0:00:06.979,0:00:08.722
Imagine you're at a football game

0:00:08.722,0:00:11.206
when this obnoxious guy sits next to you.

0:00:11.206,0:00:11.906
He's loud,

0:00:11.906,0:00:13.240
he spills his drink on you,

0:00:13.240,0:00:14.995
and he makes fun of your team.

0:00:14.995,0:00:17.226
Days later, you're walking in the park

0:00:17.226,0:00:19.823
when suddenly it starts to pour rain.

0:00:19.823,0:00:21.130
Who should show up at your side

0:00:21.130,0:00:22.417
to offer you an umbrella?

0:00:22.417,0:00:25.052
The same guy from the football game.

0:00:25.052,0:00:26.489
Do you change your mind about him

0:00:26.489,0:00:28.213
based on this second encounter,

0:00:28.213,0:00:29.709
or do you go with your first impression

0:00:29.709,0:00:31.907
and write him off?

0:00:31.907,0:00:34.298
Research in social psychology suggests

0:00:34.298,0:00:37.112
that we're quick to form lasting impressions of others

0:00:37.112,0:00:39.020
based on their behaviors.

0:00:39.020,0:00:41.314
We manage to do this with little effort,

0:00:41.314,0:00:43.310
inferring stable character traits

0:00:43.310,0:00:44.647
from a single behavior,

0:00:44.647,0:00:45.481
like a harsh word

0:00:45.481,0:00:46.974
or a clumsy step.

0:00:46.974,0:00:48.733
Using our impressions as guides,

0:00:48.733,0:00:50.040
we can accurately predict

0:00:50.040,0:00:53.187
how people are going to behave in the future.

0:00:53.187,0:00:54.075
Armed with the knowledge

0:00:54.075,0:00:55.462
the guy from the football game

0:00:55.462,0:00:57.293
was a jerk the first time you met him,

0:00:57.293,0:00:59.793
you might expect more of the same down the road.

0:00:59.793,0:01:01.674
If so, you might choose to avoid him

0:01:01.674,0:01:03.009
the next time you see him.

0:01:03.009,0:01:05.293
That said, we can change our impressions

0:01:05.293,0:01:07.337
in light of new information.

0:01:07.337,0:01:09.873
Behavioral researchers have identified

0:01:09.873,0:01:12.210
consistent patterns that seem to guide

0:01:12.210,0:01:14.627
this process of impression updating.

0:01:14.627,0:01:17.014
On one hand, learning very negative,

0:01:17.014,0:01:19.714
highly immoral information about someone

0:01:19.714,0:01:21.435
typically has a stronger impact

0:01:21.435,0:01:25.521
than learning very positive, highly moral information.

0:01:25.521,0:01:27.796
So, unfortunately for our new friend

0:01:27.796,0:01:28.821
from the football game,

0:01:28.821,0:01:30.243
his bad behavior at the game

0:01:30.243,0:01:33.070
might outweigh his good behavior at the park.

0:01:33.070,0:01:35.628
Research suggests that this bias occurs

0:01:35.628,0:01:38.828
because immoral behaviors are more diagnostic,

0:01:38.828,0:01:39.875
or revealing,

0:01:39.875,0:01:42.043
of a person's true character.

0:01:42.043,0:01:43.877
Okay, so by this logic,

0:01:43.877,0:01:46.253
bad is always stronger than good

0:01:46.253,0:01:47.923
when it comes to updating.

0:01:47.923,0:01:49.754
Well, not necessarily.

0:01:49.754,0:01:51.882
Certain types of learning don't seem to lead

0:01:51.882,0:01:54.208
to this sort of negativity bias.

0:01:54.208,0:01:57.431
When learning about another person's abilities and competencies,

0:01:57.431,0:01:58.297
for instance,

0:01:58.297,0:01:59.880
this bias flips.

0:01:59.880,0:02:01.348
It's actually the positive information

0:02:01.348,0:02:03.631
that gets weighted more heavily.

0:02:03.631,0:02:05.128
Let's go back to that football game.

0:02:05.128,0:02:06.624
If a player scores a goal,

0:02:06.624,0:02:08.292
it ultimately has a stronger impact

0:02:08.292,0:02:10.200
on your impression of their skills

0:02:10.200,0:02:11.959
than if they miss the net.

