1

Tyrone Schiff
First Impressions: Early Behaviors

Human beings are inherently social creatures who crave interactions and

interpersonal relationships. What indelibly makes all humans so unique is the fact that

each one’s social behavior is distinctly different to the next. It ought to be established that

people encounter and react to situations in varying manners. Certainly, interactions and

behaviors amongst people evolve gradually over time, yet at the onset of these

interactions, what are the initial behaviors that are employed? When people interact for

the first time, what are their ideas, cognitions, and stereotypes about each other? The first

time that people interact with one another is an absolutely critical point in the

development of the relationship that is to possibly ensue amongst them.

Entering a large school like the University of Michigan, one will undoubtedly

become proficient in the rituals that take place during the primary interaction with

another. Students attending Michigan come from all over the country, and one of the

highest priorities is to become familiar with their surroundings. Getting to know people

by interacting is a method commonly used to attain this necessary goal.

Personally, one of the deciding factors in picking Michigan was the opportunity to

meet a number of new and interesting people. I came to Michigan knowing only a few

people, but those that I did know were involved in the Greek system. I was advised that

partaking in the “rush” events held by these Greek Fraternities was an easy way to meet

and get to know a lot of different guys on campus. Without much vacillation, I decided to

attend some of these “rush” events.

At all of these events there were a number of guys that I could introduce myself

to. Men in the fraternity are always trying to recruit new prospects, and the initial
 2
Tyrone Schiff
interaction between myself and a member named Sam Scharff during these “rush” events

is indicative of the type of social behaviors exhibited by two people interacting for the

first time.

Initial interactions are essentially standard processes, and this is clearly evidenced

by the mundane nature in which they occur. Each time I met a new person it was as if it

was a carbon copy of the last conversation; similar questions, surprisingly similar

answers, and very little emotional attachment to the conversation. Specifically, this paper

discusses the social behavior associated with the cognitions immediately before and

during the initial interaction one has with another. Thus, initial interaction shall be

defined as a brief meeting with someone with whom an individual has never been

acquainted with before. Allow me to speak more in depth about the social behaviors I

encountered when interacting with Sam Scharff for the first time.

The conversation began harmlessly with a handshake. Immediately, I would

notice the firmness of his grip and would attempt to figure out what type of personality I

was dealing with solely based on this fact. While this goes on, I took a look at what he

was wearing, trying to learn as much as I possibly can before either one of us has opened

our mouths. He is dressed in shirt and tie and looks well put together. As we begin to

converse, I listen to his voice, trying to distinguish whether he is confident or not. A

session of simple questions and answers then occurs. Names were exchanged, where we

were both originally from, what courses we were taking, sports I played in high school,

and what we intended to major in eventually. Each of these answers did not require too

much though on my part, and seemed to almost come naturally from within. Essentially,

this initial process was merely in pursuit of trying to find commonalities between us. For
 3
Tyrone Schiff
instance, when he heard that I was Northbrook, Illinois he asked whether or not I knew

some of his friends who were from my hometown who also attended the University of

Michigan. After talking about these superficial topics for a while, there would be a lull in

the conversation, at which point I would be passed off to meet someone new. After

walking away I would reconsider the types of things I had said and imagined the

interaction going differently. Even with a new person, the process would occur just as it

did the time before but with the slightest variances.

There are a few select pieces of this social interaction that require further scrutiny.

In particular, consider the fact that during this initial interaction the questions asked and

answers given were not filled with a lot of emotion. It was almost as though I had been

programmed to give a particular answer to a given question. This point will be analyzed

throughout the rest of the paper as it relates quite blatantly to the cognitive heuristics

theory, which entails the fact that people are “cognitive misers”. Furthermore, consider

the fact that when I first interacted with him, I looked and listened for signals which I had

come to symbolize as being representative of particular qualities. I was developing an

attitude and forming stereotypes about this person who I had known for no more than

three minutes. In sociological terms this correlates to the symbolic interactionism theory.

First, let us discuss cognitive heuristics. As Thomas Gilovich, professor of

psychology at Cornell University, puts it, “[…] all things being equal, people prefer to

think as little as possible in reaching decisions” (p.37). This statement describes a

“cognitive miser”, which establishes the foundation for heuristics. Due to the fact that

when people first meet one another they aren’t as willing to open up, they employ

cognitive heuristics in order to conserve as much effort as possible regarding expressing

 4
Tyrone Schiff
those cognitions. In my own interaction with Sam, I am certain that we both attempted to

make reasonably accurate judgments about one another without trying to work too hard.

The principle of representativeness heuristics was exercised when the Sam heard I went

to the same high school as some of the members of the fraternity. Representativeness

heuristics entails “classifying something belonging to a certain category if it seems

similar to a typical case from that category.” Therefore, based on this principle, Sam

began formulating opinions about me based on his relationships with the people in the

fraternity that were from my same hometown. Regardless of whether or not they were

accurate, the cognition was taking place. The behaviors during this first interaction are

affirming the fact that people are “cognitive misers”.

