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 this second encounter, or do you go with your first impression and write him off? Research in social psychology suggests that 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 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 to this 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 gets 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?
想像你在看一場足球賽 旁邊坐著一個討厭鬼 他講話很大聲 飲料灑到你 他還嘲笑你支持的球隊 幾天之後,你在公園散步 突然下了一場大雨 誰應該出現在你身旁 給你一把雨傘呢? 就是足球賽那個討厭鬼 你會改變你對他的印象嗎? 根據你們第二次相遇 還是你依舊相信你的第一印象 覺得他很討厭? 社會心理學的研究指出 我們很快就能對他人產生長久印象 依據他人的行為 我們很自然就這麼做 從單一行為舉止 推論出長久的人格特質 像是說了髒話 或是犯了很傻的錯誤 我們用印象做為指引 能夠準確的預測 這些人在未來會有什麼樣的舉止 有了這種知識 足球比賽的那個傢伙 你第一次遇見他,覺得他是個混蛋 你可能會覺得他以後也是個混蛋 要是這樣,如果下一次你看到他 你會選擇避開他 換言之,我們會改變印象 因為我們得到新的資訊 行為研究員指出 這種持續模式似乎會引導著 我們處理印象的方向 一方面,知道關於某人非常負面 非常不道德的資訊 基本上會有更強的影響 相對於得知某人有非常正面、道德的資訊 所以,我們足球場的新朋友 很不幸的 他在球場的壞行為 可能比他在公園的好行為還要強烈 研究指出之所以有這種偏見 是因為從不道德的行為就能見微知著 或是能比較真實 顯露出一個人真正的個性 好,依據這樣的邏輯 當有新的印象出現時 壞的效果比好的效果來得強烈 不過,也不盡然如此 特定幾種的學習似乎並不會 導向這種負面偏見 舉例來說 當你得知某人的能力、某人很稱職 這偏見就完全不相同 事實上這種正面的資訊 會來得更重要 讓我們再回到足球場 足球員射門得分 這最後會有個更強的影響 加深你對他們球技的印象 比起他們沒有得分的話 這兩種改變印象的故事 在最後都滿有關聯性 總的來說 在形成以及更新印象時 人們對不太常出現的行為 印象會比較深刻 或是非常不道德的行為 還有非常令人滿意的行為的時候 所以,當大腦在更新印象的時候 這中間到底發生了什麼事? 透過 fMRI 也就是功能性磁振造影 研究員指出 有一塊大腦區域延伸出的網絡 對於和第一印象不同的 新資訊會有反應 這些區塊基本上都和 社會認知 注意力 以及認知控制有關 此外,更新印象的時候 若是以行為做基礎 在腹側前額葉皮質區 以及上側顳葉溝的活動 和我們所認為 那些行為在生活中出現的頻率有關 換言之,大腦似乎會根據 統計中較低機率的行為特徵 針對他人的個性 做出複雜的決定 大腦需要決定 這個人的行為合乎常理嗎? 還是違背常理? 在那個情況 討厭的足球迷最後成了好心人 你的大腦說: 「嗯,根據我的經驗 很多人都可以借別人雨傘 但是這個人在足球場的舉止 卻只有他會這樣。」 所以,你還是決定相信第一印象 有個不錯的道德故事和這資料有關: 你的大腦,延伸出去就是你 會比較在乎 另一個人所做的非常負面 非常不道德的事情 而非十分正面且道德的事 但這個直接的結果 存在於相對及少數的壞行為之中 我們比較習慣他人友善 像是找時間去幫助需要的人 這種情況下,壞行為比好行為更強烈 只是因為好行為占多數 想一下你上一次根據他人行為 而評斷某人的時候 尤其是當你真心覺得 你想改變你對某人印象的時候 那種讓你會 改變印象的行為 是你認為大家都能做的 還是只有少數人才會做的?