Talk:First impression (psychology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LukeMarkham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Student edits to begin
Greta Munger (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

First Impression (Psychology)	 ''In psychology, a first impression is the event when one person first encounters another person and forms a mental image of that person. It can sometimes form an accurate representation of the person, depending on the observer and the person being observed.[1]''

- Smith, Eliot R., and Diane M. Mackie. "Social Psychology." : Third Edition by Eliot R. Smith and Diane M. Mackie. Psychology Press, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. (http://psypress.co.uk/smithandmackie/resources/topic.asp?topic=ch03-tp-01)

Gives a general overview of first impressions and links to studies.

Precursors

PROVIDE MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTEXT! P&P is nice, but make it relevant to psychology as a science. Describe how research started in this area then describe how it offshoots into dating, friendship, jobs, etc.

''The phrase "first impressions" comes directly from the terminology of sentimental literature...where "first impressions" exhibit the strength and truth of the heart's immediate and intuitive response'.[2] Pride and Prejudice has been seen as a 'glancing blow aimed at the conventions of the sentimental novel'[3] - at the "prejudices" inherent in the casual adoption of first impressions. As 'a novel in which the adage "first impressions are lasting impressions" proves a test rather than a truth', it charts the movement 'from first impressions and prejudice, to reflections and revisions'.[4] ''

'''Social processing '''

ACCURACY SUBSECTION

'First impressions are lasting impressions', and although sometimes misleading, 'research shows that in many situations, our impressions of other people can be quite accurate'.[5] Only in more serious situations is 'going beyond first impressions to seek greater accuracy in person perception sometimes important'.[6]

Bhargave, R., & Montgomery, N. V. (2013). The social context of temporal sequences:Why first impressions shape shared experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 501-517. doi:10.1086/671053

Our first impressions are affected by whether we are alone or with any number of people. This study found that joint experiences are more globally processed, as in collectivist cultures. Global processing emphasizes first impressions more. Solo experiences tend to yield more local processing, which lends itself to a more critical look at the target. Thus, individuals are more likely to have negative first impressions. At the same time, individuals are more likely to experience an upward trend over the course of a series of impressions, e.g. will like the final episode of a TV season more than the first even if it’s really the same quality.

Biesanz, J. C., Human, L. J., Paquin, A., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J., & Gillis, R. L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 452-459. doi:10.1177/1948550610397211

How accurate are our impressions? Participants who reported forming more accurate impressions of specific targets actually did have more accurate perceptions of specific targets that aligned with others’ reports of the target.

- Carlson E, Furr R, Vazire S. Do we know the first impressions we make? Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first impressions. Social Psychological And Personality Science [serial online]. January 2010;1(1):94-98. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 13, 2014.

People know which traits are characteristic of themselves (idiographic meta accuracy) and are fairly accurate about first impressions they will have on others. People think that others will view them as they view themselves.

- Zebrowitz, L. A., Franklin, R. r., Hillman, S., & Boc, H. (2013). Older and younger adults' first impressions from faces: Similar in agreement but different in positivity. Psychology And Aging, 28(1), 202-212. doi:10.1037/a0030927

Comparing older and younger adult’s impressions of unfamiliar faces for competency, health, untrustworthiness, aggressiveness, and hostility. Older adults judged target photos as healthier, more trustworthy, less hostile, but more aggressive than younger adults. Older adults could have a lower response to negative cues due to a slower processing speed.

CROSS CULTURAL

Fang, X., & Rajkumar, T. M. (2013). The Role of National Culture and Multimedia on First Impression Bias Reduction: An Experimental Study in US and China. IEEE Transactions On Professional Communication, 56(4), 354-371. doi:10.1109/TPC.2013.2251503

National culture influenced first impression formation more than media influence in a study of US and Chinese students. Text outperformed multimedia in its ability to reduce bias in this study, in contrast to Lim et al. (2000) and Media Richness Theory. Collectivism versus individualism plays a role as collectivists are at ease as long as their impressions are largely in alignment with the larger group’s impressions. Thus, when they want to change their impression, they may be compelled to change the views of all group members. The fact that collectivists tend to be less confrontational makes this task more challenging. Individualists are willing change their own views at will and are generally more comfortable with uncertainty, which makes them naturally more willing to change their impressions.

Kim, P., & Lee, J. (2012). The influence of collectivism and rater error on organizational citizenship and impression management behaviors. Social Behavior And Personality, 40(4), 545-556. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.545

Collectivists and individualists did not differ significantly in their impression management behavior. This point is interesting to consider in light of the differences in impression formation discussed in Bhargave & Montgomery (2013) and Fang & Rajkumar (2013).

