summary

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2021 American Psychological Association ISSN: 0021-9010 2022, Vol. 107, No. 3, 346–369 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000921 INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW First Impression Effects in Organizational Psychology Brian W. Swider1, T. Brad Harris2, 3, and Qing Gong4 1 Warrington College of Business, University of Florida Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University 3 School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4 Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2 The study of first impressions, which consistently demonstrate meaningful and surprisingly durable impacts on attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions, is pervasive across psychological disciplines. In this integrative conceptual review, we focus on first impressions within the organizational psychology literature, which have been explored across an impressive variety of topical domains (e.g., selection, socialization, leader–subordinate relationships, job performance, and teams) though largely in fragmented ways. Our review attempts to resolve major differences in how researchers have approached first impression effects to build consensus on what first impression effects are, how they occur, and how long they take to develop. In synthesizing this seemingly disparate body of research, we develop an integrative framework of first impression effects comprising four fundamental elements—cues, motives, processes, and outcomes—that must be considered both individually and collectively to understand first impression effects in organizational settings in their entirety. Using this framework, we take stock of the existing literature and identify important through lines, including the focus on displayer- or perceiver-centric effects and whether first impression effects are presumed to be biased or valid. Our fundamental elements framework can be used to systematically catalog and reconcile prior work, as well as develop stronger, more theoretically cohesive studies in the future. We outline major implications for theory and practice on first impressions in the workplace. Keywords: first impressions, initial evaluations, impression management, decision-making This richness and diversity of research, although impressive, is not without faults. To date, organizational psychologists have explored first impressions disjointedly in topic-specific silos, leaving pronounced gaps in our general understanding of first impression effects. Even more fundamentally, there is no generally accepted, inclusive definition of first impression effects at work. Indeed, conceptualizations of first impressions across primary studies, which are too rarely described explicitly, vary in terms of the interacting parties included, types of cues exchanged, processes transmitting impressions, outcomes associated with the impressions, and length of effects. Though some variance in first impression conceptualizations can be reasonably attributed to nuances across study contexts, there are also cases where researchers advance seemingly diametrically opposed beliefs in the same context. In selection, for instance, some see initial impressions as the first piece of useful information transmitted in what is expected to be a long journey of discovery (e.g., Ingold et al., 2018), whereas others argue they are distracting deviations on the way to an established, optimal final destination (e.g., Cable & Gilovich, 1998). The absence of a shared definition—the bedrock for the systematic study of any phenomenon—has impeded the development of a cohesive understanding of the processes by which initially encountered information influences attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors in work contexts. As a result, the current literature is an impressionistic collage of studies, each featuring incomplete or fundamentally different descriptions of how initial information impacts individuals, teams, or organizations. Reviewing the literature at a distance provides the necessary perspective to cohere and advance the study of first impression effects at work. First impressions, defined as the initial perceptions and inferences one party makes about another party based on exposure to some set of cues, have been pervasively studied in psychology, with findings suggesting that initially encountered information influences myriad outcomes such as childhood friendship decisions (Urberg et al., 1998) and how adults detect lying (DePaulo et al., 2003). A substantive body of organizational psychology research indicates that first impressions also matter in work contexts. Whereas early studies explored basic questions such as which characteristics produced more or less favorable impressions and their impact on job offers (Jacobson, 1945), inquiries have since expanded to include an impressive breadth of topics, such as recruitment and hiring decisions (e.g., Barrick et al., 2010; Dougherty et al., 1994), performance evaluations (e.g., Heslin et al., 2005; Latham et al., 1975), and employees’ commitment and withdrawal (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Song et al., 2017), among many others. Importantly, research suggests that first impressions at work not only impact immediate judgments and behavioral responses but can also have profound, long-term impacts on individuals and their careers (e.g., Shah et al., 2014). This article was published Online First May 31, 2021. We thank Murray Barrick for his comments on an early draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian W. Swider, Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Stuzin Hall 239, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States. Email: brian.swider@warrington .ufl.edu 346 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS Despite the disjointed nature of prior research, the aggregate of hundreds of studies unambiguously highlights the influential, wideranging consequences of initial interactions for applicants, employees, supervisors, teams, and organizations. Moreover, as the pace of work continues to accelerate, the ability to quickly transmit, acquire, interpret, and respond to information during interactions will be increasingly critical to success (Dane & Pratt, 2007). The expansive research on impression formation and social cognition serves as the foundation for existing research (Fiske, 1993). It offers a starting point to integrate first impression research across organizational psychology domains, including the various informational cues that create first impressions, motivations to exhibit or decode initial cues, underlying mechanisms driving the effects, and possible consequences. A cohesive and comprehensive review of the nearly century-long study of the topic is necessary to resolve current ambiguities in the literature, synthesize disconnected avenues of study, and guide future research on first impressions at work. We have structured our review to accomplish three overarching goals. First, we formally address several current ambiguities, unresolved tensions, and contrasting perspectives in the literature to help build consensus and illuminate theoretically important distinctions that impact the study of initial impressions at work. Establishing a clear definition of first impression effects at work, explicating the general processes by which they occur, and understanding how long a time frame they occupy are critical tenets to ballast future research. Furthermore, we identify key elemental features of first impression effects to establish an integrative framework through which future organizational psychology research can be developed. Second, we elaborate on the fundamental elements framework by cataloging the wide-ranging research on first impressions across various literature streams. Doing so allows us to identify critical insights from studies in specific topic areas that are transferable to other less explored contexts. Likewise, these efforts help reconcile seemingly conflicting findings within elements of first impression effects. Third, based on our integrative framework and review, we elucidate critical overarching conclusions from the literature, specify fruitful lines of inquiry for addressing unanswered questions, and provide valuable insights for practitioners seeking to improve workplace experiences. For researchers, in addition to providing an actionable roadmap for developing and cohesively examining future research questions, we highlight areas that have either been overlooked (e.g., creativity) or underdeveloped (e.g., higher-level effects) in the study of first impressions at work. From a practical perspective, our review offers carefully derived suggestions to help maximize the possible utility of first impressions in work contexts and minimize detrimental consequences. Together, our integrative framework and proposed research agenda challenge organizational psychologists to comprehensively address first impression effects both within specific topics as well as across topics using a new meta-theoretical lens. Theoretical Foundations of First Impression Effects in Organizational Psychology What Are First Impression Effects at Work? Despite their prevalence, first impression effects have seldom been explicitly defined in organizational psychology research. Instead, scholars typically use contextual factors or study-specific operationalizations to describe first impression effects rather than a 347 generalizable definition. For instance, researchers may simply construe first impressions as the initial evaluations of job applicants’ qualifications based on test scores or facial appearance (Dougherty et al., 1994; McElroy et al., 2014) or leaders’ emotional displays or word choice (Beck et al., 2012; Melwani et al., 2012). However, commonalities that emerge from the diverse conceptualizations in organizational research, and general psychology’s understanding of social perceptions (e.g., Fiske, 1993), do lay the groundwork for an inclusive definition of first impression effects at work. Specifically, first impressions are driven by cues, which represent perceivable information transmitted and observed during interactions, that are then used to make initial inferences about another person, group, object, or situation (e.g., language, nonverbal gestures; Skowronski & Ambady, 2008). The overarching criticality of first impressions is their ability to help individuals coordinate interactions when some pertinent information is initially missing (Weisbuch et al., 2008). Organizational psychologists incorporating first impression effects tacitly recognize that future or continued information exchanges are expected to occur between the interacting parties (e.g., Klotz et al., 2013; Shipp & Jansen, 2011) and work-related goals underlie parties’ work-related interactions (Klein et al., 2008; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). Taken together, we define first impression effects at work as the impact of initial cue-driven perceptions and subsequent inferences on one’s ability to accomplish work-related goals in the future. Although the study of first impressions in general psychology and organizational psychology share several similarities, first impressions at work often feature meaningful nuances requiring distinctive study. First and foremost is the work context itself. Interactions in work contexts have established rhythms, purposes, and norms that are largely understood by the parties involved. This informs both the content of cues available and the backdrop upon which the cues are interpreted, shaping behaviors during initial interactions (e.g., conduct during first team meetings, handshakes in job interviews; Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Stewart et al., 2008). Furthermore, first impression effects at work are expected to impact one’s ability to accomplish a number of wide-ranging goals (e.g., communication goals, networking goals, and accuracy goals) held simultaneously (Mitchell et al., 2008), which requires acknowledging nuances beyond the accuracy