mutually beneficial tradeoffs.

Results

Manipulation check. Recruiters in the early mimicry condition indicated that they mimicked their counterpart more during the first 10 minutes (M = 35%; SD = 36%) than during the last 10 minutes (M = 28%; SD = 33%), whereas the reverse was true for recruiters in the late mimicry condition, who mimicked their counterpart more during the last 10 minutes (M = 55%; SD = 26%) than during the first 10 minutes (M = 28%; SD = 36%), F(1, 19) = 7.28, p = .01, η 2 = .29.

Individual gain for mimickers. We examined how individual gain for the mimicker differed across conditions, controlling for the effect of the opposing party's individual gain (see [START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF]. Thus, we ran a one-way ANCOVA with condition as our independent variable and recruiter (mimicker) individual gain as our dependent variable, with candidate (mimickee) individual gain as a covariate.

Results showed a significant main effect for mimicry condition, F(2, 29) = 3.94, p = .

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry Joint gain. We also analyzed joint gain by running a one-way between-subjects ANOVA with condition as the independent variable and joint gain as the dependent variable.

The main effect of mimicking condition was not significant, F(1, 30) = 2.06, p = .15, η 2 = .12.

However, planned mean comparisons demonstrated that when the recruiter mimicked early (M = 11,163.64; SD = 1,830.45), the dyad earned higher joint gain than when the recruiter mimicked late (M = 9,654.55; SD = 1,625.03), F(1, 20) = 4.18, p = .054, η 2 = .17. However, there was only a non-significant trend for early mimicking dyads to do better compared to the control condition (M = 9,981.82; SD = 2,030.67), F(1, 20) = 2.06, p = .17, η 2 = .09. Finally, when the recruiter mimicked late, joint gain was not different from the control condition, F(1, 20) = .17, p = .68.

Taken together, these results demonstrate that virtual linguistic mimicry enhanced individual benefits for the mimicking party, but only when they mimicked early in the negotiation. Interestingly, however, mimicry did not lead to detriments for the mimickee.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we sought to replicate the results of Experiment 1 in a different cultural context in addition to testing our proposed mechanism that mimickee's trust mediates this effect. In addition, because participants in Experiment 1 used different versions of the online chat program, timestamps were not recorded for most dyads, which did not allow us to examine the content of the mimicking that took place, nor empirically validate that the actual mimicry that occurred was consistent with our experimental timing manipulation. Thus, in Experiment 2 we sought to explore the psychological mechanism driving our hypothesized results, as well as the frequency with which mimicry occurred and its specific content to better understand why early mimicry works better than late mimicry. No difference was found for time between conditions, p = .42.

Method

Experimental manipulation. The experiment had two conditions: early mimicry and late mimicry. Participants were randomly assigned to roles and experimental conditions.

Manipulation checks. To assess recruiters' actual mimicry, three coders independently content analyzed the first and last 10 minutes as well as the middle phase (40 minutes on average) of each conversation transcript to code the extent to which the recruiter mimicked the candidate. Mimicry was measured as a per minute frequency with which recruiters repeated or only subtly altered words or expressions that were first used by the candidate in a preceding sentence. For example, when a candidate said "How are you doing today?", and the recruiter replied, "Good. How are you doing?", then coders counted this as one mimicking act. Likewise, a candidate's expression, "Is this a good time to talk?" followed by a recruiter's response, "This is a great time to talk," would also count as one mimicking act.

Three transcripts (2 in the early mimicry, 1 in the late mimicry condition) were unable to be captured because of malfunctioning of the program; this was controlled for in the subsequent analyses. Coding decisions were made by three independent coders who were trained prior to coding the transcripts, and coders were blind to condition during coding. Overall agreement was 92%. Discrepancies were resolved through further discussion.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry Dependent measures and proposed mediating variable. We measured individual and joint gain as in Experiment 1. Trust was measured by asking participants "To what extent do you trust the other person" and "I felt on the same page with the other person", on 7-point scales (Cronbach's α = .79).

Results

Initial analyses indicated no significant differences between the American and Dutch participants on any of the independent or dependent measures (all p's > .36). Therefore, these groups were combined in the subsequent analyses.

Manipulation checks based on content coding. Recruiters in the early mimicry condition mimicked their counterpart more during the first 10 minutes (M = .32; SD = .14) than during the last 10 minutes (M = .05; SD = .05, p < .001) and more than during the middle phase of the negotiation (M = .15; SD = .09, p = .001). However, the reverse was true for recruiters in the late mimicry condition, who mimicked their counterpart more during the last 10 minutes (M = .21; SD = .08) than during first 10 minutes (M = .10; SD = .07, p = .021) and than during the middle phase (M = .10; SD = .07, p = .015), respectively. Thus, the experimental manipulation of mimicry was effective.