- Deprez-Sims, A., & Morris, S. B. (2010). Accents in the workplace: Their effects during a job interview. International Journal Of Psychology, 45(6), 417-426. doi:10.1080/00207594.2010.499950

When hypothetically interviewing an applicant with a Midwestern US accent, Colombian accent, or French accent, participants evaluated the people with the US and Colombian accent as more positive than the person with the French accent. First impressions could be heavily influenced by a similarity-attraction hypothesis→others are immediately put into “similar or dissimilar” categories from the viewer.

- Zebrowitz, L. A., Wang, R., Bronstad, P., Eisenberg, D., Undurraga, E., Reyes-García, V., & Godoy, R. (2012). First impressions from faces among U.S. and culturally isolated Tsimane’ people in the Bolivian rainforest. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 119-134. doi:10.1177/0022022111411386

Within-culture agreement was found in impressions of attractiveness, babyfaceness, and several character traits when comparing Americans and a Bolivian tribe. There was some between-culture agreement for physical characteristics, especially for the Bolivian faces and strong cross-cultural similarities when rating different character traits. Both cultures show a strong attractiveness halo when forming impressions.

'''CULTURAL APPLICATIONS

'''PHYSICAL APPEARANCE  McDermott, L. and Pettijohn, T. (2011). The influence of clothing fashion and race on the perceived socioeconomic status and person perception of college students. Psychology & Society, 4, 64-75.

This study showed participants African American and Caucasian female models wearing either a K-Mart, Abercrombie & Fitch, or non-logoed sweatshirt. Caucasian models were rated more favorably than the African American models. AF wearers were rated as higher SES than the other sweaters. Interestingly, participants wanted to be friends with the Caucasian model most when she was wearing a plain sweatshirt and the African American model most when she was wearing either the plain or K-Mart sweatshirt.

Wood, J. (2014). The Power of a First Impression. Psych Central. Retrieved on April 17, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/02/15/the-power-of-a-first-impression/65944.html

Wood describes a study by Rule that supports the idea that support Sritharan et al.’s (2010) finding that the more time participants are allowed to make some judgement about a person, the more they will weigh information beyond physical appearance. Specific manipulations include identifying men as gay versus straight and people as trustworthy or not. Wood also reports on a different study by Biesanz that suggests that impression accuracy in a speed dating task is not significantly different if a person is presented in person versus in a video, but that the video impressions tend to be much more negative. An additional study that looked at characterization of a romantic partner suggested that people are more likely to rely on “gut reactions” when meeting in person, but there isn’t sufficient information for this kind of evaluation when viewing someone online. This ties to the Woolley et al. (2013) study which contends that intuition is aided by strong feedback and emotional feeling. The final study in the Wood article suggests that people do form accurate ideas of how they feel about a person based purely on photographs. Participants’ opinions of people in photographs remained the same after interacting with that person a month later. This is an interesting study to think about along with the Wood, T. J. (2013) article that questions how stable our impressions really are.

- Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1661-1671. doi:10.1177/0146167209346309

These authors found that physical appearance gives us clear clues as to a person’s personality without them ever having to open their mouth or make a movement. Participants viewed pictures of targets in a neutral position and then in a posed position however the target liked. Observers were accurate at judging the target’s levels of extraversion, emotional stability, openness, self-esteem, and religiosity. - Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315-324. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.002

We rely too much on appearance cues sometimes over actual information. People are bad at ignoring physical appearance when making judgments about others personalities and capabilities, even when they know information contrary to their initial judgement.

- Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777-1782. doi:10.1177/0956797610388048

The “beautiful is good” effect is a very present phenomenon when dealing with first impressions of others. This study found that subjects who were attractive were rated more positively and as possessing more unique characteristics than those who were unattractive. However, beauty was also found to be somewhat subjective so that even targets who were not universally attractive received the benefit of this effect if the participant was attracted to them.

- Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (1991). The role of cosmetics in impression formation. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 10(1), 63-67. doi:10.1177/0887302X9101000109

This study specifically looks at the effects of cosmetics on how women form impressions of other women. Three different levels of cosmetics were applied to a model--heavy, moderate, or none and then participants rated perceived attractiveness, femininity, personal temperament, personality, and morality. The model wearing heavy makeup was rated as significantly more feminine than the other two conditions and heavy and moderate makeup was seen as significantly more attractive than the no makeup condition. The model wearing no makeup was seen as more moral than the other two. There was no significant difference between conditions for personality and personal temperament ratings. These findings support the theory that cosmetics are an important cue for forming impressions about women.

- Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623-1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589

We judge competence based on extremely brief exposures to a person’s face. These authors found that perceived competence levels can predict voting results for elections in the US.

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS: DATING, BUSINESS CONTEXTS

Lim, K. H., Benbasat, I., & Ward, L. M. (2000). The role of multimedia in changing first impression bias. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 115-136. doi:10.1287/isre.11.2.115.11776

Participants’ evaluations of a target were significantly more negative when presented with text information with biased cue as opposed to just text. However, when participants viewed information about the person in multimedia form, the biased cue group was not significantly different without biased cue group. Results suggest that multimedia presentations, but not text-based presentations, reduce the influence of first impression bias. These findings are not supported by Fang & Rajkumar (2013), who found that bias was reduced more when participants were presented with information about the target in multimedia form.

Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J., & Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1062-1077. doi:10.1002/ejsp.703

Participants evaluated online dating profiles primarily on facial attractiveness and perceived ambition. Spontaneous evaluations relied on physical attractiveness almost exclusively, whereas deliberate evaluations weighed both types of information. The consistency found in profiles seemed to particularly influence deliberate evaluations.

Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the 'real world': Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 573-576. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.009

This study found that “perceivers used analogous criteria in forming impressions.” Those who were socially expressive and disclosed a lot about themselves on both their webpages and in person were liked. Social expressivity includes liveliness in voice, smiling, etc.

Goman, C. (2011, February 13). Seven Seconds to Make a First Impression. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2011/02/13/seven-seconds-to-make-a-first-impression/

Goman emphasizes the importance of non-verbal behaviors when forming first impressions when meeting a business acquaintance. Specifically, she provides emphasizes the importance of components that Weisbuch et al. (2009) describes as “social expressivity,” such as attitude, smiling, eyebrow position, and making eye contact. She also lists straightening one’s posture and leaning in slightly along with a good handshake as ways to make a good impression in a business context.

- Ding, J. C., & Rule, N. O. (2012). Gay, straight, or somewhere in between: Accuracy and bias in the perception of bisexual faces. Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(2), 165-176. doi:10.1007/s10919-011-0129-y

Upon seeing photographs of straight, gay, and bisexual targets, participants correctly identified gay versus straight males and females at above-chance levels (based solely on seeing a picture of their face!), but only identified bisexual people at chance. Participants found bisexual targets to be no different from gay targets in this study→we think of sexual orientation as a dichotomy.

- Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56(7-8), 483-494. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3

Impression management tactics are when individuals try and control the impression that other will have of them. This study found that in the corporate world, men and women use impression management tactics consistent with stereotypical gender roles. This is not normally advantageous to women who try and portray themselves as more submissive. However, women who tried to portray male tactics (such as being more aggressive) received negative backlash for violating normative gender roles.

-Rowh, Mark. (2012, November) First Impressions Count. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/11/first-impressions.aspx

This article gives tips for people going into job interviews backed up by scientific research.

MEDICAL

Wood, T. J. (2013). Exploring the role of first impressions in rater-based assessments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9453-9

First impressions are related to subsequent scores, but it’s unclear why. One potential reason is because our first impressions could serve as a guide for next steps, such as what questions are asked and how raters go about scoring. More research needs to be done on the stability of first impressions to fully understand how first impressions guide subsequent treatment, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the halo effect. How we create assessment tools can influence impressions too, ex. does an item ask for a dichotomous check/no check or a rating on a scale?

Woolley, A., & Kostopoulou, O. (2013). Clinical intuition in family medicine: More than first impressions. Annals Of Family Medicine, 11, 60-66. doi:10.1370/afm.1433

The quality of feedback relates directly to the quality of intuition in the medical context. Also, emotion plays a role as learning is stronger when the viewer is more emotionally engaged. “Judging intuitively is an emotional process whereby the judgement is felt”

SPEED SUBCATEGORY

''It takes just one-tenth of a second for us to judge someone and make our first impression, with confidence in impression formation increasing with increasing time taken to form the impression.[7] ''

Wargo, E. (2006). How many seconds to a first impression? The Observer, 19. Retrieved on April 17, 2014, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/july-06/how-many-seconds-to-a-first-impression.html

Wargo recounts a study conducted by Willis and Todorov that tested brief impressions versus unconstrained time impressions for five different traits. Both types of judgments were highly correlated. Participants tended to respond just as quickly if not more quickly after catching a brief glimpse of the face versus a longer exposure; however, confidence ratings were better following the longer exposure. Correlations among different traits in each target varied more when participants saw the face for a longer period. Trustworthiness and attractiveness were the assessed most quickly. Willis and Todorov suggest that these two traits are critical to survival, so it makes sense that they would be most quickly and also accurately evaluated.