goals predominantly explored in other streams of first impression research (Weisbuch et al., 2008). Finally, organizational psychology research often presumes that first impressions impact potentially long-term relationships that vary significantly in frequency of interaction, closeness, content, and length (e.g., supervisor–subordinate interactions; Guarana & Barnes, 2017). The dynamism of these effects extends beyond those captured in uncomplicated interactions that lack enduring implications (e.g., rating an unknown third party’s personality based on a photo; Willis & Todorov, 2006). This distinction is critical because, under the presumption that even fleeting one-time interactions could have longterm work-related implications, parties may significantly alter the extent and means by which they process and respond to initial information (e.g., Swider et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2012). First impression effects at work, therefore, demand exclusive research attention. How Do First Impression Effects Occur? Studies describing first impression effects at work, to date, have been primarily grounded in theoretical frameworks from general This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 348 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG psychology. Unfortunately, the broader psychology literature on first impression effects is “fractionated, with researchers generally coalescing into different ‘camps’” (Skowronski & Ambady, 2008, p. 7) that employ circumscribed conceptual frameworks, leaving them incapable of explaining the totality of first impression effects at work. For example, researchers trying to explain how individuals form correct and consistent evaluations of each other from specific cues displayed and perceived can use the zero-acquaintance framework (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Magliano et al., 2008). Although this popular framework is clearly suited for considering first impression accuracy, it does not provide postulates about the processes that transmit those impressions into meaningful behavioral or attitudinal outcomes in later interactions. On the other hand, evolutionary psychology frameworks describe how perceivers are motivated to form first impressions based on displayed fitnessrelated cues that lead to behavioral responses to increase survival (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Schaller, 2008). However, these evolutionary accounts are unable to explain displayers’ motives to exhibit certain cues, the processes transmitting the effects that are not evolutionary learning-based, and possible outcomes of initial interactions. Even still, self-enhancement frameworks explain individuals’ motives to display certain cues and how they impact short- and long-term outcomes of first impressions (Human et al., 2012; Leary et al., 1994; Paulhus, 1998; Vohs et al., 2005), but are poorly suited to explain the motives and processes for perceivers during early interactions. In building off such a fragmented corpus, organizational researchers have unwittingly replicated one of its largest shortcomings. To overcome the aforementioned constraints, scholars must take collective stock of the general psychology literature on first impressions and the organizational research adapting these perspectives to fully grasp the scope of first impressions in the workplace. Our efforts toward this aim in the present review yielded four fundamental elements necessary for a comprehensive integrative framework. The first elemental feature is informational cues, defined as observable attributes or stimuli that are exchanged and perceived early in interactions to create inferences (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Nestler et al., 2012). Cues are necessary for all first impression effects because there can be no predictable, reliable first impression influence without information being displayed and subsequently perceived by interacting parties. The second fundamental element is the interacting parties’ motives, defined as the goals one seeks to make progress toward or attain during the initial interaction, given that all work-related efforts are inherently goal-driven (Locke & Latham, 2004). Together, initial cues allow individuals to produce first impressions as motives propel individuals into cognitive or behavioral activities. In line with our broad understanding of workplace action and first impression formation (Gray, 2008; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), first impression effects all feature the third element of processes, the mechanisms by which initial informational cues and motives influence outcomes. The final elemental feature is outcomes, which entail the resulting responses to initial interactions. To be of importance for the work context, informational cues, motives, and processes of initial interactions must impact displayers, perceivers, or both in the future (Austin & Villanova, 1992). The resulting fundamental elements framework is in line with theories of social cognition which describe how individuals form impressions of each other to navigate future interactions. Specifically, individuals attend to and display information during social exchanges in accordance with their goals for that interaction (Fiske, 1993; Operario & Fiske, 1999). Consistent with the structure of our fundamental elements framework, the combination of the information exchanged and interacting parties’ motives impact subsequent impressions formed and responses through a number of processes (Amodio, 2019; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987; Smith & Collins, 2009). Critically, our framework for first impression effects adheres to the meta-theoretical structure of an input–process–output model, which has been used to integrate other broad topics in organizational psychology (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Johnson & Schminke, 2020; Wright & Snell, 1991). The input–process–output model is well-suited to integrate research on first impression effects due, in part, to the model’s implicit recognition that feedback loops exist (Kozlowski et al., 2016). In terms of first impression effects, outputs of a given initial interaction are expected to be inputs to future interactions between the two parties assuming the relationship is not temporally confined to the single interaction. Thus, our fundamental elements framework is informed by the broader understanding of social cognition but tailored specifically to integrate and inform organizational psychologists’ understanding of first impression effects. Even though the fundamental elements comprehensively capture the necessary components of first impression effects, research points to additional considerations that need to be included to maximize our framework’s precision and utility. Namely, scholars make two theoretically meaningful choices that directly impact their examinations of initial impressions at work. First, researchers must determine the source of each element, displayer or perceiver, in their examinations. Whether studying work or nonwork contexts, social cognition research recognizes that first impression effects typically involve each party in the interaction being both a displayer and perceiver (Burgoon et al., 1995). Yet, examining all four fundamental elements from both parties’ perspectives in a single study is practically and methodologically difficult (for an exception, see Liden et al., 1993). As a result, researchers often narrow their focus to the impact of either the displayer (i.e., the party giving off perceivable cues) or the perceiver (i.e., the party assimilating and interpreting the cues). Although some topic areas are more perceiver- (e.g., performance appraisal) or displayer-centric (e.g., impression management), research efforts do not need to be uniformly displayer- or perceiver-focused across all elements. For example, Dineen et al. (2007) evaluated initial impression effects of recruiting websites by examining how organizations’ (i.e., displayers’) motivated cue displays impacted applicants’ (i.e., perceivers’) behavioral processes (i.e., viewing time) and outcomes (i.e., information recall). By organizing our review in terms of displayer- and perceiver-focused research within each element, we are able to synthetically integrate findings across studies containing only components of the total effect to present a more complete understanding of first impressions (Scherbaum, 2005). The second theoretical choice researchers make involves whether first impression effects are treated as valid or biased, such that initial impressions are more valid (less biased) when perceptions and inferences are based on relevant, sound evidence rather than systematic errors (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Kane, 1992; West & Kenny, 2011). Scholars espousing the valid nature of first impressions tend to advance a functional approach whereby first impressions provide accurate informational cues that result in legitimate Figure 1 Fundamental Elements Framework of First Impression Effects This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 349 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 350 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG decision-making processes, such as helping assessors identify jobrelevant information in assessment center participants (Ingold et al., 2018) or aiding in the development of leaders’ and subordinates’ exchange relationships (Bauer & Green, 1996). Conversely, scholars studying similar contexts can take the perspective that initial impressions are biasing agents, such as when individuals’ physical appearance (e.g., weight, attractiveness, and tattoos) unjustifiably influences interviewer or trainer assessments (Gilmore et al., 1986; Henle et al., 2018; Pingitore et al., 1994) or subordinates’ initial impression management affects later supervisor performance ratings (Wayne & Liden, 1995). These examples reflect the general tendency to suggest that an entire initial impression effect in question is valid or biasing, although they more likely exist on a continuum rather than occupy discrete positions (Fiske et al., 2018). A related concern with overly generalized conclusions is that they obscure each element’s unique role in facilitating a valid or biased outcome, thereby masking potentially valuable nuances. However, analyzing the literature on work-related first impressions more broadly, as we do in this review, allows for the identification and integration of the distinctions made by researchers across studies regarding the valid and biasing factors germane to each element. The valid-biased issue has drawn attention in general psychology research (Gage, 1953; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987), though we surmise it deserves even greater attention in organizational research given work-related interactions are often subject to standardization, statistical analyses and forecasting, and legal scrutiny. Thus, our integrative review catalogs the purported sources contributing to the validity or bias of initial impression effects for each fundamental element to help reconcile conflicting positions within the literature and provide insights for improving the validity or reducing the biasing factors of early impressions. Using the two perspective choices of first impression effects’ origination (i.e., displayer- or perceiver-centric) and validity (i.e., valid or biased), we develop an integrative fundamental elements framework to cohesively synthesize research across organizational psychology. The fundamental elements framework is detailed in Figure 1, which depicts the first impression effect process and highlights representative prior research on each element. Regardless of the topic area, first impression effects in organizational psychology contain a certain constellation of the four elements in our framework, which can be studied from displayer or perceiver perspectives as well as in terms of their unique impacts on the relative validity of the effect and its outcomes. What About Timing in First