What the Mirror Does to a Person
From a psychological perspective, mirrors are not neutral surfaces. Over half a century of experiments has clearly established that when a person sees their own reflection, their behavior changes. It took researchers some time to articulate exactly how. For example, in the presence of a mirror, a person might eat less fatty food—or, conversely, eat more. They might help strangers more willingly. They might experience emotions more intensely—or suppress them more strictly. The result depends on the context, but the fact of behavioral change itself is a robustly reproducible phenomenon, confirmed by decades of research involving thousands of participants.
All of this happens during mere minutes of mirror contact. With the digital mirror—the self-view on a video call—many of us spend hours and entire workdays. Therefore, before discussing what happens during video conferences, we must first understand what is already known about mirrors.
The Theory of Objective Self-Awareness
In the early 1970s, two American psychologists, Shelley Duval and Robert Wicklund, asked a question that previously only philosophers had formulated: what happens to consciousness when a person becomes the object of their own attention?
Their answer, published in 1972 in A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness, turned out to be surprisingly concrete, even mechanistic [1]. Duval and Wicklund proposed that conscious attention operates like a switch with two positions. In one position, attention is directed outward—to the environment, the interlocutor, the task. In the other, it is directed inward, at oneself. Certain stimuli—mirrors, photographs, voice recordings, the presence of a video camera—flip this switch to the "inward" position. Duval and Wicklund called this state objective self-awareness (OSA).
In itself, this state is neither good nor bad. But objective self-awareness has an inevitable consequence: upon shifting attention inward, the person automatically initiates a comparison. The "actual self"—what they see and feel right now—is weighed against the "ideal self," the internalized standards of what they should be. If the discrepancy is small or non-existent, a brief sense of satisfaction arises. However, because standards are generally higher than reality, a gap is usually found. This gap generates negative affect: discomfort, awkwardness, or anxiety.
From here, two scenarios unfold. If the person believes they can close the gap (fix their posture, speak more confidently, be more honest, etc.), they actively correct their behavior. But when the gap feels insurmountable, a different mechanism kicks in: fleeing the stimulus. The urge is to look away from the mirror, leave the room, stop looking at oneself, or dive into a smartphone (in modern terms).
This simple model proved highly productive. Wicklund and Duval published three experiments in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology confirming its predictions: participants who heard a recording of their own voice more actively aligned their opinions with group standards, and those who performed a task in front of a mirror did so with greater accuracy [2]. In the early 1980s, Charles Carver and Michael Scheier expanded this model into a cybernetic theory of self-regulation: the mirror triggers a feedback loop—comparison with a standard, correction, and repeated comparison [3]. A 2000 meta-analysis by Fejfar and Hoyle, which pooled 79 studies, confirmed the central thesis: manipulations that direct attention to the self consistently increase negative affect [4].
Yet, the most convincing demonstrations of this principle occurred not in the lab, but in the field.
(See Diagram 1: The Mechanism of Objective Self-Awareness at the end of the chapter).
A Tenfold Decrease in Cheating
In 1976, Edward Diener and Mark Wallbom conducted an experiment that became one of the most cited in the literature on self-awareness [5].
The researchers wanted to know how people behave when they believe no one is watching—and whether this behavior could be influenced without punishments or rewards. The participants were university students who had previously filled out a questionnaire where every single one stated that cheating was unethical. Each student was then given an anagram test with a strict time limit: five minutes, after which a buzzer would sound, and they were required to stop. The experimenter would then leave the room "on urgent business"—leaving the participant alone with the test, the timer, and a hidden observer.
In the control group (a standard, neutral room), 71% of the participants continued working after the buzzer. People who sincerely considered themselves honest cheated when they thought they were unobserved. (This is exactly why I never left the room during exams back when I was a lecturer at Moscow State University).
In the experimental group, a mirror was placed in front of the participant, and a recording of their own voice played in the room. Only 7% cheated.
The experimenters achieved a tenfold reduction in cheating without any surveillance or intimidation. It was enough to make the person see and hear themselves—and the gap between their declared values and actual behavior closed almost to zero. The mirror did not create new values; it simply activated the ones the person already held.
Children and Candy
Three years later, the same principle was tested in a completely different setting—becoming one of the most famous field experiments involving mirrors.