NEUROSCIENCE

''Brain circuitry allows a bypassing of the neo-cortex by way of the so-called amygdala hijack: 'this smaller and shorter pathway allows the amygdala to receive some direct inputs from the senses and start a response before they are fully registered by the neo-cortex'.[8]

Research has shown that 'in the first few milliseconds of our perceiving something we not only unconsciously comprehend what it is, but decide whether we like it or not: the "cognitive unconscious"'.[9] '' Gilron, R., & Gutchess, A. H. (2012). Remembering first impressions: Effects of intentionality and diagnosticity on subsequent memory. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(1), 85-98. doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0074-6

Encoding of first impressions relies on the dmPFC, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, only when a viewer is being intentional about forming that impression. Processing of diagnostic (specific to species? Need more clarity on this definition) information was better with the dmPFC compared to neutral information.

Iidaka, T., Harada, T., Sadato, N. Forming a negative impression of another person correlates with activation in medial prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience [serial online]. Sept. 2011;6:516-525. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 16, 2014.

This study examined how negative impressions are made by manipulating the emotion displayed on a target’s face, either negative or neutral. Participants generally formed more negative impressions of the faces that showed the negative emotion. Results suggest that the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), the dorsal anterior cingulate, and amygdala together play a large role in negative impression formation. This could support

Schiller, D., Freeman, J. B., Mitchell, J. P., Uleman, J. S., & Phelps, E. A. (2009). A neural mechanism of first impressions. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 508-514. doi:10.1038/nn.2278

This article further informs on the neural mechanism that underlies first impression formation. Schiller et al. (2009) suggest that people are efficient evaluators, though those evaluations are based on existing biases. They found that PCC, amygdala, and the thalamus served as the sorters of relevant versus irrelevant information when it came time to evaluate. This study provides additional support for the idea that the dmPFC seems particularly involved with person-descriptive information when forming first impressions.

Walter, M., Matthiä, C., Wiebking, C., Rotte, M., Tempelmann, C., Bogerts, B., Heinze, H.-J. and Northoff, G. (2009), Preceding attention and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex: Process specificity versus domain dependence. Hum. Brain Mapp., 30: 312–326. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20506

“The dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) has been shown to be involved in attending different states, all including a strong emotional component. It remains unclear, though, whether neural activity in the dmPFC is predominantly determined by either a particular domain, as emotional stimuli, or by a specific process, as attention.” This study can help bridge the gap between some of the neuroscience and non-neuroscience articles as it talks about the possible role of the dmFPC when emotion and attention are manipulated.

- Rule, N. O., Freeman, J. B., Moran, J. M., Gabrieli, J. E., Adams, R. r., & Ambady, N. (2010). Voting behavior is reflected in amygdala response across cultures. Social Cognitive And Affective Neuroscience, 5(2-3), 349-355. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp046

American and Japanese participants performed in a mock election with both American and Japanese candidates while being measured using an fMRI. For both cultures, participants voted for the candidate that elicited a stronger response in their bilateral amygdala than those who did not, regardless of the candidate’s culture. Participants showed a stronger response to cultural outgroup faces than ingroup faces but this finding was unrelated to voting decisions.

- Vrtička, P., Andersson, F., Sander, D., & Vuilleumier, P. (2009). Memory for friends or foes: The social context of past encounters with faces modulates their subsequent neural traces in the brain. Social Neuroscience, 4(5), 384-401. doi:10.1080/17470910902941793

These authors exposed participants to 16 unfamiliar faces and identified them as either “friends” or “foes.” fMRIs were administered while participants engaged in an old and new memory task to look at differences in the brain when viewing familiar and unfamiliar faces. Even though pictures of the original “friends” and “foes” were encoded with smiling or angry expressions, they were presented in a neutral state during the later memory task. Results showed that several different parts of the brain are activated when dealing with face recognition including the fusiform cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus, and amygdala. Additionally, the caudate and anterior cingulate cortex were more activated when looking at faces of “foes” versus “friends.” This research suggests that quick first impressions of hostility or support from unknown people can lead to long-term effects on memory that will later be associated with that person.