Individual gain for mimickers. 1 Controlling for candidate's individual gain as in

Experiment 1, a one-way ANCOVA indicated that recruiters obtained significantly more points when they mimicked early (M = 6,183.33; SD = 1,223.88) than when they mimicked late (M = 4,758.33; SD = 1,269.54), F(1, 20) = 4.99, p = .037, η 2 = .20 (see Figure 2). This replicated the key effect from Experiment 1, yet with a different cultural sample.

To further test our hypothesis, we also examined individual gain as a function of the actual amount of mimicry that took place. We found a positive correlation between amount of early mimicry and individual gain (r = .64, p = .002), but a negative correlation between amount of late mimicry and individual gain (r = -.58, p = .006). Mimicry during the middle

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry phase was not correlated with individual gain, p = .16. Thus, the more recruiters mimicked their counterpart during the first 10 minutes, the more points they gained; the more they mimicked their counterpart during the last 10 minutes, the fewer points they gained.

Individual gain for mimickees. To explain the detrimental effect of late mimicry, we also examined candidates' (mimickees') individual gains. Controlling for recruiter's individual gain, candidates actually obtained more points when they were mimicked late (M = 6,541.67; SD = 839.33) than when they were mimicked early (M = 4,866.67; SD = 1,280.15), F(1, 20) = 5.82, p = .026, η 2 = .23. Indeed, when recruiters mimicked early, recruiters did better than candidates (p = .038), but when recruiters mimicked late, candidates did better than recruiters (p = .006), F(1, 20) = 24.78, p < .001, η 2 = .54. This beneficial effect for candidates when they were mimicked late by recruiters result did not emerge in Study 1.

This effect further supports the correlational analyses above, that showed that recruiters gained fewer points when they mimicked late. Because this effect was not hypothesized, and did not emerge in Experiment 1, we ran additional analyses below to further investigate.

We also examined the candidate's individual gain as a function of the actual amount of mimicry. There was a negative correlation between amount of early mimicry and individual gain (r = -.54, p = .012). However, there was a marginally significant positive correlation between amount of late mimicry and individual gain (r = .42, p = .06). Mimicry during the middle phase was not correlated with candidate gain, p = .46. Thus, results for candidates (mimickees) showed the opposite pattern as those for recruiters (mimickers):

Candidates did better when being mimicked late, while recruiters did better when mimicking early.

Joint gain. Contrary to results from Experiment 1, however, joint gain did not differ across conditions. The total value (points) the recruiter and candidate created was equally high when the recruiter mimicked early (M = 11,050.00; SD = 1,586.59) as when the recruiter

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry mimicked late (M = 11,300.00; SD = 1,139.38), p = .89. However, this is likely due to the fact that the early mimicry advantage for recruiters (mimickers) was counterbalanced by the late mimicry advantage for the candidates (mimickees), and thus no joint gain difference could emerge across experimental condition.

Mediational role of trust. No differences were found across conditions for how much the recruiter (mimicker) trusted the candidate (mimickee). However, the candidate's (mimickee's) trust in the recruiter (mimicker) was greater when the recruiter mimicked early (M = 5.83; SD = .56) than when the recruiter mimicked late (M = 4.40; SD = 2.01), F(1, 20) = 4.25, p = .05, η 2 = .20.

Then, we tested whether the candidate's (mimickee's) trust in the recruiter (mimicker) mediated the effect of experimental condition on the recruiter's individual gain. First, using the procedures of [START_REF] Baron | The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[END_REF], there was a direct effect from the early vs. late mimicking condition on recruiter's gain (β = .51, p = .01) and on the candidate's trust in the recruiter (β = .45, p = .05). But when both the condition and candidate's trust were entered as predictors of recruiter's gain, the effect of candidate's trust was significant (β = .55, p = .01), but the direct effect of early vs. late mimicking was no longer significant (β = .30, p = .14) (see Figure 3). To test the significance of the indirect effect (i.e., the path through the mediator), we used a bootstrapping procedure, as recommended by Shrout & Boulger (2002).

The result of 1,000 resamples (as recommended by [START_REF] Efron | An introduction to the bootstrap[END_REF] demonstrated that zero fell outside of the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect (95% CI Low = -1567.65; CI High = -143.10). Thus, trust mediated the effect of early vs. late mimicry on individual gain.

