Latest science on "impressions"

[Speakpigeon]

I'd be interested in any link to the latest science on "impressions"...

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here's one...

A neural mechanism of first impressions
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2278
Evaluating social others requires processing complex information. Nevertheless, we can rapidly form an opinion of an individual during an initial encounter. Moreover, people can vary in these opinions, even though the same information is provided. We investigated the brain mechanisms that give rise to the impressions that are formed on meeting a new person. Neuroimaging revealed that responses in the amygdala and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) were stronger while encoding social information that was consistent, relative to inconsistent, with subsequent evaluations. In addition, these responses scaled parametrically with the strength of evaluations. These findings provide evidence for encoding differences on the basis of subsequent evaluations, suggesting that the amygdala and PCC are important for forming first impressions.

It's just one particular kind of impression and big boots coarse-grained but science is definitely catching up...

There are literally thousands of possible impressions... Sooo, it's definitely going to take a while.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Different kind of science here.

Forming impressions of personality.
Asch, S. E.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 41(3), Jul 1946, 258-290
In a series of investigations, students were asked to form impressions and write brief characterizations of the person to whom a short list of trait adjectives applied. To facilitate evaluation, some groups of judges also rated the hypothetical person on a list of bipolar traits. It appears that traits may be central or peripheral, according to their fit in the general configuration of traits. Altering a central trait in a series changes the impression much more than altering a peripheral trait. Interpretation of a single trait varies with the context of other traits, thus denying the validity of independent, additive traits in personality. The order of listing of traits influences the impression formed from the given set of traits, and inconsistent traits produce different impressions on different judges. The 'halo' effect is interpreted as an attempt to organize a simple impression of a unitary person. Despite halo errors, it is probably more accurate to judge whole impressions than to rate isolated traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Well, obviously, you don't "form impressions" as suggested here. All you can do is pay attention to whatever impression that's provided by some unconscious part of your brain and report as best you can.

Impressions are second-level interpretations. They should be regarded as a proper sense, like touch or vision except that this sense of impression works from the outputs provided by other senses, in particular the visual sense.

The interesting question is as to the genesis of this sense. How does your brain comes to decide what impression to produce? Is the process essentially instinctive or is it learned? Or maybe a mix of the two? Perhaps something like language, with the capability itself being formed through an essentially instinctive process early in life and then being used seemingly at will thereafter.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Soft science again here...

Primacy effects in personality impression formation.
Anderson, Norman H.; Barrios, Alfred A.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 63(2), Sep 1961, 346-350
Abstract
Following the paradigm of research of Asch (1946) and Luchins (1957, 1958), the influence of presentation of data upon the formation of an impression of personality was studied. By presenting some adjectives 1st in one set, 2nd in others, and by delaying presentation of 2nd set of adjectives a few seconds, primacy and recency effects were investigated. In general, primacy effects were significant but recency effects were not.

Well, that's all very interesting and very sciency but it's definitely going to be very tedious.

And it's all a bit fuzzy, too. They would need to sharpen up a bit their tools.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Same research here...

Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm.
Anderson, Norman H.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 2(1), Jul 1965, 1-9
Abstract
Ss were read a set of personality trait adjectives, and judged how much they would like a person so described. A generalized order effect paradigm was used. Each set consisted of a sequence of high (or low) value adjectives; into this sequence a block of 3 low (or high) adjectives was interpolated at all possible ordinal positions. The results showed a straight-line primacy effect: the net influence of an adjective decreased linearly with ordinal position in the set. It was shown that the response to a set could be described as a weighted average of the scale values of the separate adjectives. This model was related to a previously employed linear model for opinion change.

There's a bit there that's a bit misleading. Subjects were asked to judge "how much they would like a person so described". So emotions, not impressions. This research puts all the light on the emotional side and all the darkness on the impressions themselves. We're none the wiser as to what impressions subjects have exactly. I could do better myself on my own.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

More of the same...

Primed self-construal, culture, and stages of impression formation.
Saribay, S. Adil; Rim, SoYon; & Uleman, James S.
Social Psychology, Vol 43(4), 2012, 196-204
Abstract
The effects of culture on impression formation are widely documented but poorly understood. Priming independent and interdependent self-construals, and focusing on particular stages of impression formation, could help remedy this because such self-construals differ across cultures. In three experiments, participants’ were primed with independent or interdependent self-construals before they formed spontaneous or intentional impressions of others. In Experiment 1, lexical decision reaction times showed that both traits and situational properties were activated spontaneously, but were unaffected by self-construal priming. In Experiment 2, a false-recognition paradigm showed that spontaneous trait inferences were bound to relevant actors’ faces, again regardless of self-construal priming. In Experiment 3, explicit ratings did show priming effects. Those primed with independent (but not interdependent) self-construal inferred traits more strongly than situational properties. Primed self-construals appear to affect intentional but not spontaneous stages of impression formation. The differences between effects of primed and chronic self-construals are discussed.