Sarahay (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Sarah Caqueen (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Caroline queen

Greta Munger (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent plan, and the sections look good. Keep each sub-heading as independent as you can (don't assume folks will read in order).  One reference to fix:  the Forbes blog by Carol Kinsey Goman; her actual books would be better (popularization by scientists), listed here  http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/
 * Organization: remember that people hop around in reading Wikipedia articles, so make each little section as independent as you can
 * Methods: what kind of research supports these theories?  Some sections will need more method details than others, helpful to keep in mind these descriptions: 3 research methods (experiments vs correlation vs descriptive); 2 data-collection (self-report vs observation); 2 research settings (lab vs field)
 * Figures and tables: be thoughtful.  Wikicommons has lots of pictures that might be useful.  You cannot copy directly from journal articles (copyright violation), but you can recreate a figure and then donate it yourself.

This looks great Sarah. It is already very organized and that will make it much easier to edit the Wikipedia article when you start. To start off with your social processing, it is very interesting to find that over the series of impressions we think more positively of the person. I think the second experiment is a lot more of what you are looking for with this topic because everyone knows we make first impressions, but how accurate are those impressions is what I would want to know. Another great article is your third one under this heading about our view of our own characteristics, I think it is nice to add both perspectives to this topic.

Cross cultural is another great sub-heading as it is interesting to see how first impressions change in different areas. I think the more variety you have in cultural comparisons the better, but you have a good amount of variance with Chinese, Colombian, French, and Bolivia cultures being compared to American. I was about to say it would be another interesting sub-heading if you had business context, but now I am seeing that you did that too! Good job Sarah. I think it is interesting how two of your articles contradict each other. Naumann and company found that "physical appearance gives us clear cues as to a person's personality," while Olivola and Todorov found that "people are bad at ignoring physical appearance when making judgments about others personalities and capabilities, even when they know information contrary to their judgment." These articles seem to contradict, so you should think about how to place them in your revision of the topic. Looking over your other topics I can see you tried to cover a variety of different areas where first impressions can be studied and how they be affected, such as appearance, dating, business, and briefness. I think that is very good to try and cover so many different topics under your main focus. Also, all the studies look great. Finding studies that look at neurological reasons behind first impressions is another great way at finding data that looks at physiological responses rather than possible subjective responses to surveys and interviews.

Overall Sarah, the wide range of categories is amazing. I really think you did a great job touching on first impressions in every way and will do a good job on revising the article. Some experiments may contradict each other, not entirely sure since I don't have the actual experiment in front of me, so watch out for how you put those in. You don't want to put contradictory articles in and not address them. I agree with one of Dr. Munger's comments upon reflection, what rating scale are people using for first impressions and accuracy? If they all use different scales then is there a study that maybe analyzes the effectiveness of the different scales? I think that will certainly have an impact on which studies have more validity. I think you are gonna do well and I see the editing process being swift and painless. Keep up the good work!

Taylor Haynes (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow guys this is incredibly detailed!! Good job. I like the breadth of the areas of research, ie neuroscience and cross-cultural, etc. That is really impressive and will give the reader a ton of information. I wonder what you are planning for what is currently written about your topic? The section called 'precursors' with the pride and prejudice example seems irrelevant to psychology. I also noticed that all the sections have a lot of quoted information. I think it would be good for you guys to edit those so that they do not include so many quotes. Also, a few pictures and/or graphs would be awesome for some of your more complicated results/stimuli. Really great work!!

Lizziestew (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Lizziestew . We are also fairly reliable at understanding the first impression that they will project to others (Carlson).

Number of observers
Our first impressions are affected by whether we are alone or with any number of people. Joint experiences are more globally processed, as in collectivist cultures. Global processing emphasizes first impressions more. Solo experiences tend to facilitate local processing, causes the viewer to take a more critical look at the target. Thus, individuals are more likely to have negative first impressions than groups of two or more viewers of the same target. At the same time, individuals are more likely to experience an upward trend over the course of a series of impressions, e.g. individual viewers will like the final episode of a TV season more than the first even if it’s really the same quality. When viewing pieces of art in an experiment, participants in a solo context tended to rate art in an improving sequence significantly higher than when the targets are presented in a declining sequence (Bhargave and Montgomery, 2013). When viewing the art in a joint context, participants tended to evaluate the first and last pieces similarly in both kinds of sequence. Simply priming viewers to either solo or joint contexts or to analytic or holistic processing was enough to produce the same viewing effects (Bhargave and Montgomery, 2013).