Exploratory analyses of mimicry content.

To further explore what aspects of mimicry affected individual and joint gain, and in particular to better understand the timing effect in which recruiters did better when mimicking early but candidates did better when being

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry mimicked late, we conducted post-hoc analyses on the mimicking acts by content coding the first and last 10 minutes as well as the middle phase of the negotiation. Three coders assigned mimicking acts to one among four categories. Recruiters' mimicking was coded as (1)

emotionally "positive" when they mimicked positive emotional language such as "great", "nice", or "exciting", (2) emotionally "neutral" when recruiters mimicked language that was not explicitly emotional such as "experienced" or "security", (3) as emotionally "negative" when recruiters used language with negative valence such as "cannot" or "disappointing", and (4) as "accommodating" when recruiters repeated words reflecting agreement such as "ok" or "agree". There was 93% agreement between coders. All discrepancies were resolved through subsequent discussion. Again, we divided the number of mimicking acts by the number of minutes negotiators spent within each phase.

Results showed significant differences across conditions for mimicry of positive language early in the negotiation. Recruiters mimicked more positive emotional language during the first 10 minutes when they were instructed to mimic early (M = .17; SD = .16) than when they were instructed to mimic late (M = .04; SD = .05), F(1, 19) = 7.21, p = .015, η 2 = .

28. No differences were found across conditions (early vs. late mimicry) for positive emotional language during the middle phase or last 10 minutes of the conversation (p's > . 17). In addition, early mimicry of positive emotional language was positively correlated with candidates' trust (r = .59, p = .012) and with recruiter's individual gain (r = .61, p = .003), and marginally negatively correlated with candidate's individual gain (r = -.39, p = .077). No other significant relationships were found for positive emotional language during any of the phases and the dependent variables.

Results showed significant differences across conditions for mimicry of accommodating language late in the negotiation. Recruiters mimicked more accommodating language in the last 10 minutes when they were instructed to mimic late (M = .08; SD = .09)

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry than when they were instructed to mimic early (M = .01; SD = .03), F(1, 19) = 6.01, p = .024, η 2 = .24. No differences were found across conditions (early vs. late mimicry) for accommodating language in the first 10 minutes or in the middle phase (p's > .39). In addition, late mimicry of accommodating language was negatively correlated with candidates' trust (r = -.56, p = .02) and marginally negatively correlated with recruiter's individual gain (r = -.41, p = .067). However, mimicry of accommodating language during the middle phase was actually positively correlated with joint gain (r = .44, p = .05). This was the only significant effect of middle phase mimicry, and suggests that the timing of accommodating language may be crucial as well as the timing of mimicry. No other correlations between accommodating language during any of the phases and the dependent variables were significant.

Finally, no significant differences were found for neutral language or negative language mimicry.

To summarize, then, these content-coding analyses suggest that early mimicry was conducive to the mimicry of positive emotional language, which was associated with higher individual gain of the mimicker. Late mimicry, on the other hand, was conducive to the mimicry of accommodating language; however, mimicking accommodating language late actually was associated with less individual gain for the mimicker, and more individual gain for the mimickee.

General Discussion

Two experiments investigated the hypothesis that virtual linguistic mimicry early in a negotiation facilitates negotiators' outcomes. Experiment 1 showed that for Thai negotiators, early virtual linguistic mimicry resulted in more beneficial outcomes compared to late mimicry and compared to a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated the positive effect of early mimicry with Dutch and American negotiators. Further, Experiment 2 showed that early showing that the psychological factors influencing the quality of social relationships are largely responsible for the outcomes of online decision-making [START_REF] Postmes | Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDEeffects of computer-mediated communication[END_REF][START_REF] Reicher | A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena[END_REF]Walther, 1996) and negotiation contexts [START_REF] Moore | Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations[END_REF]Swaab, Kern, Diermeier, & Medvec, 2009;Swaab & Swaab, 2009).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although both experiments reported consistent mimicry effects on individual gains, effects on joint gains were less straightforward: Experiment 1 demonstrated that joint gains were higher when negotiators mimicked early than when they mimicked late, though Experiment 2 demonstrated no differences across conditions. These findings are only

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry perhaps most importantly, a joint gain effect may not have emerged because the advantage of early mimicry was actually counterbalanced by the disadvantage of late mimicry in Experiment 2, where candidates (mimickees) did better than recruiters (mimickers) when mimicking occurred late.