The effects of culture on impression formation are widely documented but poorly understood. I guess that says it all.

Primed self-construals appear to affect intentional but not spontaneous stages of impression formation.

In case you can't guess what a "self-construal" may be, here is one explanation: "Self-construal refers to the grounds of self-definition, and the extent to which the self is defined independently of others or interdependently with others. Initially, the term derived from perceived cultural differences in the self. Nov 29, 2011".

I wouldn't call anything that's intentional as an "impression" as they do, so we're not talking about the same thing. I'm interested in the non-intentional, what they call here I guess spontaneous stages of impression formation". Unfortunately, it's clearly not their focus here.

Still, they're getting there. It will take ages and ages but they will, assuming somebody can keep paying for the stuff.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What's "impression formation", then?

Well, not what I thought, unfortunately...

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the process by which individual pieces of information about another person are integrated to form a global impression of the individual (i.e. how one person perceives another person). ... Consequently, an individual's impression of another should be similarly unified.

The expression used here in social science refers exclusively to the representations of other people one arrives at through a largely conscious and voluntary process, including through the influence of cultural representations.

So, it's not the unconscious process in your brain whereby impressions are somehow formed before you can become aware of them through their being presented to your consciousness.

Nothing to do with my kind of impressions.

So, enough for now.

Anybody can do better?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You'll find impressions are use a lot among many subdivisions of APA groups. Most uses are derivative with unknown or uncertain basis in physical processes.

I tend to go for fundamental definitions. The first and most rudimentary source of impressions are those that are early in input processing the sources of which can be traced to loci formed near the receptors.

Here is a list of likely sorces of information that might lead to the rise of impressions. http://www.arrowscientific.com.au/i...ds-used-in-sensory-science&catid=15&Itemid=32

Remember, unless the definition can be traced to physical basis or sources they will tend to be derivative and subject to change without much use across domains of Psychology. One forming an impression on another or forming an impression of another's face are obviousl derivative, depending on more primitive elements directly traceable to physical input. This last is a really good reason for one to go to first cause sources for impression formation for a germinal definition.

Ergo:

Sensory characteristics: Impressions of a product gained using the human senses. ... Sensory science: The science of using human senses for testing and analytical purposes. Product characteristics are received, registered and analysed using the sense of sight (eyes), smell (nose), taste (mouth), and hearing (ears).

or

[FONT=&quot]Sensory impression:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Reflection of a particular stimulus quality in the central nervous system. These can be differentiated into olfactory, gustatory, haptic, acoustic and optic sensory impressions.[/FONT]

All of the definitions you use depend on first achieving sensory impressions.

So if you must continue with your scramble eggs approach please remember, for psychologists, the matter is settled science. All definitions you've cited provided depend on some sort of hand wave to arrive at impression. Consider them all folk psychology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here is a list of likely sorces of information that might lead to the rise of impressions. http://www.arrowscientific.com.au/i...ds-used-in-sensory-science&catid=15&Itemid=32

All of the definitions you use depend on first achieving sensory impressions.

Thanks for the link.

Examples:

Aroma: Total (positive) olfactory impression gained from breathing through the nose and from expiratory olfaction.
Attribute: Single perceptible impression of a characteristic feature, e.g. red for colour, sweet for taste, firmness for consistency.

Aroma is a perception, not an impression. The red colour of object is a perception although an elementary part of it. It's not an impression.

So, basically, we're not talking about the same thing and not using the same definition for the word "impression", which is what I already told you very clearly but just as clearly it's clear you're not interested. You just want to hammer that one nail you have very badly.

So, last time.

I call impression conscious mental events that appear to be produced unconsciously. They are distinct from our basic perceptions in that they seem like a secondary level of perception, or like a comment on primary perception. For example, I see a building. One day I may have the impression it's an old building I would be comfortable living in. Another day, I may have the impression it stands out among other building in the district. Same perception, different impression because between the two impressions I've changed, my brain has changed, I've learned things, I have more experience, I had something for breakfast, or somehow I'm just in a bad mood.

Impressions are also more like thoughts than perceptions. It's as if there was a second person like you inside your head that would be commenting on your perceptions to help you go through your day. Perceptions are very stable. Look at the same thing again and again and it will broadly look the same day after day. Impressions are much more fickle and depend on the moment and on all sorts of things I don't know what.

Also, we have words for our various perceptions, like indeed "red" and "aroma", but we don't have words for specific impressions, probably because they are more like ideas and we don't necessarily have words for all of the many ideas we may have in day.

See?

Ah, well, don't bother.
EB