Cultural influences
Similar to the number of viewers present, collectivism versus individualism can influence impression formation. Collectivists are at ease as long as their impressions are largely in alignment with the larger group’s impressions. When a collectivist wants to change his/her impression, they may be compelled to change the views of all group members. However, this could be challenging for collectivists, who tend to be less confrontational than individualists. Individualists are willing change their own views at will and are generally more comfortable with uncertainty, which makes them naturally more willing to change their impressions. Research is mixed on whether media richness viewer bias or not based on national culture. Some studies have found that information presented in text form yields more uniform impressions among cultures (Fang and Rajkumar, 2013), while other studies support Media Richness Theory and context that richer forms of information reduce cross-cultural bias more effectively (Lim, 2000). Accents and unique speech patterns can have a great influence on how people are categorized upon first hearing someone speak (Deprez-Sims). An accent may quickly activate stereotypes based on geographical location, ethnic group, or socioeconomic status (Deprez-Sims). For example, when hypothetically interviewing an applicant with a Midwestern U.S. accent, Colombian accent, or French accent, participants evaluated the U.S. or Colombian accent as more positive than the applicant with the French accent due to perceived similarity to themselves (Deprez-Sims). First impressions could be heavily influenced by a similarity-attraction hypothesis where others are immediately put into “similar’ or “dissimilar” categories from the viewer and judged accordingly (Deprez-Sims).

Although populations from different cultures can be quick to view others as dissimilar, there are several first impression characteristics that are universal across cultures (Zebrowitz, 2012). When comparing trait impressions of faces among U.S. and the culturally isolated Tsimane’ people of Bolivia, there was between-culture agreement when ascribing certain physical features to descriptive traits such as attractiveness, intelligence, health, and warmth (Zebrowitz, 2012). Both cultures also show a strong attractiveness halo when forming impressions, meaning that those seen as attractive were also rated as more competent, sociable, intelligent, and healthy (Zebrowitz, 2012).

Physical appearance
Faces and features

Physical appearance gives us clear clues as to a person’s personality without them ever having to open their mouth or make a movement (Naumann, Workman, Ding). After viewing pictures of targets in a neutral position and in a self-chosen posed position, observers were accurate at judging the target’s levels of extraversion, emotional stability, openness, self-esteem, and religiosity (Naumann). The combined impression of physical characteristics, body posture, facial expression, and clothing choices let observers form genuine images of a target’s personality (Naumann) However, there is some conflicting data in this field. Other evidence suggests that we sometimes rely too much on appearance cues over actual information (Olivola, Todorov). Even when provided with descriptive information about a target, participants are bad at ignoring physical appearance cues when making judgments about other’s personalities and capabilities, even when they know information contrary to their initial judgement (Olivola). We also use physical cues to make judgements about political candidates based on extremely brief exposures to their pictures (Todorov). Perceived competence level of a candidate measured from first impressions of facial features directly predicted voting results (Todorov).

While people may be good at assessing personality traits of others within their own age bracket, there appears to be a difference in first impression judgements between older and younger adults (Zebrowitz 2013). Older adults judged young adult target photos as healthier, more trustworthy, and less hostile, but more aggressive, than younger adults did of the same photos (Zebrowitz 2013). Older adults could have a lower response to negative cues due to a slower processing speed, causing them to see facial features on young adults as more positive than younger adults do (Zebrowitz 2013). Brief impressions versus unconstrained time impressions were highly correlated in a study of human faces, though more time to process a target tends to gives viewers greater confidence in their impressions (Willis and Todorov, 2006). Trustworthiness and attractiveness were the two traits most quickly detected and evaluated in a study of human faces (Willis and Todorov, 2006). The rate at which different qualities are detected in first impressions may be linked to what has been important to survival from an evolutionary perspective.

The “beautiful is good” effect is a very present phenomenon when dealing with first impressions of others. Subjects who are attractive are rated more positively and as possessing more unique characteristics than those who are unattractive (Lorenzo). Beauty is also found to be somewhat subjective so that even targets who are not universally attractive can receive the benefit of this effect if the observer is attracted to them (Lorenzo).

Apparel and cosmetics

Cosmetic use is also an important cue for forming impressions about women. Those wearing heavy makeup are seen as significantly more feminine than those wearing moderate makeup or no makeup and those wearing heavy or moderate makeup are seen as more attractive than those wearing no makeup (Workman). While a woman wearing no makeup is perceived as being more moral than the other two conditions, there is no difference between conditions when judging personality or personal temperament (Workman).