Why was late mimicry found to be detrimental for the mimicker in Experiment 2?

Although we did not initially predict a detrimental effect for late mimicry (which did not emerge in Experiment 1), previous research has found that mimicry can be actually be detrimental to interpersonal relationships in some contexts, for example when coming from an outgroup member [START_REF] Likowski | Positive effects of mimicry are limited to the ingroup[END_REF] or a disliked person [START_REF] Stel | Mimicking disliked others: Effects of a priori liking on the mimicry-liking link[END_REF]. Indeed, content analyses

provide one plausible answer for the detrimental effect of late mimicry in Experiment 2: We found that positive emotional language tended to be mimicked early, and this was associated with more beneficial outcomes for early mimickers; however, late mimickers tended to mimic language that was more accommodating to the other negotiator. Thus, mimicking accommodating language in the final phase of the negotiation seemed to impair negotiators' ability to protect their own interests. However, it is important to note that this finding is actually quite consistent with prior negotiation research showing that accommodating attitudes lead to increased concession-making and decreased focus on negotiators' own interests [START_REF] Amanatullah | Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining[END_REF][START_REF] De Dreu | Coercive power and concession making in bilateral negotiation[END_REF][START_REF] Pruitt | Negotiation behavior[END_REF]. Indeed, this detrimental effect of accommodating attitudes is especially pronounced late in the negotiation, when the details of the deal are being finalized [START_REF] Brett | Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries[END_REF] and the main challenge for negotiators is to lock the counterpart into a deal [START_REF] Morris | How emotions work: The social functions of emotional expression in negotiations[END_REF].

Interestingly, accommodating language in the middle phase was actually positively correlated with joint gain, suggesting that accommodating language itself it not necessarily detrimental but depends (as is the case with mimicry) on timing. Thus, in the last phase of the

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Virtual Linguistic Mimicry negotiation, a non-accommodating stance helps extract more final concessions from a negotiation opponent than an accommodating stance. On the other hand, an accommodating stance may lead to losing focus on one's own interests and do less to extract value from opponents, leading to poorer outcomes [START_REF] Pruitt | Negotiation behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Sinaceur | Not all threats are created equal: How implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations[END_REF][START_REF] Sinaceur | Hot or cold: Is communicating anger or communicating threats more effective in negotiation? Manuscript under review[END_REF].

These findings add an important, novel contribution to the mimicry literature: Not only does the timing of mimicry matter, the content of mimicry matters as well. In other words, the lesser or perhaps even detrimental effect of late mimicry is not only a result of how much negotiators mimic, but also due to different language being mimicked. Intuitively this finding makes sense, however, since mimicking things like negative emotions or hostile behaviors are, prima facie, unlikely to bring many interpersonal advantages. However, our findings indicate that in negotiation contexts, strategic mimicking of language and other behaviors needs to be aligned with the predominant goals of the particular stage of the negotiation: Positive emotional language may help build trust early in the negotiation, but accommodating language may be detrimental in the last stage, leading negotiators to give up too much. Although this finding is consistent with prior research (e.g., [START_REF] Morris | How emotions work: The social functions of emotional expression in negotiations[END_REF][START_REF] Pruitt | Negotiation behavior[END_REF], because it only emerged in one of our two experiments, future research is needed to further examine the robustness of this effect in other contexts, such as face-to-face negotiations that allow for richer non-verbal communication. Future research may also examine whether these effects hold in other computer-mediated environments, for example, in asynchronous text-based channels such as e-mail when a virtual format necessitates delays between negotiators communications, making negotiations even more challenging.

Conclusion

Overall, the current results demonstrate that virtual linguistic mimicry can be used as a powerful intervention to improve interpersonal connections and outcomes in online

  linguistic and verbal mimicking seems to facilitate online negotiations. For example, when the other person uses emoticons in their message like or , you should too. If he/she uses certain jargon, metaphors, grammar, specific words, or abbreviations such as "y'know" (you know), you should do the same. Do not direct too much of your attention to the linguistic and verbal mimicking so you don't lose focus on the outcome of the negotiation. Thus, find a happy medium of consistent mimicking that does not disrupt your focus. text in the last paragraph differed for each condition. In the early [late] mimicry condition it read (brackets indicate the alternative wording for late mimicry): However, it is recommended that you should only mimic your counterpart's language and verbal expressions during the first 10 minutes [the last 10 minutes] of the negotiation. If you mimic later (e.g. at the end) [earlier (e.g. at the beginning)], you run the risk that the technique backfires because it becomes too obvious to the other side. So, make sure you mimic the other's behavior only in the early stage [in the final stage] of the negotiation.

