Should you trust your first impression Peter MendeSiedlecki

Imagine you’re at a football game

when this obnoxious guy sits next to you.

He’s loud,

he spills his drink on you,

and he makes fun of your team.

Days later, you’re walking in the park

when suddenly it starts to pour rain.

Who should show up at your side

to offer you an umbrella?

The same guy from the football game.

Do you change your mind about him

based on this second encounter,

or do you go with your first impression

and write him off?

Research in social psychology suggests

that we’re quick to form lasting impressions of others

based on their behaviors.

We manage to do this with little effort,

inferring stable character traits

from a single behavior,

like a harsh word

or a clumsy step.

Using our impressions as guides,

we can accurately predict

how people are going to behave in the future.

Armed with the knowledge

the guy from the football game

was a jerk the first time you met him,

you might expect more of the same down the road.

If so, you might choose to avoid him

the next time you see him.

That said, we can change our impressions

in light of new information.

Behavioral researchers have identified

consistent patterns that seem to guide

this process of impression updating.

On one hand, learning very negative,

highly immoral information about someone

typically has a stronger impact

than learning very positive, highly moral information.

So, unfortunately for our new friend

from the football game,

his bad behavior at the game

might outweigh his good behavior at the park.

Research suggests that this bias occurs

because immoral behaviors are more diagnostic,

or revealing,

of a person’s true character.

Okay, so by this logic,

bad is always stronger than good

when it comes to updating.

Well, not necessarily.

Certain types of learning don’t seem to lead

to this sort of negativity bias.

When learning about another person’s abilities and competencies,

for instance,

this bias flips.

It’s actually the positive information

that gets weighted more heavily.

Let’s go back to that football game.

If a player scores a goal,

it ultimately has a stronger impact

on your impression of their skills

than if they miss the net.

The two sides of the updating story

are ultimately quite consistent.

Overall, behaviors that are perceived

as being less frequent are also the ones

that people tend to weigh more heavily

when forming and updating impressions,

highly immoral actions

and highly competent actions.

So, what’s happening at the level of the brain

when we’re updating our impressions?

Using fMRI,

or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,

researchers have identified

an extended network of brain regions

that respond to new information

that’s inconsistent with initial impressions.

These include areas typically associated

with social cognition,

attention,

and cognitive control.

Moreover, when updating impressions

based on people’s behaviors,

activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex

and the superior temporal sulcus

correlates with perceptions

of how frequently those behaviors occur in daily life.

In other words, the brain seems to be tracking

low-level, statistical properties of behavior

in order to make complex decisions

regarding other people’s character.

It needs to decide

is this person’s behavior typical

or is it out of the ordinary?

In the situation

with the obnoxious-football-fan-turned-good-samaritan,

your brain says,

“Well, in my experience,

pretty much anyone would lend someone their umbrella,

but the way this guy acted at the football game,

that was unusual.”

And so, you decide to go with your first impression.

There’s a good moral in this data:

your brain, and by extension you,

might care more about

the very negative, immoral things

another person has done

compared to the very positive, moral things,

but it’s a direct result

of the comparative rarity of those bad behaviors.

We’re more used to people being basically good,

like taking time to help a stranger in need.

In this context, bad might be stronger than good,

but only because good is more plentiful.

Think about the last time you judged someone

based on their behavior,

especially a time when you really feel

like you changed your mind about someone.

Was the behavior that caused you

to update your impression

something you’d expect anyone to do,

or was it something totally out of the ordinary?

想象一下,

当这个讨厌的家伙坐在你旁边时,你正在看一场足球比赛。

他很吵,

他把酒洒在你身上

,还取笑你的团队。

几天后,你在公园散步

时突然开始下雨。

谁应该出现在您

身边为您提供雨伞?

足球比赛中的同一个人。

你会因为

第二次相遇而改变对他的看法,

还是按照你的第一

印象把他写下来?

社会心理学研究表明

,我们很快就会根据他人的行为对他人形成持久的印象

我们不费吹灰之力就能做到这一点,从一个单一的行为中

推断出稳定的性格特征

比如一个刺耳的词

或一个笨拙的步骤。

以我们的印象为指导,

我们可以准确地预测

人们未来的行为方式。

知道

足球比赛

中的那个人第一次见到他时是个混蛋,

你可能会期待更多相同的事情发生。

如果是这样,你可能会选择

在下次见到他时避开他。

也就是说,我们可以

根据新信息改变我们的印象。

行为研究人员已经确定

了似乎可以

指导印象更新过程的一致模式。

一方面,学习

关于某人的非常消极、高度不道德的信息

通常

比学习非常积极、高度道德的信息具有更大的影响。

因此,不幸的是,对于我们

足球比赛的新朋友来说,

他在比赛中的不良行为

可能会超过他在公园的良好行为。

研究表明,这种偏见的发生是

因为不道德的行为更能诊断

揭示一个人的真实性格。

好的,按照这个逻辑,在更新方面,

坏总是比好强

嗯,不一定。

某些类型的学习似乎不会

导致这种消极偏见。

例如,当了解另一个人的能力和能力时

这种偏见就会翻转。

实际上,积极信息

的权重更大。

让我们回到那场足球比赛。

如果一名球员进球

,最终

对你对他们技能的印象的影响

要比他们失球的影响更大。

更新故事的两个

方面最终是相当一致的。

总体而言,被

认为不太频繁的行为也是人们

在形成和更新印象、

高度不道德的行为

和高度称职的行为时往往更重视的行为。

那么,当我们更新印象时,大脑层面发生了什么

使用功能磁共振成像

或功能性磁共振成像,

研究人员已经确定

了一个扩展的大脑区域网络,这些区域

与初始印象不一致的新信息做出反应。

这些包括通常

与社会认知、

注意力

和认知控制相关的领域。

此外,当

根据人们的行为更新印象时,

腹外侧前额叶皮层

和颞上沟的活动

与对

这些行为在日常生活中发生频率的感知相关。

换句话说,大脑似乎在跟踪

行为的低级统计特性

,以便对他人的性格做出复杂的决定

它需要

决定这个人的行为是典型的

还是不寻常的?

在令人讨厌的足球迷变成好撒玛利亚人的情况下,

你的大脑会说,

“嗯,根据我的经验,

几乎任何人都会把伞借给别人,

但这个人在足球比赛中的表现,

那是 异常。”

所以,你决定按照你的第一印象去做。

这些数据中有一个很好的寓意:与非常积极的、道德的事情相比,

你的大脑,以及延伸到你的大脑,

可能更关心另一个人所做

的非常消极、不道德的

事情,

但这

是那些相对稀有的直接结果 不良行为。

我们更习惯于人们基本上是好的,

比如花时间帮助有需要的陌生人。

在这种情况下,坏可能比好强,

但这只是因为好更丰富。

想想你最后一次

根据某人的行为来评判他们,

尤其是当你真的

觉得你改变了对某人的看法的时候。

导致您更新印象的行为

是您希望任何人做的事情,

还是完全不寻常的事情?