He's loud, he spills his drink on you, and he makes fun of your team.

他講話很大聲、把飲料灑到你身上，還嘲笑你支持的球隊。

Days later, you're walking in the park when suddenly it starts to pour rain.

幾天之後，你正在公園散步時，突然開始下大雨。

Who should show up at your side to offer you an umbrella? The same guy from the football game.

誰出現在你身旁並給了你一把傘呢？就是足球賽碰到的那個討厭鬼。

Do you change your mind about him based on this second encounter?

根據你們第二次相遇，你會改變你對他的印象嗎？

Or do you go with your first impression and write him off?

還是你依舊相信你的第一印象時對他下的定論？

Research in social psychology suggests that we're quick to form lasting impressions of others based on their behaviors.

社會心理學的研究指出，我們很快就能依據他人的行為產生長久的印象。

We manage to do this with little effort, inferring stable character traits from a single behavior, like a harsh word or a clumsy step.

我們很自然就這麼做，從單一行為舉止，像是說了很苛刻的話或是犯了很傻的錯誤推論出長久的人格特質。

Using our impressions as guides, we can accurately predict how people are going to behave in the future.

用印象做為指引，我們能夠準確的預測這些人在未來會有什麼樣的舉止。

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.

有了第一次在足球比賽碰到這傢伙然後覺得他是一個混蛋的想法，你可能以後也會覺得他是混蛋。

If so, you might choose to avoid him the next time you see him.

要是這樣，如果下一次你看到他，你可能會選擇避開他。

That said, we can change our impressions in light of new information.

即便如此，我們還是可能因為新的資訊而改變對其他人的印象。

Behavioral researchers have identified consistent patterns that seem to guide this process of impression updating.

行為研究員指出，似乎有一致的模式引導著我們處理印象的過程 。

On one hand, learning very negative, highly immoral information about someone typically has a stronger impact than learning very positive, highly moral information.

一方面，比起得知某人非常正面、有道德的資訊，知道關於某人非常負面且非常不道德的資訊會有更強烈的影響 。

So, unfortunately for our new friend from the football game, his bad behavior at the game might outweigh his good behavior at the park.

所以很不幸地，我們足球場的新朋友在球場的壞行為給人的印象，可能比他在公園的好行為還要強烈。

Research suggests that this bias occurs because immoral behaviors are more diagnostic or revealing of a person's true character.

研究指出之所以有這種偏見，是因為不道德的行為比較能判斷出或顯露出一個人真實的個性。

Okay, so by this logic, bad is always stronger than good when it comes to updating.

好，那麼依據這樣的邏輯，在處理印象時，壞的印象總是比好的來得強烈。

Well, not necessarily.

不過，也不盡然如此。

Certain types of learning don't seem to lead to this sort of negativity bias.

特定幾種了解他人的方式似乎並不會導致這種負面偏見。

When learning about another person's abilities and competencies, for instance, this bias flips.

舉例來說，當你得知某人的能力以及某人很稱職時，這偏見就完全反過來了。

It's actually the positive information that gets weighted more heavily.

事實上這時的正面資訊的影響會變得更重要 。

Let's go back to that football game.

讓我們再回到足球場。

If a player scores a goal, it ultimately has a stronger impact on your impression of their skills than if they miss the net.

比起足球員射門失敗，如果他射門得分，這會讓你最終對他的球技有更深的印象。

The two sides of the updating story are ultimately quite consistent.

這兩種改變印象的故事在最後都有相當的一致性。

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.

總的來說，在形成以及更新印象時，對於不太常出現的行為，像是非常不道德的行為和非常稱職的行為，人們會對其印象更深刻。

So, what's happening at the level of the brain when we're updating our impressions?

所以，大腦在更新印象的這中間到底發生了什麼事？

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.

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所延伸出的網絡，對於和第一印象不同的新資訊會有反應。

These include areas typically associated with social cognition, attention, and cognitive control.

這些區塊基本上都和社會認知、注意力以及認知控制有關。

Moreover, when updating impressions based on people's behaviors,

此外，根據人們的行為來更新印象的時候，

activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the superior temporal sulcus correlates with perceptions of how frequently those behaviors occur in daily life.

在腹外側前額葉皮以及上顳上溝所發生的活動和我們所認為那些行為在生活中出現的頻率有關。

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.

換言之，大腦似乎會根據統計中較低機率的行為特徵，來對他人的個性做出複雜的決定。

It needs to decide: Is this person's behavior typical or is it out of the ordinary?

大腦需要決定這個人的行為合乎常理嗎？ 還是違背常理？

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."

在討厭的足球迷變成了好心人的情況中，你的大腦說：「嗯，根據我的經驗，很多人都會借別人雨傘，但根據這個人在足球場的舉止來看的話，他的行為很反常。」

And so, you decide to go with your first impression.

所以，你還是決定相信第一印象。

There's a good moral in this data.

這份資料有個很好的寓意。

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.

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。

But it's a direct result of the comparative rarity of those bad behaviors.

但這個直接的結果存在於相對極少數的壞行為之中。

We're more used to people being basically good, like taking time to help a stranger in need.

我們比較習慣他人基本上是好人，像是會花點時間去幫助需要的人。

In this context, bad might be stronger than good, but only because good is more plentiful.

這種情況下，壞行為或許會比好行為更強烈，但只是因為好行為占多數。

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.

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改變了你對某人印象的時候。

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?

那種讓你會改變印象的行為，你認為那種行為是普遍平常的，還是特殊例外的？