Impression Research? A rather obvious albeit often neglected factor in first impression research is time. As the label suggests and our definition indicates, initial or first impression effects reflect something occurring or manifesting from the outset of an interaction or relationship.1 Beyond this indisputable point, however, lies ambiguity that has muddied the study of first impressions at work. Two inextricably linked questions involve determining how much time is required to form an initial impression and at what point an initial impression ceases to be “initial.” The general psychology literature has focused on the literal, clock-time speed it takes individuals to form a perception, thereby objectively determining the length of one’s very first impression (Bar et al., 2006; Pöppel, 1997). Yet, deciding what “initial” actually means is a theoretically driven exercise requiring a reasoned consideration of several contextual factors. In this vein, the time unit estimate for what constitutes a “first” impression should be based on a comparison to the absolute time estimate for the length of the total experience (e.g., interaction, interpersonal relationship; Hu & Maglio, 2018; White, 2017) rather than a strict application of clock time. Organizational psychology research appears to have incorporated this concept innately, given the diversity of clock-time lengths used to capture first impressions. For instance, first impressions can be based on brief encounters lasting only a few minutes in interviews or negotiations (Barrick et al., 2010; Curhan & Pentland, 2007), but extend to several months for new hires that may have decades-long tenures (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar, 2020). Similarly, the threshold of when an initial impression ceases to be “initial” varies across studies. Most researchers rely on practical constraints to data collection or situational triggers to demarcate “initial” from later impressions (e.g., initial team meetings, a specified number of days; Livne-Tarandach & Jazaieri, in press; Satterstrom et al., 2019). Although many of these decisions are quite reasonable, it is imperative that the time frame chosen to capture a specific first impression be theoretically justified so as to not under- or overestimate the effect. Properly identified endpoints of initial impressions, and where they may loop back to serve as inputs for subsequent interactions, should reflect the moment where enough information has been exchanged to eliminate the need for guiding inferences going forward (Harris & Garris, 2008). Figure 2 graphically depicts research on initial impressions at work organized by topic and the typical length of the first impression considered. The existing heterogeneity in the treatment of time is necessary to conduct accurate first impression research in organizational settings. Despite its rich history of exploring first impression effects, the general psychology literature offers only limited insights into the wide variety of time frames of initial impressions across work contexts (Uleman & Saribay, 2018). Cataloging how each topic area, to date, has incorporated time in its study of first impressions shows the range of brief and, oxymoronically, lengthy initial impression effects in organizational research. Importantly, the elemental features and their temporal ordering detailed in Figure 1 are expected to hold regardless of how long it takes for these first impression effects to unfold. The necessity of this temporal variability is detailed in our review of each element in the integrative framework. Literature Search: Identifying Work-Related First Impression Research We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search to ensure our review reflected the current state of first impression research. First, we searched leading organizational psychology and management journals (JAP, PPsych, AMJ, AMR, OBHDP, ASQ, Org Science, JOM) for the following terms: initial/first/early impressions, initial/first/early interactions, initial/first/early evaluations, and initial/early information. After a preliminary review of the articles identified in this step, we developed a more comprehensive list of pertinent search keywords including thin slicing, snap judgment, primacy effect, confirmation bias, self-fulfilling, fairness heuristic, performance cues, and dual-process theory. Using the 1 We use “first impressions,” “initial impressions,” and “early impressions” interchangeably to reduce repetitiveness. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 351 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Figure 2 First Impression Research Organized by Topic Area and Typical Length of the First Impression Considered Note. See the online article for the color version of this figure. expanded set of keywords, we again searched the aforementioned journals as well as highly regarded specialized journals (LQ, JOB, JOOP, JVB, HRM) and general psychology outlets that occasionally publish studies with work-related samples (JPSP, Psych Science, PSPB, PSPR). In total, we identified 214 articles from which to base our review. Finally, we inspected the references of the articles yielded by our search as well as continuously monitored journal table of contents and in-press publication announcements to capture any additional relevant work. We coded the following information for every article identified: the fundamental elements explored (e.g., cues, motives, processes, and outcomes), primary and secondary focal topics (e.g., leadership, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 352 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG interviews, etc.), main independent and dependent variables, theoretical mechanisms or lenses used to explain the effects, and key findings. Additionally, we coded whether the study focused on displayers, perceivers, or both parties; whether the fundamental elements were theorized as valid or biased; the operationalized length of the first impression; and the level of analysis (e.g., individual/dyad, team, or organization-level). To establish interrater consistency, we first independently coded several common articles and discussed disagreements until we reached a consensus. Given the number of identified articles and the extensiveness of our coding, we divided the remaining articles roughly equally among the authorship team to catalog the details of each article. Subsequent cases of coding uncertainty were flagged and discussed by the entire authorship team until consensus was reached. Toward an Integrative Fundamental Elements Framework Building from our literature search of the fundamental elements, we systematically review and summarize informational cues, motives, processes, and outcomes, paying close attention to their interconnections with one another. Each section begins with a general overview of common themes present in prior work on the individual element, then a detailed explanation of how the element has been studied from displayer- and perceiver-focused perspectives, followed by a discussion of how the element has been described in terms of validity and bias. Importantly, we identify essential through lines in the literature that are not identifiable when looking at single studies to provide a synthesized view of seemingly disparate research. Informational Cues in First Impression Research The principal elemental feature of first impression effects is informational cues, which are the foundation for the inferences that are later drawn. To examine the impact of cues, organizational research measures or manipulates the types or amount of information displayed and/or perceived during initial interactions. For instance, researchers have examined various types of cues transmitted by displayers (e.g., appearance and communication cues; Schilke & Huang, 2018), the usefulness of the information in cues (Ames et al., 2010), the amount of cues displayed (Gardner & Martinko, 1988), and the ordering of cues (Shah et al., 2014). Even studies focused on other elements of first impression effects presuppose that informational cues are being transmitted (e.g., Pierce & Dunham, 1987). Research on cues in first impression effects is summarized in Figure 1. Displayers Researchers have investigated a host of informational cues exhibited by displayers that impact initial interactions. Although there is no previously established taxonomy of cues, extant work can be categorized into four groups: appearance, communication, content, and behavioral cues. Research on appearance cues, which refer to the outward look of a stimulus (Hunter & Harold, 1987), has considered displayer attributes like overall physical attractiveness (Klassen et al., 1993), facial features (Gladstone & O’Connor, 2014; Livingston & Pearce, 2009; Olivola et al., 2014), cosmetic choices such as hairstyle, tattoos, and clothing (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997; Fetscherin et al., 2020; Gifford et al., 1985; Timming et al., 2017), and company website design (Dineen et al., 2007). A related set of cues are communication cues, which reflect the degree of involvement early in social interactions via verbal and nonverbal displays (Edinger & Patterson, 1983). Studies examining communication cues have included facial expressions (e.g., eye gaze, smiling), hand gestures (e.g., handshake, gesticulation, fidgeting), body positioning and movement (e.g., posture, nodding one’s head), and paralinguistic cues (e.g., voice volume, pitch; Curhan & Pentland, 2007; Gerpott et al., 2018; Gifford et al., 1985; Jacobson, 1945; Jiang et al., 2019; Stewart et al., 2008; Swider et al., 2016). First impression effects driven by these two types of cues are typically hypothesized to affect perceivers’ relatively immediate inferences (e.g., trait inferences, likeability) and short-term outcomes (e.g., interview scores, time reviewing recruiting materials, negotiated compensation) more so than longterm outcomes. If appearance and communication cues involve how initial information is conveyed, then content cues involve what is being conveyed. Content cues generally reflect the quality, type, and substance of information first transmitted by the displayer (Cober et al., 2004). Many studies concerned with content cues conceptualize them generally as the quality of messages displayed initially, and use holistic evaluations of either perceivers or objective evaluators to identify whether differences in displayed information content relate to future outcomes (Baum et al., 2016; Florea et al., 2019; Weisband, 1992). Additionally, content cues have been operationalized as the quantity of content cues (Williamson et al., 2010), the quality of cues (Chen et al., 2009), or a combination of both (Gatewood et al., 1993). Quality and quantity measures often have different patterns of effects (Cerasoli et al., 2014), so it is problematic that researchers to date have infrequently articulated why their choices of measurement types are best suited for their focal research questions. As an alternative to measuring content cues, some researchers have chosen to manipulate the content cues displayed initially. These designs have been used in studies of leadership (Caspi et al., 2019), recruiting (Dineen & Noe, 2009; Walker et al., 2011), selection (Wong & Werbel, 2010), and organizational justice (Jones & Skarlicki, 2005) to see how the presence, quantity, or quality of content cues affects outcomes. The temporal length of content cue displays has also varied, from content provided during brief job interviews (Kraus et al., 2019) to disclosures made during the first few weeks of a new job (van der Werff & Buckley, 2017). The temporal choices made by researchers generally and justifiably correspond with possible short- and longterm time frames of the outcomes they are hypothesized to predict. The most frequently encountered studies when reviewing the literature were those examining composites of multiple cues. We broadly label these as behavioral cues, which represent amalgamations of appearance, communication, and content cues displayed during an early interaction period (Bonaccio et al., 2016). The composite nature of behavioral cues should not necessarily be mistaken as underspecified but rather as reflecting real-life work situations where informational cues such as appearance or communication cues infrequently occur in isolation (Edinger & Patterson, 1983). Still, these constellations of relevant cues are too contextspecific to be parsimoniously yet accurately classified beyond the general term of behavioral cues. For instance, behavioral cues can be narrowly defined (e.g., displays of specific emotions; Jiang et al., This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 2019), measure a handful of related behaviors (e.g., impression management behaviors; Wayne & Liden, 1995), or simply include the overall performance of behaviors (Tsay, 2014). Alternatively, some studies focus on cues that provide information about a displayer’s history of engaging in certain behaviors prior to the interaction (e.g., reputation, past experience; Pinto & Ramalheira, 2017; Tinsley et al., 2002). Operationalizations of behavioral cues have varied temporally, from objectively short observations (i.e., a few seconds to a few minutes; Carnes et al., 2019; Satterstrom et al., 2019) to fairly lengthy observation windows (i.e., a few weeks; Beenen & Pichler, 2014; Choi & Cho, 2011; Nifadkar, 2020). Behavioral cues not only impact displayers’ ability to accomplish their interaction goals with other individuals (e.g., dealing with patients; Shafer et al., 2001) but also influence their future interactions in team settings (e.g., developing quality relationships; Nahrgang et al., 2009). Collectively, this research indicates that first impression effects across work contexts are often driven by the displays of numerous different cues simultaneously. Perceivers Whereas some general psychology research is concerned with identifying the thresholds of perceptibility of displayer cues (Human & Biesanz, 2013), organizational research generally concedes that initially displayed cues are recognized by perceivers and instead focuses on understanding which cues perceivers use to form early impressions. This line of research has grown impressively more sophisticated over time. Early research often relied on perceivers to list behaviors observed or had independent raters code audio/video samples of displayers (Balzer, 1986; Binning et al., 1988). Yet, more recent work has used tools such as eye-tracking, mouse cursor movement logging, or other technology to assess the cues that perceivers attend to and the subsequent real-time inferences made during initial interactions (Caspi et al., 2019; Gerpott et al., 2018; Wong & Werbel, 2010). Further innovation will undoubtedly enhance the ability to study the simultaneous impact of multiple cues, allowing for more precise determinations of when cues influence perceivers’ initial inferences and judgments as well as which cues have the longest impact on interaction outcomes. Another important line of cue-focused inquiry examines when and why perceivers respond differently to the same displayed cues. For instance, perceivers may be more or less responsive to initial cues depending on their own general beliefs about others (e.g., implicit person theories; Heslin et al., 2005), individual differences (e.g., personality, cultural values, social class; Branzei et al., 2007; Kraus et al., 2010; Nahrgang et al., 2009), or experience levels (Frieder et al., 2016). Taking such research further, and more closely mirroring the interactive nature of first impression effects, some studies have examined perceivers’ responses to cues that reflect (dis)similarity between themselves and the displayer. These similar-to-me studies, which have been applied to contexts such as recruiting (Walker et al., 2011), interviews (Barrick et al., 2009), person–organization fit (Firfiray & Mayo, 2017), LMX (Bauer & Green, 1996), and performance appraisal (Latham et al., 1975), specify how similarity between perceivers’ self-perceptions and their perceptions of displayers’ initial cues positively influence their subsequent inferences of displayers. Conversely, perceived dissimilarity with initially displayed cues is typically expected to lead to less positive first impressions. 353 Valid/Biased Our review identified two key distinctions that are made about cues’ impact on the validity of initial impression effects. The first distinction concerns whether cues are believed to be natural or managed. Researchers positioning cues as naturally occurring typically assume such cues are authentic representations of the individual displayers reflecting “kernels of truth” (Rule & Ambady, 2011, p. 691). However, when the cues displayed are argued to be less organic or a function of a displayer’s volition (e.g., facial piercings), researchers often position them as reflecting managed messages that displayers are consciously or unconsciously sending (McElroy et al., 2014). Managed cue displays can be valid, but on the whole, they are more open to manipulation and, thus, are more likely to be associated with systematic bias in first impression effects. The second key distinction made is the extent to which a cue or set of cues is believed to be diagnostic. More diagnostic cues provide relevant information useful for making meaningful inferences about a given construct, person, or situation (Melkonian et al., 2011; Robinson, 1996). Alternatively, less diagnostic cues provide perceivers with little information of value and cannot be used to draw sound inferences about a construct or person (Brown & Bernieri, 2017; Steinmetz et al., 2020). The less diagnostic and more managed the cues driving initial impressions are, the more likely it is that organizational researchers will suggest the effect is biasing subsequent processes and outcomes. An important takeaway from our review, and indicative of why the validity/bias of initial impression effects is such a complex issue, is that the same cues can be seen as either natural or managed depending on the study context. For instance, pictures of individuals’ faces may be seen as a natural source of initial cues reflecting underlying displayer job-related characteristics (Chen et al., 2012) or as stimuli being managed to convey certain information when posted to a job search profile (e.g., LinkedIn; Tifferet & VilnaiYavetz, 2018). Emotional expressions during initial interactions can similarly be argued as either a natural reflection of one’s underlying leadership ability (Melwani et al., 2012) or an inauthentic display of joy for a new venture (Jiang et al., 2019). The diagnosticity of any given cue can also vary across situations. For instance, résumé content cues may provide very useful information for prescreening decisions but give little if any indication of how well a candidate answers interview questions (Cable & Gilovich, 1998). Thus, the work context where the cue is displayed or perceived must be considered when determining the validity of first impression effects. One set of cues that are uniformly seen as biasing perceivers’ inferences are ordering cues, which involve perceivers making inferences based on when information is provided. Ordering cues are situational characteristics and inherently devoid of diagnostic information about displayers’ qualities but produce systematic errors in perceptions. In organizational research, ordering cues focus on either the information that appears earlier in an interaction (i.e., primacy; Bolster & Springbett, 1961; Fortin et al., 2016; Morgeson & Campion, 1997) or how early information differs from a previous encounter with someone else (i.e., contrast; Fay & Latham, 1982; Heilman et al., 2019; Hogan, 1987). And while the majority of these studies constrict their focus to how ordering cues affect the processes or outcomes of a single interaction, ordering cues have also been shown to impact perceivers’ long-term career decisions that may influence their lives for decades (Shah et al., 2014). 354 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG In sum, cues are unequivocally necessary for the emergence of first impressions at work. Although our understanding of cues and their effects can be enhanced by considering the range of cue types transmitted by displayers, the types of cues perceivers are inclined to pay attention to, and the underlying sources of validity or bias in cues, these factors alone are insufficient for understanding first impression effects at work. Indeed, initial cues at work accompany, and often share reciprocal influences with, displayers’ and perceivers’ motives during initial interactions. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Motives in First Impression Research Work-related efforts are inherently goal-driven (Locke & Latham, 2004), and thus, motives are another fundamental element of first impression effects in organizational psychology. Importantly, each exchange partner likely holds multiple goals when entering an interaction (Weisbuch et al., 2008), including both proximal goals like filling basic information gaps (Alipour et al., 2017; Gray, 2008) and distal goals such as influencing the likelihood one achieves desired outcomes in future interactions (Liden et al., 1993). Though not always explicitly stated, research has examined numerous possible context-specific motives for both displayers and perceivers (summarized in Figure 1). Displayers Rather than explicitly discussing displayer motives during initial interactions (for an exception, see Gardner & Martinko, 1988), most first impression research in organizational psychology relies on an unstated assumption that people want to be seen favorably and develop positive interpersonal relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Where motives during initial interactions do vary is in their time horizons. Displayers’ motives to be seen positively can help them achieve their short-term goals in that specific interaction, such as getting invited to interview or winning a negotiation (Curhan & Pentland, 2007; Kang et al., 2016). Motives to make favorable early impressions can also stem from displayers’ desires to develop long-term positive relationships or receive desirable rewards in future interactions, such as to be seen as fair by coworkers or to accept job offers several months later (Beenen & Pichler, 2014; Fortin et al., 2016). These motives are not mutually exclusive and are likely reinforcing for potentially long-standing interactions. A displayer’s motivation to be seen positively and the successful accomplishment of that goal during an initial encounter (e.g., being deemed trustworthy) will often facilitate their progress toward larger, more distal goals for that relationship (e.g., functional team processes; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Regardless of time horizon or specific work context, our review suggests that displayers’ motives can be categorized along the two universal dimensions of social cognition (Judd et al., 2005): competence and warmth. The desire to be seen as highly competent by interaction partners, which involves perceptions about their intelligence, skill, knowledge, capability, and efficiency (Fiske et al., 2007), is a key driver of displayers’ efforts during initial interactions because being able to accomplish organizationally relevant goals and tasks are fundamental to all work roles (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2005). When studying initial interactions in work contexts, researchers have examined myriad possible indicators of competence impressions that displayers seek to achieve. For example, displayers may strive to act in ways that suggest they possess useful KSAOs in hiring contexts (Gifford et al., 1985; Ingold et al., 2018), are proficient in completing teamwork tasks (Flynn et al., 2001), would be capable in leadership roles (Junker & van Dick, 2014), and are creative in pitch meetings (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003). Research has even shown that displayers can be motivated to focus energy on elements of initial interactions that are irrelevant to work performance, such as their handwriting