First impression formation can be influenced by the use of cognitive short hands such as stereotypes and representative heuristics. When asked to rate the socioeconomic status (SES) and degree of interest in friendship with African American and Caucasian female models wearing either a K-Mart, Abercrombie & Fitch, or non-logoed sweatshirt, Caucasian models were rated more favorably than the African American models (McDermott and Pettijohn, 2011). Abercrombie & Fitch wearers were rated as higher SES than the other sweatshirts. Interestingly, participants wanted to be friends with the Caucasian model most when she was wearing a plain sweatshirt and the African American model most when she was wearing either the plain or K-Mart sweatshirt (McDermott and Pettijohn, 2011).

Specific Contexts
Online Participants in a study by Sritharan, Heilpern, Wilbur, and Gawronski (2010) evaluated online dating profiles primarily on facial attractiveness and perceived ambition. Spontaneous evaluations relied on physical attractiveness almost exclusively, whereas deliberate evaluations weighed both types of information. The consistency found in profiles seemed to particularly influence deliberate evaluations. Weisbuch, Ivcevic, and Ambady (2009) found that “perceivers used analogous criteria in forming impressions.” Those who were socially expressive and disclosed a lot about themselves on both their webpages and in person were liked. Social expressivity includes liveliness in voice, smiling, etc. Dating and Sexuality

Upon seeing photographs of straight, gay, and bisexual targets, participants correctly identified gay versus straight males and females at above-chance levels based solely on seeing a picture of their face (Ding). However, bisexual targets were only identified at chance (Ding). This data points to a dichotomous model of thought where people find bisexual targets to be no different from gay targets (Ding).

The more time participants are allowed to make some judgment about a person, the more they will weigh information beyond physical appearance. Specific manipulations include identifying men as gay versus straight (Rule et al., 2008) and people as trustworthy or not  Willis and Todorov, 2006). In a study of the interaction between ratings of people in speed dating and the form of media used to present them, impression accuracy in a speed dating task is not significantly different if a person is presented in person versus in a video, but that the video impressions tend to be much more negative. An additional study that looked at characterization of a romantic partner suggested that people are more likely to rely on “gut reactions” when meeting in person, but there isn’t sufficient information for this kind of evaluation when viewing someone online.

Professional Non-verbal behaviors are particularly important to forming first impressions when meeting a business acquaintance (Gorman). Specifically, components of social expressivity, such as attitude, smiling, eyebrow position, and making eye contact are emphasized (Gorman; Weisbuch et al., 2009). Straightening one’s posture and leaning in slightly along with a good handshake are promote favorable impression formation in the American business context (Gorman). Other impression management tactics when in the business world include researching the person or organization you are going to interview with beforehand to prepare specific informed questions and practicing responses, showing confidence, and dressing appropriately (Rowh). A qualitative review of previous literature looking at self-report data suggests that men and women use impression management [hyperlink] tactics in the corporate world that are consistent with stereotypical gender roles when presenting themselves to others (Guadagno). This research proposes that women are put in a double bind where those who portray themselves as more communal and submissive are overlooked for leadership positions and women who try to utilize male tactics (such as being more aggressive) receive negative consequences for violating normative gender roles (Guadagno). To change this dynamic the authors suggest that managerial positions should be re-advertised to highlight the feminine qualities needed for a position and staff training should involve a segment accentuating gender issues in the office to make everyone aware of possible discrimination (Guadagno). Data collected from interviews with physicians distinguishes between first impressions and intuition and contributes to our understanding the conception of gut feelings in the medical field (Woolley and Kostopoulou, 2013). Gut feelings go beyond first impressions as physicians expressed feeling doubtful about their initial impressions as more data was collected from the patient. More experienced physicians reported more instances of gut feelings than those less experienced, but the quality of the intuition was related to the quality of feedback received during the data collection process in general. Woolley and Kostopoulou also noted that emotional engagement enhanced learning.

Neuroscience
First impressions are formed within milliseconds of seeing a target. When intentionally forming a first impression, encoding relies on the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) [hyperlink] (Gilron and Gutchess, 2012). Readings from fMRIs [hyperlink] of research participants show that processing of diagnostic information, which relates to trait impressions, engaged the dmPFC more than processing neutral information (Gilron and Gutchess). Participants generally formed more negative impressions of the faces that showed the negative emotion when emotion displayed on a target’s face was manipulated to either negative or neutral (Iidaka, Harada, and Sadato, 2011). Results suggest that the dmPFC, the dorsal anterior cingulate [hyperlink], and amygdala[hyperlink] together play a large role in negative impression formation. When forming immediate impressions based on emotion, the stimulus can bypass the neo-cortex [hyperlink] by way of the “amygdala hijack.”