  , and task. 48 students who were enrolled in an International Executive MBA course (11 American and 27 Dutch men, 4 American and 7 Dutch women) and all visiting a business school in the Midwestern United States participated as part of a negotiations course. All participants negotiated using the same version of a synchronous chat program which had a mechanism to record timestamps. Students negotiated the same exercise with the same instructions and logistical set-up as in Experiment 1. Chat transcripts were recorded and logs revealed that the average time taken for the negotiation was 59.60 minutes.

  trust and that this trust mediated the impact of mimicry on individual outcomes.Whereas previous negotiations research has examined differences between communication channels (e.g. email vs. face-to-face vs. videoconferencing) (seeSwaab et al., 2011 for a meta-analytic review), the present studies provide insight into strategies that help improve individual outcomes within an online context. This research extends prior findings

  partially consistent with the[START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF] research, which found that mimicry consistently increased joint gains in face-to-face negotiations. However, this discrepancy might have emerged for several reasons. First, because the present research focused on the timing of mimicry, it is possible that less mimicry might have occurred overall (compared to a design where participants are told to mimic throughout the negotiation) which, in turn, could have had weaker effects on joint gain. It is also possible that the virtual format and textbased mimicry expressed in the electronic chats might not be as pervasive as the face-to-face mimicry that was manipulated in the[START_REF] Maddux | Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes[END_REF] study, consistent with metaanalytic findings showing that the absence of visual and vocal cues in online negotiation settings (like the one we studied) decreases joint gains(Swaab et al., 2011). Finally, andA C C E P T E DM A N U S C R I P T

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Recruiter and candidate gain (in points) as a function of experimental condition, Experiment 1.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Recruiter and candidate gain (in points) as a function of experimental condition, Experiment 2.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Mediation analysis for the effect of mimicry and trust on individual gain, Experiment 2

Fig. 2 A

 2 Fig. 2

One dyad questioned the legitimacy of the experimental set up and we controlled for this in our analyses.


Dirk Smeesters

Elke Liu

The Effect of Color (Red versus Blue) on Assimilation versus Contrast in Prime-to-Behavior Effects

Keywords: color, priming, similarity focus, assimilation, contrast

This paper examines whether color can modify the way that primed constructs affect behavior. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that, compared to the color white, blue is more likely to lead to assimilative shifts in behavior, whereas red is more likely to lead to contrastive changes in behavior. In our experiment, previous findings were replicated in the white color condition: participants' behavior assimilated to primed stereotypes of (un)intelligence and contrasted away from primed exemplars of (un)intelligence.

However, in the blue color condition, participants' behavior assimilated to the primed constructs, whereas in the red color condition, participants' behavior contrasted away from the primed constructs, irrespective of whether the primed constructs were stereotypes or exemplars.

A C C E P T E D

M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3 Colors are omnipresent in our surroundings (people, objects, environments).

Although there has been a vast amount of research on color in physics, physiology, and human perception, there is surprisingly little work on the effect of color on human behavior [START_REF] Fehrman | Color: The secret influence[END_REF]Whitfield & Wiltshire, 1990). Recently, [START_REF] Elliot | Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment[END_REF], see also Elliot & Maier, 2007) proposed that colors are not just aesthetic elements but carry psychological meanings. Individuals form specific associations to colors due to repeated encounters of situations in which colors are accompanied with particular concepts or experiences. Red is typically associated with danger (e.g., stop lights, warnings), whereas blue is linked with openness (e.g., ocean, sky). Consequently, exposure to red in an achievement context can evoke avoidance behavior [START_REF] Elliot | The effect of red on avoidance behavior in achievement contexts[END_REF] and impair intellectual performance (Elliot et al., 2007;[START_REF] Maier | Mediation of the negative effect of red on intellectual performance[END_REF] because red is associated with the danger of failure in achievement contexts (i.e., red pens to indicate errors). Further, Metha and Zhu (2009) found that whereas red enhances performance on a detail-oriented task, blue facilitates creative thinking.

In the present paper, we test the novel hypothesis that colors (red, blue, white) can modify the nonconscious influence of primed constructs on behavior. It is well established that primed social constructs influence behavior in an assimilative (e.g., when primed with a stereotype) or contrastive manner (e.g, when primed with an extreme person exemplar). Specifically, we examine whether red can lead to behavioral contrast, due to a dissimilarity focus, whereas blue can lead to behavioral assimilation, due to a similarity focus, irrespective of whether a stereotype or exemplar is primed.