quality on cover letters or applications (Beam, 1981), in an effort to exhibit competence to others. In addition to task-related requirements, the workplace is also a social context (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). In this vein, researchers have identified displayer motives to foster perceptions of their warmth, which entail being seen as friendly, trustworthy, helpful, and caring by interaction partners (Fiske et al., 2007; Judd et al., 2005). Studies at the individual-, team-, and organizational-level demonstrate the importance of displayers appearing interpersonally warm, as the likelihood of achieving specific interaction goals as well as long-term relational and instrumental goals rely on these perceptions. For instance, displayers’ efforts to be perceived as likable influence processes and outcomes of interviews (Barrick et al., 2010), performance appraisals (Wayne & Liden, 1995), assessment centers (Borman, 1982), overall relationships with coworkers (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), and recruitment of applicants (Feldman & Klaas, 2002). Conversely, being perceived as lacking warmth during initial interactions, such as appearing hostile or expressing interpersonal animosity, likely stymies displayers’ goal accomplishment (Choi & Cho, 2011; Guarana & Barnes, 2017). The motives to appear warm can be isolated to single interactions, such as being seen as sociable in an interview (Stewart et al., 2008), or in long-standing relationships, such as presenting supportive organizational environments for newcomers during their first few months as employees (KammeyerMueller et al., 2013). In total, appearing competent and warm during initial interactions are the most common overarching motives for displayers. Perceivers The literature establishes that gathering information is a motive that is unambiguously ascribed to perceivers during initial interactions as it helps them navigate the rest of their current interactions. Perceivers use collected informational cues about displayers to fill information gaps (Nifadkar, 2020), make inferences (Olivola et al., 2014), establish preferences (Geys, 2014), reach decisions (Frieder et al., 2016), develop behavioral responses (Dougherty et al., 1994), or guide future interactions with displayers (Carnes et al., 2019). Organizational psychology research indicates that perceivers are motivated to gather initial information about a range of target types, including individuals (e.g., leaders, applicants; Engle & Lord, 1997; Swider et al., 2016), groups and teams (Thiel et al., 2019), or entire organizations (Walker et al., 2011). Although the exact types of judgments or inferences perceivers are motivated to make using early cues vary by context, the general perceptions that perceivers are driven to form can also be organized along the two underlying social perceptions of competence and warmth (Cuddy et al., 2008). Extant work reflects discord, however, as researchers’ views differ on how the initial motive of information gathering affects perceivers’ efforts to make progress toward distal goals. This divide is not made explicitly in a single study but is discernable when This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 355 reviewing the literature on first impression effects as a whole. Some researchers, for example, see perceivers as holding process-focused motives whereby the first impression is the initial piece of information transmitted in what is expected to be a long journey of discovery (Caspi et al., 2019; Humberd & Rouse, 2016; Nifadkar, 2020; Song et al., 2017). Like other lines of inquiry on goal achievement (Freund & Hennecke, 2015; Koo & Fishbach, 2014), these researchers focus on first impressions as a productive part of a larger goal pursuit process. A clear example of this is researchers employing the thin-slicing paradigm, which assesses perceivers’ judgments of others after viewing a set of displayer cues for a brief time frame, to examine perceivers’ motivations to gather initial cues about applicants (Bjornsdottir & Rule, 2017), leaders (Tskhay et al., 2014), teammates (Wellman, 2017), or organizations and their representatives (Holtz, 2015). Scholars have even employed statistical analogies to represent this perspective, whereby first impressions are akin to defining the prior probability in Bayesian decision-making (Murphy & Tam, 2004). Regardless of how they frame it, early information gathering is seen as a way for perceivers to reduce the discrepancy between their initial state of unfamiliarity with displayers and perceivers’ ultimate, sometimes imperfectly defined, goals in those interactions. Taking a different tack, other researchers argue that perceivers enter initial interactions focused on ideal distal goals, or destinations (Huang & Aaker, 2019), and that first impressions are potentially distracting deviations from perceivers’ desired end states. Information that is encountered during initial interactions is seen as inherently imperfect and deficient relative to the information necessary to reach the desired goal of their interactions (Avery et al., 2009; Steinmetz et al., 2020). The implication is that the inevitable discrepancy between initial judgments or inferences stemming from an early interaction and the outcome sought means initial impressions should be minimized or avoided when forming future cognitive or behavioral responses (Morgeson & Campion, 1997; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989; Shapiro et al., 2007). Notably, researchers tend to ascribe destinationfocused motives to perceivers in contexts where definitive decisions or actions must be reached at the conclusion of the interaction, such as a selection decision (Livingston et al., 2017), negotiation (Tinsley et al., 2002), or performance appraisal (Binning et al., 1986). impression is thought to be. For the former, even small amounts of relevant information are seen as useful progress, or a “nudge in the right direction” (Bauer & Green, 1996, p. 1561), toward perceivers’ interaction goal achievement. When seen this way, scholars suggest first impression effects are more valid and worth perceivers’ efforts to better understand and respond to interaction partners. Conversely, scholars that focus on how initial information is deficient relative to distal interaction goals argue that first impression effects are at best unreliable judgments needing additional corroboration and at worst biasing impediments to goal accomplishment that should be avoided if possible (Morgeson & Campion, 1997). Taken together, displayers’ motives, which most often coalesce around being seen as competent and warm, and perceivers’ motives, broadly aiming to gather the information that aids in goal accomplishment, influence which cues are delivered and received, respectively. Ultimately, the confluence of informational cues and the varying motives among interaction partners in initial interactions instigate the processes that carry forward first impression effects. Valid/Biased Displayers Arguments regarding the validity of first impression effects are contingent on the assumed motives behind displayers’ choices to exhibit or hide cues (e.g., self-presentation tactics) during an initial interaction (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Specifically, first impression effects are suggested to be more valid when displayers’ motives to be judged favorably are rooted in a desire to be seen accurately (e.g., self-verification) versus attempting to project or even fabricate some alternative image (e.g., impression management). For example, job interviewees motivated to exhibit cues that highlight their authentic warmth and/or competence initially are thought to be validly influencing interview outcomes compared to job applicants lacking relevant experience who present disingenuous cues about their suitability or warmth (Barrick et al., 2009; Gino et al., 2020; Levashina & Campion, 2006). From a perceiver perspective, researchers’ framing of initial impressions as either a worthwhile part of goal achievement or a distraction from an end state directly informs how valid a first Numerous processes have been posited to transform displayers’ motives and cues into the accomplishment (or not) of desired goals. When comparing and contrasting the shared characteristics of these processes against the backdrop of the broader psychology literature on social interactions (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Kramer, 1999; Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Reid & Hogg, 2005), two higher-order process categories emerge: expectancy fulfillment and uncertainty reduction. Expectancy fulfillment processes suggest that the effects of displayers’ initial cues presented and motives to achieve desired outcomes impact interaction outcomes based on how well they match perceivers’ norm- or ideal prototype-driven expectations (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Melwani et al., 2012). In particular, and in line with our discussion of motives, displaying cues that fulfill or match perceivers’ expectations of characteristics related to Processes in First Impression Research The third elemental feature of first impression effects is the processes by which cues and motives influence outcomes. Critically, the processes underlying first impression effects are often inferred rather than directly tested, likely due to the practical difficulty of isolating such mechanisms in actual work contexts (e.g., McFarland et al., 2004; Swider et al., 2011). Dozens of processes from various theoretical frameworks and paradigms have been hypothesized to explain how early interactions affect future outcomes.2 Although the processes advanced are heterogeneous in several ways (e.g., interaction party foci, biased or valid, time frame), this variability does not result in irreconcilable differences. Each process can be reasonably justified when considering the wide range of research questions as well as the cues and motives driving first impression effects (reviewed in Figure 1). Consistent with our broad understanding of workplace action (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), the underlying core of these frameworks is that initial cues and motives propel individuals into cognitive or behavioral action, which together are transformed into specific responses via underlying processes. 2 A summarized list of frameworks and paradigms identified in our literature search appears in the Appendix. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 356 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG competence and warmth facilitates displayers’ accomplishment of their interaction goals. For example, displaying cues in line with the image of an ideal worker during a job interview or expressing emotions and communication cues consistent with a prototypical leader drive more positive outcomes for the displayer (e.g., getting a job, being seen as charismatic; Barrick et al., 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Melwani et al., 2012; Tskhay et al., 2017). Expectancy fulfillment processes also describe how individuals’ displays that diverge from expectations, such as early role discrepancies in teams, failing to meet communication norms (e.g., weak handshake), or displaying stigmatized body art (e.g., visible tattoos or piercings) can trigger perceivers’ negative perceptions toward displayers (Rink & Ellemers, 2009; Stewart et al., 2008; Timming et al., 2017). Expectancy fulfillment processes can have both proximal and distal implications for displayers. As one potent example, Wayne and Liden (1995) showed that new employees’ behaviors reflecting the desired features of a subordinate sparked supervisors’ short-term liking perceptions and predicted future support well after early interactions. Expectancy fulfillment processes can also operate at the group-level, as initially displayed cues shape group members’ roles and early perceptions about the group, ultimately dictating long-term functioning (Goncalo et al., 2010). Research advancing uncertainty reduction processes, on the other hand, describes the various ways that displayers reduce the ambiguity and lack of information in initial interactions by providing informational cues that steer those interactions toward displayers’ desired outcomes (Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990; Kramer, 1999). Uncertainty reduction processes, like those found in the zero-acquaintance, thin-slicing, and signaling paradigms (Ambady et al., 1995; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Curhan & Pentland, 2007; Tskhay et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2013), share a core mechanism of facilitating exposure to meaningful information that perceivers initially lack. These processes have been used to explain how displays of cues can reduce the uncertainty regarding job applicants’ competence or personality (Barrick et al., 2010; Ingold et al., 2018), leaders’ charisma (Tskhay et al., 2017), and organizations’ image and justice (Gatewood et al., 1993; Gilliland, 1993). Uncertainty reduction processes can also drive long-term outcomes. For example, early cues provide inputs for the development of shared interaction patterns and norms, which decrease the initial doubts over appropriate longterm workplace interactions with teammates (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Although researchers may focus on just one type of displayer process, expectancy fulfillment and uncertainty reduction processes are not mutually exclusive and may, in many cases, reinforce each other. For instance, research has explored how initial cues presented by organizations either during the hiring process or internships enhance potential employees’ learning about the organization and provide a preview of future organizational relationships and job roles (Beenen & Pichler, 2014; Walker et al., 2013). In this case, early informational cues displayed by organizations affect later outcomes through both uncertainty reduction, in the form of exposing applicants to meaningful information, and expectancy fulfillment processes, when the information is compared to applicants’ ideal image of an employer. Perceivers Perceiver-centric processes discussed in existing research, summarized in Figure 1, reflect the mechanisms by which cues attended to by and motives of perceivers early in interactions impact their accomplishment of interaction goals. The specific processes presently argued to drive first impression effects for perceivers, while vast, fit along Mischel’s (1973) two components of social information acquisition: cognitive and behavioral processes.3 Cognitive processes, which entail individuals’ mental encoding and transformation of early information (Kunda, 1990), vary based on their level of automaticity (Bargh et al., 2012). Cognitive processes that are relatively automatic (vs. deliberate), including halo error, functional social attention, and representative heuristics, reflect perceivers’ engagement in relatively nonconscious and intuitional mental operations that influence future thoughts, judgments, or actions (Binning et al., 1986; Feldman, 1986; Gerpott et al., 2018; Morgeson & Campion, 1997). Research relying on more deliberate cognitive processes, such as other-focused perspective taking, sensemaking, perceived similarity, and signaling (Bauer & Green, 1996; Firfiray & Mayo, 2017; Schilke & Huang, 2018; Wellman, 2017), underscores perceivers’ intentional mental processing of informational cues that facilitate progress toward their interaction goals. Researchers’ choices of automatic or deliberate cognitive processes appear to be strongly influenced by the study context. Automatic cognitive processes are more likely to be advanced when studying interactions with brief expected life spans, such as one-shot negotiations, whereas deliberate cognitive processes are more likely to be used in topics with longer time horizons, such as newcomer socialization (see Figure 2, for a summary). That said, some researchers have focused on combinations of automatic and deliberate cognitive processes, such as dual System 1–System 2 information processing by assessment center raters (Ingold et al., 2018) or peripheral and central route processing by applicants reviewing company websites (Dineen & Noe, 2009), which jointly affect perceiver outcomes. Behavioral processes focus on specific actions perceivers take in response to initially encountered cues that facilitate interaction outcomes. These behavioral processes invariably include cognitive components, which is consistent with general psychology theory suggesting that cognition is necessary but insufficient for guiding behavior in new or unfamiliar situations (e.g., Ajzen, 1991). Here, we distinguish behavioral processes from cognitive processes when the mechanism directly influencing outcomes is the perceivers’ behavioral responses to initial informational cues and motives. For instance, first impression effects in interviews have been thought to be driven by perceivers’ confirmatory information-seeking behaviors (Binning et al., 1988; Dougherty et al., 1994; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989). Although the interviewer must cognitively attend to and evaluate confirmatory information, the ultimate effect (i.e., interview ratings) is caused more proximally by interviewers’ behaviors such as asking different types of questions or adjusting how much they sell the job. Behavioral processes are not just shortterm focused but have also been shown to impact long-term outcomes, including early social exchange behaviors in leader–follower 3 Interestingly, when coding studies for this review, affective processes were not prevalent in the first impression literature. When they did appear, affective processes were distal mechanisms that influenced perceivers via more proximal cognitive or behavioral responses (e.g., perceptions of liking a displayer are used to cognitively form perceptions of warmth/competence or engage in certain behavioral responses; Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Cober et al., 2004), which is consistent with general models of individuals’ responses to stimuli (e.g., Ajzen, 1991). FIRST IMPRESSIONS dyads (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), Pygmalion effects on managers’ behaviors toward newcomers (Eden, 1984), and the behavioral enactment of cognitive scripts that lead to relatively long-lasting team norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Valid/Biased Researchers positioning first impression effects as more biased or valid often suggest that the processes transmitting the effects are biased or valid (Hansbrough et al., 2015; Jones & Skarlicki, 2005). Yet, these types of unilateral conclusions seem to reflect researchers’ beliefs of whether the underlying cues and motives of the effect are valid or biased. Indeed, extant research typically suggests that a process is valid if it carries motives and cues that are believed to be valid, but it is biased if it carries cues and motives that are biased. This insight explains why a particular process can be presented as valid in one study and biased in another. For example, an expectancy fulfillment process that carries the effects of the displayers’ cues and motives forward can be valid if the displayers are presenting authentic qualifications that adhere to perceivers’ archetype of competence (Swider et al., 2011) or biased when displayers intentionally choose cues that misrepresent their true characteristics (Gino et al., 2020). Similarly, the validity of perceiver processes relies on whether cues attended to are relevant and diagnostic as well as the goals of the exchanged information. For instance, when comparing a cognitive process that is unilaterally seen as biased, like ordering effects (Morgeson & Campion, 1997; Sinclair, 1988), to one that is often viewed as more valid, like sensemaking (Nifadkar, 2020; Rudolph et al., 2009), the core of each process is the mental encoding of initial informational cues by perceivers to form perceptions or judgments. The key distinction is that the cues driving ordering effects are nondiagnostic for any future judgment or decision, whereas sensemaking relies on relevant cues that help individuals function effectively in the future. Thus, based on our review of the literature, processes for initial impression effects are agnostic carriers of the cues and motives that lead to relatively valid or biased effects. Our framework so far suggests that cues and motives in initial interactions spur processes that propel first impression effects forward. For displayers, these processes are oriented toward fulfilling predetermined expectations or reducing uncertainty to facilitate interaction goal accomplishment. Perceiver processes capture the cognitive and behavioral responses to cues attended to during the initial interaction. Whether perceiver- or displayer-focused, these processes transmit cues and motive to drive outcomes of initial interactions for both parties. Outcomes in First Impression Research To establish any first impression effect, researchers must show that initial cues, motives, and processes impact displayers, perceivers, or both in the future. In reality, first impression effects often have multiple outcomes, whether affective, behavioral, or cognitive (Barrick et al., 2010; Bauer & Green, 1996; Cable & Yu, 2006), each related to a displayer’s or perceiver’s work-related goals. Focal outcomes vary in terms of time frames as well, from research focused on how first impressions influence immediate responses by displayers and perceivers (e.g., number and type of interview questions asked, leader–follower hostility; Dougherty et al., 1994; 357 Guarana & Barnes, 2017) to how first impressions affect long-term outcomes (e.g., accepting future job offers, withdrawal behaviors; Beenen & Pichler, 2014; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Alternatively, some research investigates how to magnify or decrease first impression effects on future attitudes, behaviors, or judgments (Hoyt & Burnette, 2013), often seeking to identify ways to reduce bias or increase the validity of first impressions. Displayers Displayer outcomes capture displayers’ and perceivers’ responses to initial impressions driven by the displayers’ cues and motives. Our systematic review of the literature revealed two broad categories of displayer outcomes: Self-focused and mutual-focused outcomes. This dichotomy is present in other organizational topics that deal with interactions between two or more parties (e.g., negotiations, LMX development; de Dreu et al., 2000; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Self-focused outcomes include those attitudinal, behavioral, or cognitive responses following initial interactions that allow displayers to progress toward or fulfill their own interaction goals. Achieving self-focused outcomes can depend solely on displayers’ typically when only involving displayers’ goal of transmitting certain informational cues that indicate competence or warmth (Cable et al., 2013; Flynn et al., 2001; Gardner & Martinko, 1988). However, the majority of self-focused outcomes involve displayers eliciting desired responses from perceivers, such as getting high scores from an assessor, being conferred high status by teammates, priming potential applicants to submit a job application, or receiving venture funding (Gatewood et al., 1993; Ingold et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2013). Still, the unifying aspect of all self-focused outcomes is that they capture displayers’ achievement or progress toward their own interaction goals without directly considering perceivers’ motives. Mutual-focused outcomes, on the other hand, involve both the displayer and perceiver making progress toward or achieving interaction goals. It is important to note that although this category of outcomes involves both displayers and perceivers, they are positioned explicitly by researchers to describe situations whereby the displayers’ informational cues and motives influence both parties’ ability to achieve outcomes. Mutual-focused outcomes typically involve the