First impression (psychology)

Last updated

In psychology, a first impression is the event when one person first encounters another person and forms a mental image of that person. Impression accuracy varies depending on the observer and the target (person, object, scene, etc.) being observed. [1] [2] [ unreliable medical source? ] First impressions are based on a wide range of characteristics: age, race, culture, language, gender, physical appearance, accent, posture, voice, number of people present, economic status, and time allowed to process. [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [ unreliable medical source? ] The first impressions individuals give to others could greatly influence how they are treated and viewed in many contexts of everyday life. [9] [10]

Contents

Speed and accuracy

It takes just one-tenth of a second for people to judge someone and make a first impression. [11] Research finds that the more time participants are afforded to form the impression, the more confidence in impressions they report. [11] [12] Not only are people quick to form first impressions, they are also fairly accurate when the target presents themself genuinely. People are generally not good at perceiving feigned emotions or detecting lies upon a first encounter. [2] Research participants who reported forming accurate impressions of specific targets did tend to have more accurate perceptions of specific targets that aligned with others' reports of the target. [4] Individuals are also fairly reliable at understanding the first impression that they will project to others. [13] However, people are not as good at understanding how well other people like them, and most people tend to underestimate how much other people like them. [14] [15] This phenomenon is called the liking gap. [16] [17]

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. [11] For example, trustworthiness and attractiveness were the two traits most quickly detected and evaluated in a study of human faces. [11] [12] People are fairly good at assessing personality traits of others in general, but there appears to be a difference in first impression judgments between older and younger adults. 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. [18] 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. [18]

Number of observers

One's first impressions are affected by whether they're alone or with any number of people. [5] Joint experiences are more globally processed (see global precedence for more on processing), as in collectivist cultures. Global processing emphasizes first impressions more because the collective first impression tends to remain stable over time. Solo experiences tend to facilitate local processing, causing 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 is really the same quality. [5]

When viewing pieces of art in an experiment, participants in a solo context rated art in an improving sequence significantly higher than when the targets are presented in a declining sequence. [5] When viewing the art in a joint context, participants evaluated the first and last pieces similarly in both kinds of sequence. Simply priming viewers to feel like they were in solo or joint contexts or to process analytically or holistically was enough to produce the same viewing effects. [5]

Cultural influences

Individualism versus collectivism

Similar to the number of viewers present, collectivism versus individualism can influence impression formation. [3] 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 their impression, they may be compelled to change the views of all group members. [19] However, this could be challenging for collectivists, who tend to be less confrontational than individualists. Individualists are willing to change their own views at will and are generally more comfortable with uncertainty, which makes them naturally more willing to change their impressions. [19]

Influence of media richness

There is no research regarding if national culture mediates the relationship between media richness and bias in impression formation. Some studies that manipulated media richness have found that information presented in text form yields similar impressions (measured by reported appraisal scores) among cultures, [19] while other studies found that richer forms of information such as videos reduce cross-cultural bias more effectively. [20] The latter findings support Media Richness Theory. [20]

Accents and speech

Accents and unique speech patterns can influence how people are perceived by those to whom they are speaking. For example, when hypothetically interviewing an applicant with a Midwestern U.S. accent, Colombian accent, or French accent, Midwestern U.S. participants evaluated the U.S. accent as significantly more positive than the applicant with the French accent due to perceived similarity to themselves. [21] The evaluation of the applicant with the Colombian accent did not, however, differ significantly from the other two. First impressions can be heavily influenced by a similarity-attraction hypothesis where others are immediately put into "similar" or "dissimilar" categories from the viewer and judged accordingly. [21]

Physical characteristics and personality

Although populations from different cultures can be quick to view others as dissimilar, there are several first impression characteristics that are universal across cultures. [3] 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. [22] 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. [22]

