TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Peter Mende-Siedlecki: Should you trust your first impression?

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Imagine you're at a football game when this ooxonbuis 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 sttras to pour rain. Who should show up at your side to oeffr 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 wtire him off? Research in social psychology ssugtges that we're quick to form lsitang impressions of others based on their behaviors. We manage to do this with little effort, inferring slbtae character traits from a single behavior, like a harsh word or a culmsy step. Using our imipsonesrs 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 cohsoe 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 psreocs of impression updating. On one hand, lranneig very nitvegae, highly imrmoal information about someone ticlpylay has a stronger iacpmt 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 nlasesriecy. Certain tepys of learning don't seem to lead to this sort of negativity bias. When learning about another person's aiieiltbs 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 plyear scores a goal, it uetllimaty has a stronger impact on your impression of their siklls than if they miss the net. The two sides of the unpdaitg sorty 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 meiatngc Resonance Imaging, researchers have inetdefiid an extended notrewk of brain regions that respond to new information that's inconsistent with initial impressions. These include areas typically associated with saiocl cngiitoon, attention, and cognitive crtonol. Moreover, when updating impressions based on people's behaviors, activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal coterx and the superior temporal sulcus correlates with perceptions of how frequently those behaviors ouccr 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 biran says, "Well, in my experience, prtety much anyone would lend someone their umbrella, but the way this guy acted at the football game, that was uaunusl." And so, you decide to go with your first impression. There's a good moral in this data: your brain, and by etxnsoein you, might care more about the very negative, immoral things another person has done compared to the very positive, mroal things, but it's a direct result of the ctvmparioae rarity of those bad brhioeavs. We're more used to poelpe being blasailcy 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 bheaivor, 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?

Open Cloze

Imagine you're at a football game when this _________ 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 ______ to pour rain. Who should show up at your side to _____ 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 _____ him off? Research in social psychology ________ that we're quick to form _______ impressions of others based on their behaviors. We manage to do this with little effort, inferring ______ character traits from a single behavior, like a harsh word or a ______ step. Using our ___________ 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 ______ 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 _______ of impression updating. On one hand, ________ very ________, highly _______ information about someone _________ has a stronger ______ 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 ___________. Certain _____ of learning don't seem to lead to this sort of negativity bias. When learning about another person's _________ 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 ______ scores a goal, it __________ has a stronger impact on your impression of their ______ than if they miss the net. The two sides of the ________ _____ 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 ________ Resonance Imaging, researchers have __________ an extended _______ of brain regions that respond to new information that's inconsistent with initial impressions. These include areas typically associated with ______ _________, attention, and cognitive _______. Moreover, when updating impressions based on people's behaviors, activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal ______ and the superior temporal sulcus correlates with perceptions of how frequently those behaviors _____ 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 _____ says, "Well, in my experience, ______ much anyone would lend someone their umbrella, but the way this guy acted at the football game, that was _______." And so, you decide to go with your first impression. There's a good moral in this data: your brain, and by _________ you, might care more about the very negative, immoral things another person has done compared to the very positive, _____ things, but it's a direct result of the ___________ rarity of those bad _________. We're more used to ______ being _________ 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 ________, 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?

Solution

behavior
updating
types
typically
cognition
people
process
pretty
brain
occur
lasting
social
write
unusual
behaviors
clumsy
magnetic
starts
network
necessarily
suggests
basically
extension
ultimately
control
negative
learning
player
offer
stable
abilities
comparative
impact
story
choose
identified
moral
cortex
immoral
skills
impressions
obnoxious

Original Text

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?

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
football game	4
highly immoral	2
stronger impact	2

Important Words

abilities
accurately
acted
actions
activity
areas
armed
attention
avoid
bad
based
basically
behave
behavior
behavioral
behaviors
bias
brain
care
caused
change
changed
character
choose
clumsy
cognition
cognitive
comparative
compared
competencies
competent
complex
consistent
context
control
correlates
cortex
daily
days
decide
decisions
diagnostic
direct
drink
effort
encounter
expect
experience
extended
extension
feel
flips
fmri
football
form
forming
frequent
frequently
friend
fun
functional
future
game
goal
good
guide
guides
guy
hand
happening
harsh
heavily
highly
identified
imagine
imaging
immoral
impact
impression
impressions
include
inconsistent
inferring
information
initial
instance
jerk
judged
knowledge
lasting
lead
learning
lend
level
life
light
logic
loud
magnetic
manage
met
mind
moral
necessarily
negative
negativity
net
network
obnoxious
occur
occurs
offer
order
ordinary
outweigh
park
patterns
people
perceived
perceptions
person
player
plentiful
positive
pour
predict
prefrontal
pretty
process
properties
psychology
quick
rain
rarity
regions
research
researchers
resonance
respond
result
revealing
road
scores
show
side
sides
single
sits
situation
skills
social
sort
spills
stable
starts
statistical
step
story
stranger
stronger
suddenly
suggests
sulcus
superior
team
temporal
tend
time
totally
tracking
traits
true
types
typical
typically
ultimately
umbrella
unusual
update
updating
ventrolateral
walking
weigh
weighted
word
words
write