degree to which both interacting parties work better going forward based on the cues displayed initially. These criteria including facilitating team functioning, increasing the quality of leader–member relationships, determining the amount of person–organization fit, or establishing mentor–protégé understandings (Beenen & Pichler, 2014; Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Humberd & Rouse, 2016). Though most studies tend to anchor on positively framed outcomes for both parties, some have taken a different approach by exploring how exhibiting the wrong cues can debilitate joint outcomes. For instance, a sleep-deprived leader may initially display cues that hinder their own as well as their follower’s ability to develop a positive leader–follower relationship (Guarana & Barnes, 2017). Perceivers Although all outcomes for perceiver-centric first impression effects focus on the extent to which initial interactions impact perceivers’ achievement of their interaction goals, a clear divide exists in terms of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 358 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG their temporal focus, as is similar to those found in other time-focused topic areas (e.g., Bolger et al., 2003). Some researchers elect to investigate interaction-focused outcomes tied to the conclusion of the specific initial interaction event (e.g., a job interview), whereas others examine relations-focused outcomes more closely associated with the unfolding dynamics of the relationship following the initial impression and interaction (e.g., newcomer adjustment). Interactionfocused outcomes of perceivers’ first impressions deal with perceivers’ affective, behavioral, or cognitive responses that indicate goal attainment at the end of the initial encounter. Examples of interactionfocused outcomes include assessments of individuals’ job suitability, negotiating styles, leadership ability, and a teams’ performance potential (Gladstone & O’Connor, 2014; Latham et al., 1975; Martell et al., 1995; Melwani et al., 2012; Springbett, 1958). Interaction-focused outcomes of first impression effects can occur naturally after a brief work-specific interaction event (e.g., job interview; Barrick et al., 2012; Frieder et al., 2016). Yet, much of the research examines them as a function of an experimental situation that demands perceivers reach conclusions (e.g., making an application decision at the end of a simulated job search, rating a videotaped job performance episode; Firfiray & Mayo, 2017; Williams et al., 1986). Still, these types of outcomes are essential for researchers exploring and quantifying the effects of first impressions after a single interaction. In contrast, relations-focused outcomes reflect the extent to which early information gathered by perceivers helps them achieve their distal goals in future interactions (Cameron & Webster, 2011). Relations-focused outcomes can involve perceivers’ initial judgments of displayers’ warmth and competence (e.g., trustworthiness, job performance), subsequent behaviors toward displayers (e.g., team conflict, job withdrawal), and affective feelings about displayers (e.g., liking), all of which impact the perceivers’ thoughts and actions in future encounters (Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Geys, 2014; Goncalo et al., 2010; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Wayne & Liden, 1995). As relations-focused outcomes are related to perceivers’ progress toward developing or unknowable end states of interactions, researchers typically use them when positioning perceivers as having process-focused motives (Lester et al., 2007). Importantly, interaction- and relations-focused outcomes are not mutually exclusive and can be considered jointly. Studies taking this approach almost always temporally order interaction- and relationsfocused outcomes as short- and long-term outcomes, respectively (e.g., Bauer et al., 2020; Liden et al., 1993). Valid/Biased Displayer outcomes are typically positioned as more or less valid based on whether the outcome would have otherwise been achieved without the initial interaction. Researchers suggesting the outcomes for displayers are more valid argue that initial exchanges contain relevant information that was inevitably going to surface later, including cues related to the suitability of applicants, negotiating prowess, leadership qualities, and organizational characteristics (Barrick et al., 2010; Curhan & Pentland, 2007; Dietl et al., 2018; Dineen et al., 2007). Conversely, scholars arguing that outcomes are primarily biased focus on instances when displayers unjustifiably (fail to) achieve or make progress toward their interaction goals based on initial cues that are disingenuous or irrelevant to the focal criterion (Gilmore et al., 1986; Livingston et al., 2017; Pingitore et al., 1994; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Interestingly, some researchers have implicitly acknowledged these positions are more fluid than discrete, as displayers’ first impressions may sometimes delay, but not outright prevent, a valid outcome from being achieved (Alipour et al., 2017; Flynn et al., 2001). In these cases, the longer the delay before a valid outcome is reached, the more biased the effect is thought to be. Similar distinctions can be made when describing the validity of perceiver outcomes. Namely, the degree to which initial impressions are valid depends on the extent that they overlap with that outcome independent of perceivers’ first impressions. The thin-slicing paradigm exemplifies this approach. A thin-slicing study may compare a perceiver’s initial assessment of a person’s leadership ability (i.e., the perceiver outcome) with objective ratings of that same person’s leadership ability. If the perceiver’s rating strongly (or weakly) overlaps with objective ratings of the leader’s actual behavior, then it is assumed the initial impression is based on sound (irrelevant) evidence and more (or less) valid (Rule & Tskhay, 2014; Tskhay et al., 2017). An alternative approach focuses on the convergence between ratings made when a first impression was and was not provided, either in a lab setting or higher fidelity situations (Barrick et al., 2010; Fay & Latham, 1982). In these studies, a lack of overlap between ratings indicates the extent to which the first impression is biasing outcomes. If no objective rating or counterfactual of what otherwise would have occurred exists (e.g., it is impossible to know the quality of a leader– subordinate relationship if there was no first impression), the validity of a perceiver’s outcomes is typically assessed by the amount of consistency the outcome demonstrates from the initial interaction to some future point (Nahrgang et al., 2009; Reh et al., 2017). Researchers have also examined factors that enhance initial impression outcome validity for perceivers. Interestingly, these efforts have focused on changes to the other three first impression elemental features that enhance perceivers’ attention to relevant initial information, such as increasing the number of cues attended to (Carney et al., 2007), taking other-focused perspectives (Schilke & Huang, 2018), using group ratings (Martell & Leavitt, 2002), and improving employees’ memory sensitivity (Hansbrough et al., 2015). Our review suggests that first impressions, through the three fundamental elements of cues, motives, and processes, impact numerous work-related outcomes for one or more of the parties involved in the interaction. Moreover, first impressions can affect the dynamics and outcomes of the initial interaction and serve as the inputs that guide the development of potentially long-term relationships. In total, our integrative fundamental elements framework provides a comprehensive yet flexible roadmap for future inquiries on first impression effects, including their outcomes, at work. Theoretical Implications and an Agenda for First Impression Research Our integrative conceptual review has several important implications for the study of first impression effects at work. First, we advanced a precise but inclusive definition of first impression effects and developed a fundamental elements framework based on a systematic categorization of extant research. First impression effects are comprised of four common elements—cues, motives, processes, and outcomes—that can be viewed from different perspectives (e.g., displayers and perceivers), situated across different time horizons and organizational levels, and generally evaluated on a continuum of valid and biased. Researchers can use our integrative This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS review to identify critical gaps in the literature as well as ensure that they incisively develop their theory, variable choice, study design, and research implications to meaningfully address those gaps in work-related contexts. For instance, a researcher who only has certain aspects of their research question defined (e.g., displayerfocused effect based on behavioral cues) can use our review to identify possible processes they should consider. If they are studying a context where norms and prototypes are established (e.g., performance appraisal), then they may want to develop hypotheses using expectancy fulfillment processes compared to more ambiguous settings (e.g., negotiations) where uncertainty reduction processes may be more useful. Our review also informs researchers’ basic decisions such as “how long are first impressions in my study?” Though the literature does not advance a definitive threshold of when an initial impression ceases, our integrative review indicates that what constitutes an initial impression in a context of interest should be based on the expected length of the relationship being studied. Operationalized lengths of first impressions in prior work, summarized in Figure 2, may also offer researchers a starting point when trying to make such a determination. Beyond synthesizing research domains with existing bodies of first impression work, our framework also provides a theoretically grounded roadmap for extending first impression work to research domains wherein first impression effects have been underexplored. For example, although some work has examined cues and processes by which perceivers quickly assess others’ creative potential (e.g., Hollywood studio executives evaluating screenwriters; Elsbach & Kramer, 2003), the ways in which initial cues, motives, and processes impact how displayers and perceivers engage in creative activities are largely unexplored. We see this as a curious omission. Creativity is a social interaction process (Li et al., 2018; PerrySmith & Shalley, 2003) whereby first impressions are inevitable. Studying which appearance, communication, content, or behavioral cues are displayed, the extent to which displayers seek to be seen as competent or warm, and whether perceivers view initial brainstorming sessions as first steps in a creative discovery or disruptions to necessary productivity are all unanswered but critical questions. Our fundamental elements framework thus provides a meta-theoretical lens for developing these types of questions and guiding theoretical advancements, regardless of the research domain, while positioning first impressions and their elements as important dynamic inputs to future interactions and decisions (e.g., feedback loops; Ilgen et al., 2005; Vancouver & Tischner, 2004). In the same vein, we suspect general psychology research can benefit from our framework by using it as a baseline to systematically develop future studies. Indeed, by recognizing and incorporating interacting parties’ possible multiple motives as well as the varying time frames for first impression effects, our framework accounts for common limitations noted in the existing social cognition literature (Hall et al., 2019; Uleman & Saribay, 2018). A critical conclusion from our review is the inappropriateness of describing the overwhelming majority of first impression effects as entirely valid or biased (for an exception, see ordering effects). Precise theorizing and study of