Another heuristic was present throughout our interaction. During our brief

question and answer session, we discussed which sports he and I played. I told him that I

liked to play golf. Immediately, he asked if Tiger Woods was my favorite golfer. This

wasn’t an unreasonable statement, but it is one I often get from people who I do not

know. If Sam realized that I was originally from South Africa, it wouldn’t be hard to

piece together that my favorite golfer is in fact Ernie Els. The heuristic principle present

here is called the availability heuristic. Simply put, it is “a mental shortcut that involves

judging [...] how easily [something] comes to mind” (p.37). Obviously, when people

think golf they think Tiger Woods, only with further analysis would they figure out an

individual’s personal preference.

Finally, the last heuristic principle occurs just as the interaction has ended. In

counterfactual thinking, which is a principle of the cognitive heuristics theory, “one

imagines an alternative scenario or outcome that might have happened but did not.” I felt
 5
Tyrone Schiff
personally responsible for the lull in conversation that ended the initial interaction

between Sam and me. I started to think up questions I should have asked but didn’t. This

principle helps an individual understand their own regrets. If I had any regrets, I

abolished them by allowing myself to have “backup” questions for the future.

The other sociological framework that was alluded to earlier is called symbolic

interactionism. As the name suggests, this theory involves the way that people act

towards things based on the meaning that those things or symbols have for them. Based

on people’s interactions with their environments, various objects begin to accumulate

meaning that is specific to the individual. When I attended these “rush” events, I was

unaware of what exactly occurred at them. Sam, however, was dressed in shirt and tie,

and because I have an established stereotype about the kind of the individual who wears

this, I felt as though I was in a familiar setting. A stereotype is a fundamental principle

that is the result of symbolic interactionism. Stereotypes are conceptions or opinions of

certain things that have been oversimplified and may not be true in all cases if at all.

Similarly, I possessed a stereotype about what a confident tone of voice would sound like.

These ideas were molded by prior experiences.

It is important to additionally note the principle of social schema as it relates to

symbolic interactionism. Schema is a type of cognitive structure that is composed of

organized knowledge regarding experience and in affect influences what people notice.

Schema was clearly evident when I came into contact with Sam as I tried to formulate an

opinion about him. Although we only spoke for a little while, my cognitions were hard at

work organizing my thoughts and opinions about this initial interaction. What is

important to note is that since that first meeting, I have interacted with him more and
 6
Tyrone Schiff
have gotten to know him better. A principle of the symbolic interactionism theory that

explains this progression is that the meanings that symbols possess will and do

continually change. Ever since that “rush” event, I have seen him in clothes either than a

shirt and tie and can see that wearing these clothes were quite out of character. The

behaviors exhibited during this initial interaction become even more interesting when one

begins to consider the ways that the aforementioned theories compare and contrast.

It is quite an interesting phenomenon that during this one social behavior there

can be multiple sociological theories and principles at work. Even more interesting is the

fact that they can be simultaneously similar and different to one another. It is surprising

how many points of similarity cognitive heuristics have with symbolic interactionism.

In the context of this social behavior one notices that with heuristics and symbolic

interactionism both have developed within the person and are thoroughly intact at the

time of the initial interaction. To elaborate further, when two people meet for the first

time they have obviously had different experiences and therefore have developed

differing attitudes even when encountering a similar situation. This is attributed to the

way that people have a tendency to only remember certain things in a given event, and

interpret the event based on that selective account. This links directly back to schema, the

methodology of organizing knowledge, which is undeniably and evidently connected to

both theories. When people interact for the first time it makes the most sense that they

will try and maintain their attitudes and beliefs that have been structured from prior

experiences in order to stay consistent with them.

Upon interacting with Sam, I wasn’t going to alter my view of what caliber of

person wears a shirt and tie. Furthermore, upon being asked if I were having a good time,
 7
Tyrone Schiff
I wasn’t going to complain and tell him that I hadn’t gotten an opportunity to get some

food yet, or that I had a Spanish exam the next day. Rather a simple yes sufficed. This

example reveals another similarity between heuristics and symbolic interactionism.

Cognitive heuristics and symbolic interactionism are also involved in perpetuating

our own biases and stereotypes. Thomas Gilovich explains, “What all these mental

shortcuts [heuristics] do, however, are create biases in how we interpret the events around

us” (p.39). Due to the fact that our attitudes are already established in a given situation,

heuristics condition the individual to merely regurgitate past knowledge. By taking the

thought out of a situation, one is unlikely to consider his or her actions. After I answered

a question when talking to Sam I didn’t give much thought to what I was saying. Perhaps

there was a negative connotation on some of the things I was saying, but due to heuristics

I didn’t even consider reexamining my actions. Similarly, with symbolic interactionism I

am lead to believe that there are aspects of my environment which may not be accurate. I

have mentioned that I have gotten to know Sam better now, and I see that wearing a shirt

and tie was unlike him. Yet, when I met him initially, he and I acted as though he dressed

this way often. Symbolic interactionism can subconsciously lead to the development of a

sociological concept known as a script. A script is a belief of how a “series of events is

likely to occur.” It will also typically guide one’s behavior in the given situation.