Color and prime-to-behavior effects 2009). Red, associated with danger and mistakes, induces an avoidance motivation and makes people become vigilant [START_REF] Friedman | Effects of motivational cues on perceptual symmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving[END_REF]. As a result, exposure to red (versus blue) narrows the scope of attention, enhancing among others performance on detailed-oriented tasks (Metha & Zhu, 2009). On the other hand, blue, associated with openness, induces an approach motivation. Consequently, exposure to blue broadens the scope of attention, causing people to behave in an explorative way (Metha & Zhu, 2009).

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
Thus, red and blue tune the scope of attention differentially, with blue [red] leading to attentional broadening [narrowing] [START_REF] Friedman | Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review[END_REF]. Consistent with this notion, [START_REF] Maier | Mediation of the negative effect of red on intellectual performance[END_REF] showed that participants exposed to red focused on the detailed local feature (triangle) of a target figure (a square composed of symmetrically arranged triangles) and ignored the broad global form (square). People's scope of attention, narrow or broad, further shifts their (dis)similarity focus [START_REF] Förster | Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity search[END_REF]. This is because attentional broadening (global focus) enhances inclusive categorization and involves finding relations and similarities between stimuli, whereas attentional narrowing (local focus) fosters exclusive categorization and entails searching for dissimilarities to distinguish between stimuli [START_REF] Förster | The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social Judgment[END_REF]. To demonstrate the link between attentional broadening [narrowing] and similarity [dissimilarity] focus, [START_REF] Förster | Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity search[END_REF] found that people who narrowly focused on the details of a map generated more differences (but fewer similarities) between a dolphin and a dog compared to those who broadly focused on the shape of a map.

Bridging previous literature, we hypothesize that red [blue] can induce a focus on differences [similarities] and consequently result in behavioral contrast [assimilation] in a

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
prime-to-behavior context. In our study, we first exposed participants to one of the three color conditions: red, blue, or white (the neutral color, see Elliot et al., 2007). We then used a paradigm by Dijksterhuis et al. (1998, Study 1), in which participants were primed either with stereotypes associated with intelligence (professors) or unintelligence (supermodels), or with extreme exemplars from these categories (Albert Einstein versus Kate Moss). We examined the effect of these primes on the number of correct answers given in a general knowledge test. In the conditions where participants were exposed to the color white, we expected to replicate previous findings on stereotype and extreme exemplar priming.

Priming with stereotypes (e.g., professors) typically leads to behavioral assimilation (e.g., increased performance on a knowledge test, Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). Primed stereotypes can lead to behavioral assimilation because the traits associated with stereotypes (e.g., professors and intelligence) can change the selfconcept in line with the primed construct [START_REF] Wheeler | Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The Active-Self account[END_REF][START_REF] Wheeler | The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms[END_REF]. The changed self-concept then guides behavior. [START_REF] Hansen | Think of capable others and you can make it! Selfefficacy mediates the effect of stereotype activation on behavior[END_REF] demonstrated that participants, exposed to a professor prime, answered more knowledge questions correctly because the prime made them view themselves as more intelligent and increased belief in their intellectual abilities. However, priming with extreme exemplars (e.g., Einstein) leads to behavioral contrast (e.g., decreased intellectual performance, Dijksterhuis et al., 1998). The reason is that extreme exemplars, which are more concrete and distinct than broad categories such as stereotypes, induce implicit comparison processes, which can lead people to contrast their self-perception and behavior away from the exemplars. Therefore, in our study, we expected that participants in the white

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
condition would perform better when primed with the professor stereotype compared to the supermodel stereotype (assimilation), but worse when primed with Albert Einstein compared to Kate Moss (contrast).

We expected different behavioral results in the blue and red conditions. Due to a focus on similarities, participants in the blue condition should assimilate their selfconcept to the primed construct, because similarity processing produces selective accessibility of prime-consistent self-knowledge [START_REF] Mussweiler | Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison[END_REF][START_REF] Mussweiler | Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences[END_REF][START_REF] Smeesters | The effects of thin and heavy media images on overweight and underweight consumers: Social comparison processes and behavioral implications[END_REF][START_REF] Wheeler | Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The Active-Self account[END_REF]. Hence, participants should show behavioral assimilation when primed with both stereotypes and exemplars. Thus, participants in the blue condition should perform better when primed with intelligence (professors and Albert Einstein) than with unintelligence (supermodels and Kate Moss).

