WEBVTT 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Imagine you're at a football game 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when this obnoxious guy sits next to you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He's loud, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he spills his drink on you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and he makes fun of your team. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Days later, you're walking in the park 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when suddenly it starts to pour rain. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Who should show up at your side 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to offer you an umbrella? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The same guy from the football game. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Do you change your mind about him 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 based on his second encounter, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or do you go with your first impression 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and write him off? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Research in social psychology suggests 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we're quick to form lasting impressions of others 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 based on their behaviors. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We manage to do this with little effort, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 inferring stable character traits 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from a single behavior, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like a harsh word 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or a clumsy step. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Using our impressions as guides, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we can accurately predict 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how people are going to behave in the future. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Armed with the knowledge 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the guy from the football game 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 was a jerk the first time you met him, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you might expect more of the same down the road. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If so, you might choose to avoid him 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the next time you see him. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That said, we can change our impressions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in light of new information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Behavioral researchers have identified 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 consistent patterns that seem to guide 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this process of impression updating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 On one hand, learning very negative, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 highly immoral information about someone 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 typically has a stronger impact 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than learning very positive, highly moral information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, unfortunately for our new friend 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the football game, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 his bad behavior at the game might outweigh 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 his good behavior at the park. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Research suggests that this bias occurs 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because immoral behaviors are more diagnostic, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or revealing, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of a person's true character. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Okay, so by this logic, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 bad is always stronger than good 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when it comes to updating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, not necessarily. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Certain types of learning don't seem to lead 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 toward sort of negativity bias. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When learning about another person's abilities and competencies, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for instance, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this bias flips. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's actually the positive information 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that get weighted more heavily. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's go back to that football game. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If a player scores a goal, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it ultimately has a stronger impact 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on your impression of their skills 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than if they miss the net. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The two sides of the updating story 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are ultimately quite consistent. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Overall, behaviors that are perceived 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as being less frequent are also the ones 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that people tend to weigh more heavily 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when forming and updating impressions, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 highly immoral actions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and highly competent actions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, what's happening at the level of the brain 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when we're updating our impressions? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Using fMRI, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 researchers have identified 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an extended network of brain regions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that respond to new information 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's inconsistent with initial impressions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These include areas typically associated 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with social cognition, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 attention, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and cognitive control. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moreover, when updating impressions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 based on people's behaviors, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the superior temporal sulcus 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 correlates with perceptions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of how frequently those behaviors occur in daily life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words, the brain seems to be tracking 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 low-level, statistical properties of behavior 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in order to make complex decisions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 regarding other people's character. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It needs to decide 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is this person's behavior typical 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or is it out of the ordinary. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In the situation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with the obnoxious-football-fan-turned-good-samaritan, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 your brain says, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Well, in my experience, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 pretty much anyone would lend someone their umbrella, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the way this guy acted at the football game, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that was unusual." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, you decide to go with your first impression. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a good moral in this data: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 your brain, and by extension you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 might care more about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the very negative, immoral things 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 another person has done 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 compared to the very positive, moral things, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but it's a direct result 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the comparative rarity of those bad behaviors. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're more used to people being basically good, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like taking time to help a stranger in need. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In this context, bad might be stronger than good, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but only because good is more plentiful. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Think about the last time you judged someone 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 based on their behavior, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 especially a time when you really feel 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like you changed your mind about someone. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Was the behavior that caused you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to update your impression 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 something you'd expect anyone to do, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or was it something totally out of the ordinary?