specific first impression effects require consideration of each element as well as their interrelatedness to understand an effects’ validity. For instance, testing first impression accuracy by examining if initial impressions of a displayer correlate with objective or peer ratings of the displayer (e.g., Carney et al., 2007) only addresses a portion of the validity 359 of a given effect. These studies provide important insights, akin to those establishing the construct validity of an assessment, but cannot unilaterally determine the first impression effects’ validity. The same issue is present in studies that draw conclusions regarding the biasing nature of initial impressions based solely on a lack of (or presence of low) predictive validity. Like establishing validity in any context, first impression effect validity requires many pieces of evidence (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Regardless of the topic, research must move beyond the question of whether an initial impression effect is valid or not and toward a better understanding of exactly why, how, and when an effect is more or less valid. We advocate that researchers looking to unpack the sources of validity and bias in a given first impression effect begin by considering two features that describe the extent to which any assessment or perception of a given construct differs from the actual construct domain: deficiency and contamination (Cascio & Aguinis, 2010). Effects will have lower validity when there are larger amounts of deficiency (missing relevant information) or contamination (includes irrelevant information) during initial interactions for a given criterion (e.g., judgment, decision, behavior). To postulate about the deficiencies and contaminants in first impressions, researchers should compare the totality of the overall construct space of the outcome(s) of interest and what can be gleaned from initial interactions. For example, extensive research has examined perceptions of trust and what predicts one’s trustworthiness (Colquitt et al., 2007), generally indicating that the construct includes components such as perceived expertise, loyalty, caring, and fairness. Accordingly, researchers examining whether initial trust perceptions (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999) are more or less valid should consider what established components of trustworthiness judgments are absent from initial interactions (e.g., response to transgressions; Dirks et al., 2009), as well as what information is present but unrelated to trustworthiness (e.g., specific appearance cues, names of individuals; Holtz, 2013; Huang & Murnighan, 2010; McElroy et al., 2014). Examining how these effects change based on the interacting parties’ motives may further delineate how and why some impressions produce more valid or biased outcomes. Through exhaustive investigations like these, researchers will be able to posit recommendations to improve the validity of first impressions within each fundamental element and increase the speed of value-creating work-related decisions and behaviors. There are also several contextual factors that have been underexplored in the first impressions literature that merit attention. One salient example is team- and organization-level first impression effects. They were the focus of less than ten percent of the studies identified in our initial literature search (21 of 214 studies) despite an increased focus on these topics in organizational psychology (Kozlowski et al., 2017). Indeed, first impression effects at the team- and organization-levels have the potential to exert a greater total impact on workplaces, and these effects likely vary across displayers and perceivers of higher-order initial impressions. An unexpected takeaway from our review was that even when researchers have explored first impression effects in team contexts, they often employed similar research paradigms as individual-level studies. For example, studies have shown that perceivers can form overall impressions about a group’s effectiveness by observing only a brief sampling of their interactions (Satterstrom et al., 2019), using cues from only a single team member (e.g., the “first” This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 360 SWIDER, HARRIS, AND GONG member; Steinmetz et al., 2020) or cues that should be irrelevant to the criterion of interest (e.g., evaluating an orchestra’s performance without sound; Tsay, 2014). Other researchers have treated teams themselves as perceivers, with findings suggesting that team members will form generally consistent impressions about a new leader based on the leader’s personality traits (Nahrgang et al., 2009), make judgments about newcomers based on whether they are deemed a temporary or permanent replacement (Rink & Ellemers, 2009), or even assess their own future potential and dynamics by observing attributes of other members (Goncalo et al., 2010; Weisband, 1992; Wellman, 2017). Finally, some studies have shown that groups and teams may uniquely form impressions on a particular role rather than an individual. For instance, impressions of a newcomer may be altered based on their predecessor’s status and attributes (e.g., Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Bunderson et al., 2014). Although these works have shed meaningful light on first impression elements at higher units of analysis, more collective-level theorizing may yield important new insights. For example, first impression effects for collectives include the possibility of multiple processes jointly (e.g., reinforcing, countervailing) linking first impression cues and motives to subsequent outcomes. Moreover, applying the numerous measurement options existing at higher levels of analyses, each carrying a different theoretical connotation (Chan, 1998; Harrison & Klein, 2007), may further inform our understanding of collective first impression effects. There is also a noticeable absence of cross-cultural first impressions research. Although we argue that our fundamental elements framework is universalistic, future research in this area must go beyond simple examinations of whether an effect is present or not in different cultural contexts. Studies should examine whether specific cues, motives, processes, or time spans differentially affect the dynamics of first impression effects across the world (e.g., Branzei et al., 2007). Uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, long-term orientation, and power distance likely play a role in how effects stemming from initial cue-driven perceptions operate in work contexts with culturally influenced roles, norms, and goals (Taras et al., 2010). Concurrent with and related to the work world’s global shift, interactions at work are increasingly virtually mediated (Raghuram et al., 2019; Roth et al., 2016). We reviewed several studies that confirmed the presence of first impression effects in virtual contexts (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2018), but far more work is needed to understand how previously established first impression effects operate differently in a virtual setting. This is especially critical as technology and work roles change rapidly, bringing about new interaction partners in unexpected ways (e.g., COVID-19; McFarland et al., 2020). Studying first impressions is difficult, as researchers must measure the underlying, often momentary, dynamics of initial interactions between two or more parties. Still, we implore researchers to ambitiously pursue research questions and study designs that expand beyond those already prominent in the literature. For instance, researchers looking to model the dyadic effects of first impressions, whereby both parties are simultaneously displayers and perceivers, could design studies consistent with the actorpartner interdependence model (Kenny et al., 2006). These types of models can be used to distinguish the initial influence each party has on the other while concurrently accounting for their formal roles (e.g., interviewer and applicant). This type of design also allows scholars to test critical ideas like whether one party has a stronger influence or examine multiple possible sources of bias (Sadler & Woody, 2003). Our review further indicates that a more holistic consideration of the fundamental elements and relevant contextual factors is warranted. Although isolating a single initial cue or motive can increase the internal validity of a study, doing so overlooks the broader constellation of cues, motives, and processes that coexist in interactions in typical work contexts. For example, studies that account for multiple cues and motives that map onto displayers’/perceivers’ attempts to project/decode warmth and competence may shed light on important, often complicated phenomenon such as the “double bind” faced by female professionals, whereby their value is initially discounted for exhibiting the same (or even superior) profile as their male counterparts (e.g., Cikara & Fiske, 2009; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Similarly, understanding how perceivers’ differentially process, whether consciously or not, concurrent displayer cues (e.g., a candidate’s atypical facial tattoo but otherwise professional attire) may reveal interesting, systematic patterns of influence. At a minimum, researchers must be aware and account for other cues that occur in those situations, as a failure to do so could result in imprecise estimates of effect sizes and oversimplified prescriptions for practitioners. In general, future research must more clearly articulate how the four fundamental elements of initial impression effects are accounted for in a given study, explain why the choices regarding each are made, and describe various other contextual elements of their study (e.g., time frame) to more systematically advance knowledge. Practical Implications Some practitioners advocate for formally assessing and projecting first impressions, with a few companies even going so far as to establish positions for Directors of First Impressions (ZipRecruiter, 2020). Our review indicates that valid information can be transmitted early in the interaction, but maximizing this information’s validity requires careful management and bias-reducing efforts. If early impressions are job-relevant for specific roles (e.g., customeror client-facing positions; Himmel, 2019), then the criterion-related validity of first impression ratings will depend on the ability to develop reliable measures that minimize contamination and deficiency. This includes identifying the specific perceptions of displayers’ competence or warmth that are relevant to the job and creating measures that assess as much of the construct space as possible while also reducing specific sources of contamination that are irrelevant. For example, organizations wanting to formally assess applicants’ social skills should develop standardized measures that assess specific behavioral and content cues of social skills (Hochwarter et al., 2006) during initial interactions while intentionally omitting ratings of irrelevant initial cues (e.g., appearance). This would also improve the validity and legal defensibility of first impression ratings. Our review also suggests that perceivers (e.g., leaders) would benefit from entering initial interactions having considered the informational cues they will likely encounter in the initial interaction (e.g., reviewing a new subordinate’s background) compared to all of the information they need to achieve their long-term goals (e.g., developing a quality relationship). Establishing and formally assessing these cues after an initial interaction will identify what information still needs to be gathered in future 361 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FIRST IMPRESSIONS interactions (i.e., the first impression’s deficiency). Assessing first impressions would also allow perceivers to compare perceptions of initially encountered cues with those from later interactions to determine if/why a given perception about a displayer has …

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.