We predicted the opposite in the red condition. Due to a focus on dissimilarities, participants in the red condition should contrast their self-concept from the primed construct, because dissimilarity processing activates prime-inconsistent self-knowledge [START_REF] Mussweiler | Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison[END_REF][START_REF] Mussweiler | Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences[END_REF][START_REF] Smeesters | The effects of thin and heavy media images on overweight and underweight consumers: Social comparison processes and behavioral implications[END_REF][START_REF] Wheeler | Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The Active-Self account[END_REF]. Hence, we expected participants to show behavioral contrast when primed with both exemplars and stereotypes. Thus, participants in the red condition should perform worse when primed with intelligence (Albert Einstein and professors) than with unintelligence (Kate Moss and supermodels).

Method

Participants

One hundred sixty-nine undergraduates (89 females, 80 males) participated in partial fulfillment of course requirements. They were randomly assigned to the conditions

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
of a 3 (color: blue vs. white vs. red) × 2 (prime: stereotype vs. exemplar) × 2 (dimension: intelligent vs. unintelligent) between-participants design.

Procedure

Participants were told that they would participate in several unrelated tasks. First, they received a booklet in a plastic file folder. Participants were instructed to take the booklet out of the folder and fill it out. They were asked to place the folder at the top of their desk, and put the booklet back into the folder after they completed the booklet (which they all did). The folders only differed in color: red, blue, or white (see the online supplemental material for a pilot test on these colors). The booklet contained the stereotype or exemplar priming manipulation. Under the cover story of a pretest for future studies, participants were asked to imagine a professor, a supermodel, Albert Einstein, or Kate Moss. They had 5 minutes to list the typical behaviors, lifestyle, and appearance attributes of their target on a sheet of paper (Dijksterhuis et al., 1998). A pretest with 40 participants, who rated the used stereotypes and exemplars (betweenparticipants, 10 per condition) on a 9-point scale (1 = not intelligent at all, 9 = very intelligent), indicated that professors (M = 7.50, SD = 1.71) were perceived as more intelligent than supermodels (M = 3.60, SD = 1.58), t(18) = 5.29, p < .01, and that Albert Einstein (M = 8.20, SD = 1.03) was perceived as more intelligent than Kate Moss (M = 3.10, SD = 1.37), t(18) = 9.40, p < .001.

After participants completed the priming procedure, the colored plastic file folder was removed from their desk. Participants continued to fill out several measures. They completed a "Picture Comparison Task", which assessed their similarity focus.

Participants were informed that the task was a pretest for research on visual perception,

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

and that they had to carefully inspect and compare the two pictures [START_REF] Mussweiler | The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast[END_REF]. Subsequent to comparing those pictures, participants indicated how similar these were using a 9-point rating scale that ranged from 1 (not at all similar) to 9 (very similar).

Participants also answered 20 multiple-choice questions. We told participants that we were testing the validity of a "general-knowledge" scale, which contains questions that differ in difficulty. They would receive the most difficult questions and had to answer each question by choosing one of four options. An example question is "What is the capital of Kazakhstan?": (a) Tblisi, (b) Astana, (c) Baku, or (d) Yerevan. This measure was counterbalanced with the similarity measure (order did not affect the results).

We also administered the 20-item version of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to measure whether color influences positive and negative affect. Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Finally, participants were probed for suspicion, and none of them guessed the goal of the study or indicated any relatedness between the phases of the experiment.

Results

Similarity focus. A 3 (color: blue vs. white vs. red) × 2 (prime: stereotype vs. Number of correct answers. The same ANOVA on the number of correct answers yielded a significant three-way interaction between color, prime, and dimension, F(1, 157) = 3.08, p < .05 (see Figure 1). We further analyzed this significant three-way interaction by conducting separate 2 (prime: stereotype vs. exemplar) × 2 (dimension: intelligent vs.

unintelligent) ANOVAs at each level of color.

The ANOVA in the white condition revealed a significant prime × dimension interaction, F(1, 157) = 8.59, p < .01. Participants primed with an intelligent stereotype (M = 12.07, SD = 2.78) gave more correct answers than those primed with an unintelligent stereotype (M = 9.78, SD = 2.66), F(1, 157) = 4.41, p < .05 (an assimilation effect). Further, participants primed with an unintelligent exemplar (M = 11.71, SD = 2.87) gave more correct answers than those primed with an intelligent exemplar (M = 9.56, SD = 2.83), F(1, 157) = 4.17, p < .05 (a contrast effect).