Physical appearance

Faces and features

Physical appearance gives clear clues as to a person's personality without them ever having to speak or move. [3] [6] [7] [23] Women tend to be better than men at judging nonverbal behavior. [3] After viewing pictures of people 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. [7] The combined impression of physical characteristics, body posture, facial expression, and clothing choices lets observers form accurate images of a target's personality, so long as the person observed is presenting themselves genuinely. [7] [2] However, there is some conflicting data in this field. Other evidence suggests that people sometimes rely too much on appearance cues over actual information. [24] [25] When provided with descriptive information about a target, participants still rely on physical appearance cues when making judgments about others' personalities and capabilities. Participants struggle to look past physical appearance cues even when they know information contrary to their initial judgment. [24] Physical cues are also used to make judgments about political candidates based on extremely brief exposures to their pictures. [25] Perceived competence level of a candidate measured from first impressions of facial features can directly predict voting results. [25]

The "beautiful is good" effect is a very present phenomenon when dealing with first impressions of others. [3] Targets who are attractive are rated more positively and as possessing more unique characteristics than those who are unattractive. [26] 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. [26]

In a 2014 study, a group at the University of York reported that people's impressions of the traits of approachability, youthfulness/attractiveness and dominance correlated with facial measurements such as mouth shape and eye size. [27] [28]

Apparel and cosmetics

Cosmetic use is also an important cue for forming impressions, particularly of 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. [23] While a woman wearing no makeup is perceived as being more moral than the other two conditions, there is no difference between experimental conditions when judging personality or personal temperament. [23]

First impression formation can be influenced by the use of cognitive short hands such as stereotypes and representative heuristics. [3] 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. [29] Abercrombie & Fitch wearers were rated as higher SES than the other sweatshirts. 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. It is unclear why the plain sweatshirt was most associated with friendship, but the general results suggest that mismatching class and race reduced the model's friendship appeal. [29]

Specific contexts

Online

Online profiles and communication channels such as email provide fewer cues than in-person interactions, which makes targets more difficult to understand. [3] When research participants were asked to evaluate a person's facial attractiveness and perceived ambition based on an online dating profile, amount of time permitted for processing and reporting an evaluation of the target produced a difference in impression formation. [30] Spontaneous evaluations relied on physical attractiveness almost exclusively, whereas deliberate evaluations weighed both types of information. Although deliberate evaluations used the information provided on both physical attractiveness and ambition of each target, the particular impact of each kind of information appeared to depend on the consistency between the two. A significant effect of attractiveness on deliberate evaluations was found only when perceived ambition was consistent with the perceived level of attractiveness. [30] The consistency found in profiles seemed to particularly influence deliberate evaluations.

In a study of online impressions, participants who were socially expressive and disclosed a lot about themselves both on their webpages and in person were better liked than those who were less open. Social expressivity includes liveliness in voice, smiling, etc. [31]

Dating and sexuality

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. The findings suggest a straight-non straight dichotomy in the categorization of sexual orientation. [6]

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 [32] and people as trustworthy or not. [4] [12] 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 was not significantly different when a potential date was presented in person versus in a video. However, impressions of dates made via video were to be much more negative than those made in person. 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. [33] Specifically, components of social expressivity, such as smiling, eyebrow position, emotional expression, and eye contact are emphasized. [2] [31] [33] Straightening one's posture, leaning in slightly, and giving a firm handshake promotes favorable impression formation in the American business context. [33] Other impression management tactics in the business world include researching the organization and interviewers beforehand, preparing specific questions for the interviewer, showing confidence, and dressing appropriately. [34]

A qualitative review of previous literature looking at self-report data suggests that men and women use impression management tactics in the corporate world that are consistent with stereotypical gender roles when presenting themselves to others. [9] 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. [9] 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. [9]

Data collected from interviews with physicians distinguishes between first impressions and intuition and contributes to understanding the occurrence of gut feelings in the medical field. [35] Gut feelings go beyond first impressions: Physicians expressed feeling doubtful about their initial impressions as they gathered more data from their patients. 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. Emotional engagement enhanced learning just as it does in first impressions. [35]

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). [36] Readings from fMRIs of research participants show that processing of diagnostic information (e.g. distinguishing features) engaged the dmPFC more than processing neutral information. [36]

Participants generally formed more negative impressions of the faces that showed a negative emotion compared to neutral faces. [37] Results suggest that the dmPFC and amygdala together play a large role in negative impression formation. When forming immediate impressions based on emotion, the stimulus can bypass the neo-cortex by way of the "amygdala hijack." [38]

Familiarity

Research indicates that people are efficient evaluators when forming impressions based on existing biases. [39] The posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), amygdala, and the thalamus sort relevant versus irrelevant information according to these biases. The dmPFC is also involved in the impression formation process, especially with person-descriptive information. [39]

FMRI results show activation of the fusiform cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus, and amygdala when individuals are asked to identify previously seen faces that were encoded as either "friends" or "foes." [40] Additionally, the caudate and anterior cingulate cortex are more activated when looking at faces of "foes" versus "friends." [40] 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.