Arthur Beaman, Bonnie Klentz, Edward Diener, and Sven Svanum published the results of a study conducted on Halloween in 1977 across residential neighborhoods in Seattle [6]. Eighteen private homes served as the testing grounds. A female experimenter opened the door for trick-or-treaters. She offered each child to take exactly one piece of candy from a large bowl placed next to a pile of coins, then said she needed to step away and left the room. A hidden observer recorded how many candies and coins each child took.
The experiment varied two factors. First, anonymity: some children were asked for their names and where they lived, while others were asked nothing. Second, in half of the cases, a large mirror was placed directly behind the candy bowl, forcing the child to meet their own gaze at the exact moment of choice.
The results of the first study (363 children) and its replication (349 children) matched. In the condition with no mirror and no individuation, roughly one in three children took extra candy. The mirror, combined with individuation, reduced the transgressions to about one in ten—a fourfold decrease. The effect was especially pronounced in older children, which aligns with the developmental trajectory of self-awareness: for a mirror to influence behavior, a child must be mature enough to hold a standard and compare their actions against it.
This experiment became a classic not just for its elegant design, but for its practical takeaway: the mirror proved to be one of the cheapest and most reliable tools for behavioral regulation—achieved without rewards, punishments, or visible observers. You have likely noticed mirrors in places where honesty is relied upon: near semi-automatic coffee stations or self-checkout counters. In recent years, CCTV cameras (and fake ones) have become even cheaper and more common than mirrors. I invite interested young researchers to compare which actually works better for customer honesty.
Dinner with a Mirror
In the context of food, the mirror activates different standards. Sentyrz and Bushman (1998) conducted two studies—one in a lab and one in a supermarket [7]. Participants were asked to taste three types of cream cheese: full-fat, reduced-fat, and fat-free. One group sat in front of a mirror, the other did not. Those who saw their reflection ate significantly less of the full-fat product, but their consumption of the fat-free cheese remained unchanged. The mirror did not suppress appetite across the board; it selectively reduced the consumption of what was perceived as unhealthy.
Eighteen years later, Ata Jami (2016) ran a series of four experiments and found an even more nuanced effect [8]. Participants chose between chocolate cake and fruit salad, then ate their choice in a room with or without a mirror. Those who chose the cake and ate it in front of the mirror rated its taste as significantly worse. The mirror did not alter the taste of the fruit salad. Crucially, the effect vanished when participants were not given a choice but were simply assigned a dish: the mirror only "punished" the voluntary choice of unhealthy food. The mechanism, Jami concluded, was not physiological but evaluative: just as in the first experiments of this chapter, the mirror induced discomfort from the discrepancy between behavior (eating cake) and standard (wanting to be healthy), and this discomfort was attributed to the food's taste.
But the mirror and food aren't always about guilt. Rinka Nakata and Nobuyuki Kawai of Nagoya University (2017) asked elderly individuals and young adults to eat popcorn (a product that, in a Japanese context, lacks a strongly "healthy" or "unhealthy" reputation) in front of a mirror or a blank wall [9]. Those who saw their reflection ate more and rated the popcorn as tastier. The researchers attributed this to social facilitation: the mirror acted as a virtual dining companion, making a solitary meal feel shared. For elderly people, who often have to eat alone, this effect was particularly pronounced.
Despite the differing effects, the underlying mechanism is identical. The mirror triggers a comparison with whichever standard is most relevant at that moment: healthy eating, ethical behavior, or the need for social contact. This principle is central to understanding what happens with the self-view on a video call. Different people have different standards active during a meeting, and the self-view triggers a comparison specifically against them. This is why, later in the book, we outline seven distinct motives rather than just one.
The Gym Mirror
One of the most practically significant areas of research involves physical exercise. Mirrors are everywhere in gyms, but their impact on people with different fitness levels has proven diametrically opposed.