0:02:11.959,0:02:13.902
The two sides of the updating story

0:02:13.902,0:02:16.209
are ultimately quite consistent.

0:02:16.209,0:02:18.310
Overall, behaviors that are perceived

0:02:18.310,0:02:20.542
as being less frequent are also the ones

0:02:20.542,0:02:23.379
that people tend to weigh more heavily

0:02:23.379,0:02:25.627
when forming and updating impressions,

0:02:25.627,0:02:26.914
highly immoral actions

0:02:26.914,0:02:29.293
and highly competent actions.

0:02:29.293,0:02:32.004
So, what's happening at the level of the brain

0:02:32.004,0:02:33.874
when we're updating our impressions?

0:02:33.874,0:02:35.257
Using fMRI,

0:02:35.257,0:02:37.878
or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,

0:02:37.878,0:02:39.294
researchers have identified

0:02:39.294,0:02:41.478
an extended network of brain regions

0:02:41.478,0:02:43.213
that respond to new information

0:02:43.213,0:02:46.104
that's inconsistent with initial impressions.

0:02:46.104,0:02:48.296
These include areas typically associated

0:02:48.296,0:02:49.574
with social cognition,

0:02:49.574,0:02:50.652
attention,

0:02:50.652,0:02:52.465
and cognitive control.

0:02:52.465,0:02:54.568
Moreover, when updating impressions

0:02:54.568,0:02:56.570
based on people's behaviors,

0:02:56.570,0:02:59.709
activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex

0:02:59.709,0:03:02.061
and the superior temporal sulcus

0:03:02.061,0:03:03.494
correlates with perceptions

0:03:03.494,0:03:07.879
of how frequently those behaviors occur in daily life.

0:03:07.879,0:03:10.290
In other words, the brain seems to be tracking

0:03:10.290,0:03:13.180
low-level, statistical properties of behavior

0:03:13.180,0:03:15.900
in order to make complex decisions

0:03:15.900,0:03:17.423
regarding other people's character.

0:03:17.423,0:03:18.461
It needs to decide

0:03:18.461,0:03:20.642
is this person's behavior typical

0:03:20.642,0:03:22.483
or is it out of the ordinary?

0:03:22.483,0:03:23.309
In the situation

0:03:23.309,0:03:26.312
with the obnoxious-football-fan-turned-good-samaritan,

0:03:26.312,0:03:27.479
your brain says,

0:03:27.479,0:03:28.649
"Well, in my experience,

0:03:28.649,0:03:31.782
pretty much anyone would lend someone their umbrella,

0:03:31.782,0:03:34.452
but the way this guy acted at the football game,

0:03:34.452,0:03:36.297
that was unusual."

0:03:36.297,0:03:39.247
And so, you decide to go with your first impression.

0:03:39.247,0:03:40.985
There's a good moral in this data:

0:03:40.985,0:03:43.412
your brain, and by extension you,

0:03:43.412,0:03:44.794
might care more about

0:03:44.794,0:03:46.548
the very negative, immoral things

0:03:46.548,0:03:47.792
another person has done

0:03:47.792,0:03:50.665
compared to the very positive, moral things,

0:03:50.665,0:03:52.194
but it's a direct result

0:03:52.194,0:03:55.693
of the comparative rarity of those bad behaviors.

0:03:55.693,0:03:58.329
We're more used to people being basically good,

0:03:58.329,0:04:00.671
like taking time to help a stranger in need.

0:04:00.671,0:04:04.200
In this context, bad might be stronger than good,

0:04:04.200,0:04:06.803
but only because good is more plentiful.

0:04:06.803,0:04:08.828
Think about the last time you judged someone

0:04:08.828,0:04:10.135
based on their behavior,

0:04:10.135,0:04:11.843
especially a time when you really feel

0:04:11.843,0:04:14.270
like you changed your mind about someone.

0:04:14.270,0:04:15.720
Was the behavior that caused you

0:04:15.720,0:04:16.899
to update your impression

0:04:16.899,0:04:19.203
something you'd expect anyone to do,

0:04:19.203,0:04:22.398
or was it something totally out of the ordinary?