Alcohol and Impressions

Alcohol consumption and belief of consumption influenced emotion detection in ten second clips. [41] Participants who thought they had consumed an alcoholic beverage rated one facial expression (approximately 3% of the facial expressions they saw) more in each clip as happy compared to the control group. Thus, impression formation may be affected by even the perception of alcohol consumption. [41]

Cross-cultural differences

There appears to be cross-cultural similarities in brain responses to first impression formations. In a mock election both American and Japanese individuals voted for the candidate that elicited a stronger response in their bilateral amygdala than those who did not, regardless of the candidate's culture. [42] Individuals also showed a stronger response to cultural outgroup faces than cultural ingroup faces because the amygdala is presumably more sensitive to novel stimuli. [42] However, this finding was unrelated to actual voting decisions. [42]

Stability

Once formed, first 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 highly correlated with later scores, but it is unclear exactly why. [10] 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. [32] One potential reason for this stability is that one's first impressions could serve as a guide for their 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. [3] Assessment tools can influence impressions too, for example if a question provides only a dichotomous "yes" or "no" response or if a rater uses a scale (ratio). Although this study was conducted with the intention of improving rating methods in medical education, the literature review was sufficiently broad enough to generalize. [32]

A study published in 2023 found that while first impressions based on attractiveness are formed quickly and can lead to stereotypical attributions, these impressions are malleable and can change when new information is presented, such as learning a photo was altered. [43] This phenomenon, termed the "halo-update effect," suggests that our initial assessments of someone's personality based on their attractiveness can be revised with updated information.

See also

Related Research Articles

A facial expression is one or more motions or positions of the muscles beneath the skin of the face. According to one set of controversial theories, these movements convey the emotional state of an individual to observers. Facial expressions are a form of nonverbal communication. They are a primary means of conveying social information between humans, but they also occur in most other mammals and some other animal species.

The halo effect is the tendency for positive or negative impressions of a person, company, country, brand, or product in one area to positively or negatively influence one's opinion or feelings. Halo effect is "the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality." The halo effect can be a cognitive bias which can possibly prevent someone from accepting a person, a product or a brand based on the idea of an unfounded belief on what is good or bad. A halo effect may not be a bias if there is a good reason to think attributes are correlated. For instance, if a student has a good grade in one subject it would not be an error to think they are likely to have good grades in other subjects.

The physical attractiveness stereotype is the tendency to assume that people who are physically attractive, based on social beauty standards, also possess other desirable personality traits. Research has shown that those who are physically attractive are viewed as more intelligent, competent, and socially desirable. The target benefits from what has been coined as “pretty privilege”, namely social, economic, and political advantages or benefits. Physical attractiveness can have a significant effect on how people are judged in terms of employment or social opportunities, friendship, sexual behavior, and marriage.

Interpersonal attraction, as a part of social psychology, is the study of the attraction between people which leads to the development of platonic or romantic relationships. It is distinct from perceptions such as physical attractiveness, and involves views of what is and what is not considered beautiful or attractive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Physical attractiveness</span> Aesthetic assessment of physical traits

Physical attractiveness is the degree to which a person's physical features are considered aesthetically pleasing or beautiful. The term often implies sexual attractiveness or desirability, but can also be distinct from either. There are many factors which influence one person's attraction to another, with physical aspects being one of them. Physical attraction itself includes universal perceptions common to all human cultures such as facial symmetry, sociocultural dependent attributes and personal preferences unique to a particular individual.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frown</span> Facial expression

A frown is a facial expression in which the eyebrows are brought together, and the forehead is wrinkled, usually indicating displeasure, sadness or worry, or less often confusion or concentration. The appearance of a frown varies by culture. An alternative usage in North America is thought of as an expression of the mouth. In those cases when used iconically, as with an emoticon, it is entirely presented by the curve of the lips forming a down-open curve. The mouth expression is also commonly referred to in the colloquial English phrase, especially in the United States, to "turn that frown upside down" which indicates changing from sad to happy.