Kathleen Martin Ginis, Mary Jung, and Lise Gauvin (2003) randomly assigned 58 sedentary (this is key!) college-aged women to two groups [10]. Both groups pedaled a stationary bike for 20 minutes. One group faced a mirrored wall, the other a plain wall. After the workout, participants in the mirrored group reported lower energy levels, less relaxation, and a less positive mood. What surprised the researchers was that this effect did not depend on how satisfied the women were with their bodies before the experiment. The mirror worsened the mood of all sedentary women—even those who had no complaints about their figures. In 2007, the same researchers added another variable—the presence of other people—and showed that for sedentary women, the combination of a mirror and a social environment amplified the negative effect [12].
However, with a different sample, the result was the exact opposite. Katula and McAuley (2001) found that experienced female athletes exercising in front of a mirror demonstrated an increase in self-efficacy—confidence in their ability to complete the task [11].
It turns out that a mirror is harmful when a person does not feel competent in what they are doing while under observation—even if the "observer" is themselves. As we will see later, this is a direct parallel to video conferences. A meeting participant who is unsure of how they look, how they sound, or how they are perceived is in the exact same vulnerable position as the sedentary woman facing a mirror in an unfamiliar gym.
Mirrors and Emotions
Early research provided a straightforward answer: mirrors amplify any emotion. Scheier and Carver (1977) showed across four experiments that participants in front of a mirror reacted more strongly to both pleasant and unpleasant stimuli [13]. People asked to imagine a positive situation felt more joy in front of a mirror; those asked to imagine a sad one felt more sadness. The conclusion seemed universal: self-awareness acts as an emotional amplifier.
A quarter of a century later, Paul Silvia (2002) identified a subtle methodological flaw [14]. Scheier and Carver's procedure essentially instructed participants on what to feel—thereby setting a standard of emotionality. When Silvia removed this component from the instructions, the mirror no longer amplified sadness; it weakened it. In a parallel study, he showed that people who believed it was important to restrain their emotions became less happy in front of a mirror—while those who believed it was normal to express feelings freely showed no change [15].
Later, the picture became clearer. The mirror does not automatically amplify emotions. Rather (as Silvia later clarified), it acts much more subtly: it aligns the emotional state with whichever standard is currently active. When an internal standard demands emotional expression, the reflection boosts it. Conversely, an attitude of restraint means that in front of a mirror, a person suppresses their feelings even harder. It turns out the mirror acts not as a universal amplifier, but as a standard corrector, checking our real selves against our own ideals.
For a person on a video call, this means the emotional consequences of the self-view depend entirely on their active standard. If the standard is "I must look calm and competent," the self-view will amplify discomfort every time the reflection shows something else. If the standard is "I must be emotionally engaged," the self-view will punish them for a blank face. The standards differ, but the mechanism triggered by the digital mirror is the same.
The Beggar with a Mirror and Helping Strangers
A mirror can alter not only individual behavior but also social actions.
In 2006, a team of Italian psychologists led by Scaffidi Abbate conducted an experiment at the University of Palermo [16]. Students were asked to hold a mirror to their faces (under the guise of a different study), after which they were asked to write a postcard in English to support an unknown English-speaking recipient. Those who had just seen their reflection agreed to help significantly more often.
Two years later, the same team took the experiment to the streets [17]. A beggar asking for alms held either a mirror or a piece of cardboard of the same size against his chest. Passersby who caught a glimpse of their own reflection were more inclined to give money. The mirror activated a standard of helpfulness: "I am a good person; I help those in need."
If a mirror can make people more honest, generous, and kind, does that mean the self-view on a video call should do the same? Not necessarily. In the beggar experiment, the mirror contact lasted seconds, the standard was unambiguous (help), and the situation was simple. On a video call, the contact lasts for hours, there are multiple standards (look competent, pay attention, hide fatigue), and they frequently conflict with one another. Neither a regular nor a digital mirror makes people inherently better. It continuously confronts them with who they "should" be—and the more standards there are, the more contradictory they are, and the longer the mirror operates, the higher the psychological cost.
The Mirror Makes People "Themselves"
In 1975, Charles Carver conducted an experiment that settled the question of whether a mirror makes people "better" [19].
Participants were prescreened into two groups based on a questionnaire: one group considered physical punishment an acceptable educational tool; the other did not. Then, in a standard "teacher-learner" paradigm (modeled after Milgram's famous studies, though with lower intensity), participants were asked to punish a partner with electric shocks for making mistakes. Half the participants performed the task in front of a mirror, the other half without.