Familiarity
Similarly, participants exposed to photos of unfamiliar faces identified as either “friends” or “foes” coded with smiling or angry expressions were later asked to engage in a memory task to identify the neutral expression of either a familiar or unfamiliar person (Vrtička). FMRI results showed activation of the fusiform cortex [hyperlink], posterior cingulate gyrus [hyperlink], and amygdala during this process (Vrtička). Additionally, the caudate [hyperlink] and anterior cingulate cortex [hyperlink]were more activated when looking at faces of “foes” versus “friends (Vrtička).” This research suggests that quick first impressions of hostility or support from unknown people can lead to long-term effects on memory that will later be associated with that person (Vrtička). People are efficient evaluators when forming impressions based on existing biases (Schiller, Freeman, Mitchell, Uleman, and Phelps, 2009). In a study of social information processing, the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) [hyperlink], amygdala, and the thalamus served as the sorters of relevant versus irrelevant information when it came time to evaluate. The dmPFC seems particularly involved with person-descriptive information when forming first impressions (Schiller, Freeman, Mitchell, Uleman, and Phelps, 2009).

Drugs and Behavior
Alcohol consumption and belief of consumption influenced emotion detection in ten second clips . Participants who thought they had consumed an alcoholic beverage tended to one facial expression (approximately 3% of the facial expressions they saw) more in each clip as happy. Thus, impression formation may be affected by even the perception of alcohol consumption and perhaps other substances too.

Cross-cultural Differences
There appear to even be cross-cultural similarities in brain responses to first impression formation. American and Japanese participants performed in a mock election with both American and Japanese candidates while being measured using an fMRI (Rule). For both cultures, participants voted for the candidate that elicited a stronger response in their bilateral amygdala than those who did not, regardless of the candidate’s culture (Rule). Participants showed a stronger response to cultural outgroup faces than ingroup faces but this finding was unrelated to voting decisions (Rule).

Stability of First Impressions
Once formed, our impressions tend to be stable. A review of the literature on the accuracy and impact of first impressions on rater-based assessments found that raters’ first impressions are related to subsequent scores, but it is unclear exactly why . One study tested stability by asking participants to form impressions people based purely on photographs. Participants’ opinions of the people in photographs did not significantly differ after interacting with that person a month later. One potential reason for this stability is that our first impressions could serve as a guide for next steps, such as what questions are asked and how raters go about scoring. More research needs to be done on the stability of first impressions to fully understand how first impressions guide subsequent treatment, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the halo effect. How we create assessment tools can influence impressions too, ex. if a question provides only a dichotomous “yes” or “no” response or can a rater use a scale? Although this study was conducted with the intention of improving rating methods in medical education, the literature review was sufficiently broad to generalize.

Error in wording, or clarity needed?
I'm having issues understanding this excerpt from the article:


 * Upon seeing photographs of straight, gay, and bisexual people, participants correctly identified gay versus straight males and females at above-chance levels based solely on seeing a picture of their face, however, bisexual targets were only identified at chance.[6] The data suggest that people do not differentiate between bisexual targets and gay targets, but do perceive a difference between straight targets and those who identify as either bisexual or gay.

Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong, but on first glance, it seems like either there is some essential information missing, or the second sentence directly contradicts the first. If anything, wouldn't it be that bisexual targets, being only identified at chance levels, are indistinguishable from either straight or gay targets?

What I am guessing (but not certain) the latter sentence is trying to say is that people were more likely to label a bisexual person as "gay" than "straight", but there seems to be an information gap here that is a little misleading. Could it be elaborated a little by someone with easy access to the sourced journal article, so that the average person can easily get their head around these implications of the study? Thanks! --CrunchySkies (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I replaced that second sentence with a sentence from the paper abstract. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

ums template in lead
This is kind of ugly, because it comes at the end of a long list of references, and contains no internal markup as to which source it refers; by implication, the last in line, Psychology Today, seems to be the designated target of "unreliable medical source".

This now seems to be too much of a drive-by flagging to unwind. Unless there's some solid policy about PT, my vote is to remove this flag.

Second choice: given the long list of cites tailing the sentence, just remove the trouble-maker as redundant and be done with it. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two "unreliable medical source" tags in the lead? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)