The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

The cross-race effect is the tendency to more easily recognize faces that belong to one's own racial group, or racial groups that one has been in contact with. In social psychology, the cross-race effect is described as the "ingroup advantage," whereas in other fields, the effect can be seen as a specific form of the "ingroup advantage" since it is only applied in interracial or inter-ethnic situations. The cross-race effect is thought to contribute to difficulties in cross-race identification, as well as implicit racial bias.

Ingratiating is a psychological technique in which an individual attempts to influence another person by becoming more likeable to their target. This term was coined by social psychologist Edward E. Jones, who further defined ingratiating as "a class of strategic behaviors illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the attractiveness of one's personal qualities." Ingratiation research has identified some specific tactics of employing ingratiation:

In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities compared to other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative affectivity</span> Personality variable

Negative affectivity (NA), or negative affect, is a personality variable that involves the experience of negative emotions and poor self-concept. Negative affectivity subsumes a variety of negative emotions, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness. Low negative affectivity is characterized by frequent states of calmness and serenity, along with states of confidence, activeness, and great enthusiasm.

Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience. The term refers to the process of making very quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of an individual or situation with minimal amounts of information. Research has found that brief judgments based on thin-slicing are similar to those judgments based on much more information. Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more so, than judgments based on much more information.

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the processes by which different pieces of knowledge about another are combined into a global or summary impression. Social psychologist Solomon Asch is credited with the seminal research on impression formation and conducted research on how individuals integrate information about personality traits. Two major theories have been proposed to explain how this process of integration takes place. The Gestalt approach views the formation of a general impression as the sum of several interrelated impressions. As an individual seeks to form a coherent and meaningful impression of another individual, previous impressions significantly influence the interpretation of subsequent information. In contrast to the Gestalt approach, the cognitive algebra approach asserts that individuals' experiences are combined with previous evaluations to form a constantly changing impression of a person. A related area to impression formation is the study of person perception, making dispositional attributions, and then adjusting those inferences based on the information available.

Memory supports and enables social interactions in a variety of ways. In order to engage in successful social interaction, people must be able to remember how they should interact with one another, whom they have interacted with previously, and what occurred during those interactions. There are a lot of brain processes and functions that go into the application and use of memory in social interactions, as well as psychological reasoning for its importance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assimilation and contrast effects</span>

The assimilation effect, assimilation bias or biased assimilation is a bias in evaluative judgments towards the position of a context stimulus, while contrast effects describe a negative correlation between a judgment and contextual information.

Social cues are verbal or non-verbal signals expressed through the face, body, voice, motion and guide conversations as well as other social interactions by influencing our impressions of and responses to others. These percepts are important communicative tools as they convey important social and contextual information and therefore facilitate social understanding.

Emotion perception refers to the capacities and abilities of recognizing and identifying emotions in others, in addition to biological and physiological processes involved. Emotions are typically viewed as having three components: subjective experience, physical changes, and cognitive appraisal; emotion perception is the ability to make accurate decisions about another's subjective experience by interpreting their physical changes through sensory systems responsible for converting these observed changes into mental representations. The ability to perceive emotion is believed to be both innate and subject to environmental influence and is also a critical component in social interactions. How emotion is experienced and interpreted depends on how it is perceived. Likewise, how emotion is perceived is dependent on past experiences and interpretations. Emotion can be accurately perceived in humans. Emotions can be perceived visually, audibly, through smell and also through bodily sensations and this process is believed to be different from the perception of non-emotional material.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheerleader effect</span> Psychological effect on perceptions of attractiveness

The cheerleader effect, also known as the group attractiveness effect or the friend effect, is a proposed cognitive bias which causes people to perceive individuals as 1.5–2.0% more attractive in a group than when seen alone. The first paper to report this effect was written by Drew Walker and Edward Vul, in 2014.

