Should you trust your first impression? - Peter Mende-Siedlecki

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/should-you-trust-your-first-impression-peter-mende-siedlecki

You can't help it; sometimes, you just get a bad feeling about someone that's hard to shake. So, what's happening in your brain when you make that critical (and often lasting) first judgment? Peter Mende-Siedlecki shares the social psychology of first impressions -- and why they may indicate that, deep down, people are basically good.

Lesson by Peter Mende-Siedlecki, animation by TOGETHER.

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 his second encounter,

or do you go with your first impression

and write him off?

Research in social psychology suggests

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

that 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

toward 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 get 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?