Without the mirror, both groups behaved roughly the same: the difference between proponents and opponents of punishment was statistically insignificant. But the mirror drove them in opposite directions. Those who approved of punishment delivered stronger shocks in front of the mirror. Those who considered it unacceptable delivered weaker ones.
In the presence of a mirror, people did not become kinder or crueler; rather, it made them more "themselves"—more accurate representatives of their own standards. Prosocial standards were implemented more actively, but so were antisocial ones. The mirror is a neutral amplifier of congruence (the alignment of beliefs and actions), and this is perhaps the most important conclusion from a half-century of research.
For self-view, this means the following: on a video call, the digital mirror does not make everyone equally anxious or equally self-critical. It drives each person toward their own specific standard. That is precisely why the consequences of Self-View Fixation (SVF) are so varied. Under its influence, anxious individuals sink deeper into their fears, perfectionists start nitpicking their appearance, and those with fragile self-esteem feel even more vulnerable. Meanwhile, a person who is entirely satisfied with themselves might even feel a surge of confidence. But even for them, the mirror is not free: it consumes the same cognitive budget.
The Cross-Cultural Difference
In 2008, Steven Heine and colleagues from the University of British Columbia conducted a cross-cultural study that refined the idea of the mirror effect as a universal phenomenon [18].
Canadian students in the classic experimental condition (in front of a mirror) behaved exactly as we would now expect: they became more self-critical, judged themselves more strictly, and exhibited signs of objective self-awareness. Japanese students, however, did not. The mirror did not change their behavior.
The explanation offered by the authors had nothing to do with being insensitive to mirrors. In fact, it was the exact opposite: Japanese participants, having grown up in a collectivist culture with a high norm of self-monitoring, were already in a state of chronically elevated self-awareness. The mirror added nothing new; the internal observer was already operating continuously. The culture itself served the function of a constant psychological mirror.
This finding is highly relevant to the premise of this book. It means that for people from cultures with a high degree of "face-saving"—such as Japan, Korea, and China—the self-view on a video call can act as a mirror on top of a mirror: a technological stimulus of self-awareness layered over a cultural one. We will return to this dynamic in Chapter 8.
The Reflection Rewires the Brain
Most of the experiments described above operate on the level of behavior and emotion. But one of the most astonishing applications of mirrors demonstrated that a reflection can influence things much deeper: the neural representation of the body itself.
In 1996, neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran published the results of his work with patients suffering from phantom limb pain—an excruciating sensation in an amputated limb—in the Proceedings of the Royal Society [20]. Some patients felt that their missing hand was tightly clenched into a fist and could not be "unclenched"; the pain from this phantom spasm was entirely real.
Ramachandran’s solution was elegant and brilliant. He placed a mirror vertically between the patient's arms so that the reflection of the intact arm appeared where the amputated one used to be. When the patient moved the intact arm—opening the fist, wiggling the fingers—they "saw" the phantom arm moving. Of the first ten patients, six experienced kinesthetic sensations in the phantom limb. For four out of the five who suffered from painful spasms, the pain decreased. For one patient, after a series of sessions, the phantom limb disappeared entirely—the first "amputation" of a phantom limb in medical history.
Mirror box therapy is now used in stroke rehabilitation and for chronic pain syndromes. For our purposes, it is vital as an illustration of an extreme case: a mirror does not just affect behavior and mood; it is capable of rebuilding the internal model of the body. If visual feedback from a reflection can rewrite the neural map of a limb in just a few sessions, then months of visual feedback from one's own face on a video call can hardly be considered trivial. Mirrors operate on a much deeper level than one might expect from such common household objects.
From Minutes to Hours and Days
Every experiment described in this chapter lasted for minutes. Five, ten, twenty. The longest were no more than half an hour. None of the researchers ever imagined a scenario where a participant would look at their own reflection for hours on end, every working day, for months and years. Yet, the self-view on a video call is exactly that regime.
Experimental psychology has no precedent for "chronic" mirror exposure—but the existing data allows us to predict its consequences. If minutes in front of a mirror are enough to reduce cheating tenfold, alter the taste of food, worsen mood after a workout, and increase willingness to help a stranger—what happens when the mirror becomes a permanent fixture of our working routine?