A zero-acquaintance situation requires a perceiver to make a judgment about a target with whom the perceiver has had no prior social interaction. These judgments can be made using a variety of cues, including brief interactions with the target, video recordings of the target, photographs of the target, and observations of the target's personal environments, among others. In zero-acquaintance studies, the target's actual personality is determined through the target's self-rating and/or ratings from close acquaintance(s) of that target. Consensus in ratings is determined by how consistently perceivers rate the target's personality when compared to other raters. Accuracy in ratings is determined by how well perceivers' ratings of a target compare to that target's self-ratings on the same scale, or to that target's close acquaintances' ratings of the target. Zero-acquaintance judgments are regularly made in day-to-day life. Given that these judgments tend to remain stable, even as the length of interaction increases, they can influence important interpersonal outcomes.

References

  1. 1 2 Mackie, Eliot R. Smith, Diane M. (2007). Social psychology (3rd ed.). Hove: Psychology Press. ISBN   978-1841694092 . Retrieved 8 May 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. 1 2 3 4 Flora, Carlin. "The First Impression". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 2011-02-01. Retrieved 2011-02-20.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aronson, Elliot, Robin M. Akert, Timothy D. Wilson (2007). Social psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. ISBN   978-0132382458. Archived from the original on May 11, 2015. Retrieved May 8, 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. 1 2 3 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. S2CID   146223671.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Bhargrave, 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. hdl: 10044/1/39098 .
  6. 1 2 3 Ding, Jonathan Y. C.; Rule, Nicholas O. (12 January 2012). "Gay, Straight, or Somewhere in Between: Accuracy and Bias in the Perception of Bisexual Faces" (PDF). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 36 (2): 165–176. doi:10.1007/s10919-011-0129-y. hdl: 1807/33150 . S2CID   3853200.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Naumann, L. P.; Vazire, S.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Gosling, S. D. (17 September 2009). "Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 35 (12): 1661–1671. doi:10.1177/0146167209346309. PMID   19762717. S2CID   1645636.
  8. ↑ Trudeau, M. (5 May 2014). "You Had Me At Hello: The Science Behind First Impressions". NPR. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Guadagno, Rosanna E.; Cialdini, Robert B. (21 March 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. S2CID   144197017.
  10. 1 2 Wood, T.J. (August 2014). "Exploring the role of first impressions in rater-based assessments". Advances in Health Sciences Education. 19 (3): 409–427. doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9453-9. PMID   23529821. S2CID   25588267.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Willis, J.; Todorov, A. (2006). "First impressions: Making up your mind after 100 ms exposure to a face" (PDF). Psychological Science. 17 (7): 592–598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x. PMID   16866745. S2CID   5705259. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
  12. 1 2 3 Wargo, E (2006). "How many seconds to a first impression?". The Observer. 19.
  13. ↑ Carlson, E. N.; Furr, R. M.; Vazire, S. (1 January 2010). "Do We Know the First Impressions We Make? Evidence for Idiographic Meta-Accuracy and Calibration of First Impressions". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 1 (1): 94–98. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.642.3017 . doi:10.1177/1948550609356028. S2CID   15172376.
  14. ↑ Boothby, Erica J.; Cooney, Gus; Sandstrom, Gillian M.; Clark, Margaret S. (2018). "The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?". SAGE Journals. Vol. 29, no. 11. pp. 1742–1756. doi:10.1177/0956797618783714.
  15. ↑ Emma, Young (2018-09-24). "The "liking gap" – we tend to underestimate the positive first impression we make on strangers". Research Digest. The British psychological society. Retrieved 12 November 2019.
  16. ↑ Bharanidharan, Sadhana (Sep 11, 2018). "Nervous About First Impressions? You May Underestimate How Much People Like You". Medical Daily.
  17. ↑ "'Liking Gap' Might Stand in Way of New Friendships". US News.
  18. 1 2 Zebrowitz, Leslie A.; Franklin, Robert G.; Hillman, Suzanne; Boc, Henry (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. PMC   3968687 . PMID   23276216.