The ANOVA in the blue condition only revealed a significant effect of dimension, F(1, 157) = 9.68, p < .01. Participants exposed to an intelligent prime (M = 11.93, SD = 2.98) answered more questions correctly compared to participants exposed to an unintelligent prime (M = 9.53, SD = 2.87). Hence, blue leads to behavioral assimilation irrespective of whether the prime is an exemplar or stereotype.

The ANOVA in the red condition also only revealed a significant effect of dimension, F(1, 157) = 9.15, p < . We conducted two mediated moderation analyses to examine whether the increased similarity focus in the blue (versus white) condition was responsible for the behavioral assimilation when primed with an intelligent or unintelligent exemplar and whether the increased dissimilarity focus in the red (versus white) condition accounts for behavioral contrast when primed with an intelligent or unintelligent stereotype. These analyses indicated that, compared to white, blue led to more correct answers in the intelligent exemplar condition (z = 1.96, p = .05) and fewer correct answers in the unintelligent exemplar condition (z = -1.97, p < .05) due to an increased similarity focus.

Further, compared to white, red led to fewer correct answers in the intelligent stereotype condition (z = -2.40, p < .05) and more correct answers in the unintelligent stereotype condition (z = 2.17, p < .05) due to an increased dissimilarity focus. See the supplemental online materials for full information on these analyses.

Analyses on the positive (α = .86) and negative affect (α = 0.88) scores did not reveal any significant effects (Fs < 1, ps > .41).

General Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate that color can modify the prime-to- Whether assimilation or contrast is the result of priming depends on a host of moderators, such as properties of the prime (e.g., extremeness, Dijksterhuis et al., 1998) and aspects of the self-concept of the prime recipient (see [START_REF] Wheeler | Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The Active-Self account[END_REF][START_REF] Wheeler | Multiple mechanisms of prime-to-behavior effects[END_REF]. Very few papers have examined whether assimilation or contrast occurs depending on features of the physical environment. Such features are often used as a priming tool to activate certain constructs. For instance, [START_REF] Kay | Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice[END_REF] demonstrated how business-related objects activated the construct of competitiveness (see also [START_REF] Berger | Dogs on the street, Pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice[END_REF][START_REF] Maimaran | Circles, squares, and choice: Graphical priming effects on preference for uniqueness and variety seeking[END_REF].

However, the current research shows that a physical cue, unrelated to the primed constructs, can influence the direction of the priming effect Our finding that colors can determine the way accessible constructs affect behavior contributes to the literature on color (Elliot et al., 2007[START_REF] Elliot | The effect of red on avoidance behavior in achievement contexts[END_REF]Metha & Zhu, 2009), which mainly focused on the direct effects of colors on behavior (IQ test performance, performance on a detail-oriented task, creativity). This paper shows that colors can also exert indirect effects on behavior by modifying the relationship between primed constructs and behavior. Further, this paper also corroborates the link between color and avoidance/approach motives (Metha & Zhu, 2009) in the context of prime-tobehavior effects, and further demonstrates that cues that activate approach (blue) or avoidance (red) are likely to lead to assimilation or contrast respectively [START_REF] Friedman | Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review[END_REF].

  exemplar) × 2 (dimension: intelligent vs. unintelligent) between-participants ANOVA on participants' similarity rating of the two pictures only revealed a main effect of color, F(2, 157) = 7.69, p < .01. Participants exposed to blue (M = 5.66, SD = 2.12) perceived more similarities compared to those exposed to white (M = 4.95, SD = 1.70), F(1, 157) = 3.92, A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T p < .05, whereas participants exposed to red (M = 4.18, SD = 2.05) perceived less similarities compared to those exposed to white, F(1, 157) = 3.93, p < .05.

  01. Participants exposed to an unintelligent prime (M = 11.59, SD = 2.86) answered more questions correctly compared to participants exposed to (M = 9.25, SD = 2.77). Thus, red leads to behavioral contrast irrespective of the type of prime.

  behavior effect. Whereas primed stereotypes [extreme exemplars] typically lead to assimilation[contrast] in behavior (shown in the white condition), exposure to the colors blue and red altered these effects. Specifically, independent of the type of prime, blue led participants to assimilate to the primed construct, whereas red caused participants toA C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P Tcontrast away from the primed construct. This occurrence of assimilation[contrast] was induced by a focus on similarities [dissimilarities] in the blue [red] condition.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Number of correct answers as a function of color, prime, and dimension.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A C C E P T E D

M A N U S C R I P T