The answer to this question lies in the next two chapters. Chapter 2 will show that one's own face is a stimulus of the highest priority, impossible to ignore through sheer willpower, and that neurophysiological data records cognitive depletion after just fifteen minutes. Chapter 3 will explain how this third channel shifts consciousness from the position of the subject to the position of the object—and triggers vicious cycles that do not fade away on their own.
An Experiment You Can Run in the Classroom
If you are a lecturer or seminar leader, try replicating the basic mirror effect with your students. It requires minimal setup and takes about twenty minutes.
Option 1 (Simple, repeated measures): Divide an online class into two ten-minute blocks. For the first block, ask participants to turn on their self-view. For the second, ask them to hide it. (Or vice versa; the order should be randomized). After each block, administer a brief survey: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how focused were you on the content? On your own appearance? How tired do you feel?" Compare the averages.
Option 2 (Inspired by Diener and Wallbom): Give an assignment with a soft time limit—say, solve a series of problems in 7 minutes. Display the timer on the screen. The experimenter then "steps away." One group works with self-view on, the other with self-view off. Record who continues working after the timer goes off. (Naturally, this should be done with informed consent and a debriefing afterward).
Even with a small sample size, the trend is usually visible. And for the participants themselves, simply experiencing the contrast between the two conditions is a powerful moment of awareness.
References
[1] Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. New York: Academic Press.
[2] Wicklund, R. A., & Duval, S. (1971). Opinion change and performance facilitation as a result of objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(3), 319–342.
[3] Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Process Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer. // Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1983). Self-directed attention and the comparison of self with standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(3), 205–222.
[4] Fejfar, M. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Effect of private self-awareness on negative affect and self-referent attribution: A quantitative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 132–142.
[5] Diener, E., & Wallbom, M. (1976). Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 10(1), 107–111.
[6] Beaman, A. L., Klentz, B., Diener, E., & Svanum, S. (1979). Self-awareness and transgression in children: Two field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1835–1846.
[7] Sentyrz, S. M., & Bushman, B. J. (1998). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the thinnest one of all? Effects of self-awareness on consumption of full-fat, reduced-fat, and no-fat products. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 944–949.
[8] Jami, A. (2016). Healthy reflections: The influence of mirror-induced self-awareness on taste perceptions. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 57–70.
[9] Nakata, R., & Kawai, N. (2017). The "social" facilitation of eating without the presence of others: Self-reflection on eating makes food taste better and people eat more. Physiology & Behavior, 179, 23–29.
[10] Martin Ginis, K. A., Jung, M. E., & Gauvin, L. (2003). To see or not to see: Effects of exercising in mirrored vs. unmirrored environments on sedentary women's feeling states and self-efficacy. Health Psychology, 22(4), 354–361.
[11] Katula, J. A., & McAuley, E. (2001). The mirror does not lie: Acute exercise and self-efficacy. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8(4), 319–332.
[12] Martin Ginis, K. A., Burke, S. M., & Gauvin, L. (2007). Exercising with others exacerbates the negative effects of mirrored environments on sedentary women's feeling states. Psychology & Health, 22(8), 945–962.
[13] Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1977). Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 625–636.
[14] Silvia, P. J. (2002). Self-awareness and emotional intensity. Cognition and Emotion, 16(2), 195–216.
[15] Silvia, P. J. (2002). Self-awareness and the regulation of emotional intensity. Self and Identity, 1(1), 3–10.
[16] Scaffidi Abbate, C., Isgrò, A., Wicklund, R. A., & Boca, S. (2006). A field experiment on perspective-taking, helping, and self-awareness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(3), 283–287.
[17] Scaffidi Abbate, C., & Ruggieri, S. (2008). A beggar, self-awareness and willingness to help. Current Psychology Letters, 24(1), 98–107.
[18] Heine, S. J., Takemoto, T., Moskalenko, S., Lasaleta, J., & Henrich, J. (2008). Mirrors in the head: Cultural variation in objective self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 879–887.
[19] Carver, C. S. (1975). Physical aggression as a function of objective self-awareness and attitudes toward punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(5), 510–519.
[20] Ramachandran, V. S., & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 263(1369), 377–386.