  19. 1 2 3 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. S2CID   24264812.
  20. 1 2 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.
  21. 1 2 Deprez-Sims, Anne-Sophie; Morris, Scott 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. PMID   22044081.
  22. 1 2 Zebrowitz, L. A.; Wang, R.; Bronstad, P. M.; Eisenberg, D.; Undurraga, E.; Reyes-Garcia, V.; Godoy, R. (19 December 2011). "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. S2CID   146384469.
  23. 1 2 3 Workman, J. E.; Johnson, K. K. P. (1 September 1991). "The Role of Cosmetics in Impression Formation". Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 10 (1): 63–67. doi:10.1177/0887302X9101000109. S2CID   144906699.
  24. 1 2 Olivola, Christopher Y.; Todorov, Alexander (2010). "Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (2): 315–324. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.002. S2CID   406551.
  25. 1 2 3 Todorov, A. (10 June 2005). "Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes". Science. 308 (5728): 1623–1626. Bibcode:2005Sci...308.1623T. doi:10.1126/science.1110589. PMID   15947187. S2CID   15652607.
  26. 1 2 Lorenzo, G. L.; Biesanz, J. C.; Human, L. J. (4 November 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. PMID   21051521. S2CID   12066448.
  27. ↑ "First impressions connected to facial features - CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. 29 July 2014. Retrieved 1 August 2014.
  28. ↑ Vernon, R. J. W.; Sutherland, C. A. M.; Young, A. W.; Hartley, T. (2014-07-28). "Modeling first impressions from highly variable facial images". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (32): E3353–E3361. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111E3353V. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1409860111 . PMC   4136614 . PMID   25071197.
  29. 1 2 McDermott, L.; 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.
  30. 1 2 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 (6): 1062–1077. doi:10.1002/ejsp.703.
  31. 1 2 Weisbuch, M.; Ivcevic, Z.; Ambady, N. (2009). "On being liked on the web and in the 'real world': Consistency in first impressions across personal web pages and spontaneous behavior". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 45 (3): 573–576. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.009. PMC   2674641 . PMID   20161314.
  32. 1 2 3 Wood, J. (2014-02-15). "The Power of a First Impression". Psych Central. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
  33. 1 2 3 Goman, Carol Kinsey (2008). The nonverbal advantage : secrets and science of body language at work ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN   978-1576754924.
  34. ↑ Rowh, Mark. "First Impressions Count". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 18 April 2014.
  35. 1 2 Woolley, A.; Kostopoulou, O. (2013). "Clinical intuition in family medicine: More than first impressions". Annals of Family Medicine. 11 (1): 60–66. doi:10.1370/afm.1433. PMC   3596024 . PMID   23319507.
  36. 1 2 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. PMC   3267862 . PMID   22139633.
  37. ↑ Iidaka, T.; Harada, T.; Sadato, N. (2011). "Forming a negative impression of another person correlates with activation in medial prefrontal cortex and amygdala". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 6 (4): 516–525. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq072. PMC   3150861 . PMID   20693390.
  38. ↑ Goleman, Daniel (1999). Working with Emotional Intelligence. p. 87.
  39. 1 2 Schiller, D.; Freeman, J. B.; Mitchell, J. P.; Uleman, J. S.; Phelps, E. A. (2009). "A neural mechanism of first impressions". Nature Neuroscience. 12 (4): 508–514. doi:10.1038/nn.2278. PMID   19270690. S2CID   546583.
  40. 1 2 Vrticka, Pascal; Andersson, Frédéric; Sander, David; Vuilleumier, Patrik (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. PMID   19637101. S2CID   107061.
  41. 1 2 Walter, N.; Mutic, S.; Markett, S.; Montag, C.; Klein, A.; Reuter, M. (2011). "The Influence of Alcohol Intake and Alcohol Expectations on the Recognition of Emotions". Alcohol and Alcoholism. 46 (6): 680–685. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agr082 . PMID   21749998.
  42. 1 2 3 Rule, N. O.; Freeman, J. B.; Moran, J. M.; Gabrieli, J. D. E.; Adams, R. B.; Ambady, N. (5 December 2009). "Voting behavior is reflected in amygdala response across cultures". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 5 (2–3): 349–355. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp046. PMC   2894678 . PMID   19966327.
  43. ↑ Reporter, Pandora Dewan Science (2024-01-15). "Psychologists debunk common myth about first impressions". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.