Symbolic interactionism thus can lead one to assume they are familiar with a given

situation. This then indicates to the individual that they can use past behaviors. Therefore,

symbolic interactionism perpetuates a one-sided approach to a situation.

While these theories interconnect at several points, they also sharply diverge from

one another. A prominent difference between these two theories is the amount of thought
 8
Tyrone Schiff
given to each. Heuristics are by nature cognitive shortcuts that people employ so that they

aren’t forced to think about the situation. Granted heuristics are influenced by attitudes

and personal experience, but one becomes numb to them due to repetition. Recall my

personal account of this behavior. The process of interacting felt standardized. I was not

emotionally attached to any of my answers, and those answers just came out naturally

with no such thought on my part. In complete contrast to that, one ought to point out how

symbolic interactionism manifests itself. The only way in which symbols can be

formulated is via interactions. Moreover, symbols are established by the individual, and it

takes conscious thought by that individual to establish an object as something with

symbolic meaning. I made a mindful observation that Sam was wearing a shirt and tie. As

a result of his appearance, a number of familiar emotions, memories, and thoughts rushed

into my head. There exists a significantly greater usage of cognition when it comes to

symbolic interactionism when compared to heuristics.

An essential difference between the cognitive heuristic and symbolic

interactionism theories is the long term impact that it has on the individual. Heuristics are

organized in such a way that once a statement rolls off the tongue, it is no sooner

forgotten by the individual who spits it out. I probably would be unable to recall any

details from conversations at the “rush” event if it weren’t as repetitive as it was. I

genuinely did not give much thought to what I was saying while talking to Sam.

Heuristics involve interactions that intrinsically don’t require much thought, and that is

exactly why they are used. On the other hand, symbolic interactionism has far more

repercussions for the individual. Symbolic interactionism is a method through which

people shape their own realities. As a result of this, the cognitions involved in this theory
 9
Tyrone Schiff
are constantly updating themselves. I didn’t know how to necessarily act during the time

that I spoke to Sam, but various symbols became apparent which helped guide my

behavior. This is the essence of the symbolic interactionism theory. It provides guidelines

for the individual based on familiar objects in a foreign setting.

Though both theories are unmistakably chief components of the behavior

involved in the initial interaction that occurs between two people who previously did not

know one another, it is plain to see that the theory that best describes this situation is

cognitive heuristics. Relationships are formed based on commonalities. When first

meeting a person, the conversation will take the direction of trying to find those

similarities. Irrefutably, there is a lot of comfort in finding people who possess shared

experiences.

Thus, during the initial interaction with another the conversation will tend to hit

on a variety of topics that will often times not take any thought or effort whatsoever to

answer. The questions are wide-ranging in order to gather a general grasp of what the

person is like. This question and answer session will help indicate the compatibility of the

personalities involved. Symbolic interactionism, although possessing tremendous affect

in the interaction, falls short of the theory that would best describe this situation. Due to

the fact that symbols take time to develop, to gain meaning and significance, they do not

arise out of a ten minute conversation. Do not be fooled, however, they are most

definitely present. During my interaction, there were a number of symbols from prior

experiences that played a role, but no new ones were established.

Further analysis of cognitive heuristics will indicate why in fact this is the better

of the two theories when it comes to the behavior of interacting with another for the first
 10
Tyrone Schiff
time. Heuristics occur frequently and easily, especially when interacting with someone

new. I was trying to gain as much information about Sam, but wasn’t paying much

attention to the types of answers I was giving. Heuristics takes a number of forms as well,

which facilitates in this theory occurring frequently during this behavior. Additionally,

when interacting with someone initially, the feelings between the two people are

generally neutral. This naturally prompts cognitive heuristics. One of the factors that

contribute to heuristics is possessing positive feelings about a situation. People will

usually use cognitive shortcuts when they are in a good mood. By no means was I in a

good mood when I was talking to Sam, but I wasn’t aggravated or mad either. Cognitive

heuristics are at the core of the behavior in this specific social interaction.

Everything that we do is related to various sociological theories. Recently, I

encountered a situation that expressed two distinct types of theories. Symbolic

interactionism is a theory that explains the way that I interpret my world. Through my

interactions with my environment, and the experiences that I accumulate over the years,

objects around me gain meaning and significance. These meanings are specific to me.

When I see a member of a fraternity wearing a shirt and tie the first time I meet him, I

know that this is an institution that I want to associate myself with. The environment

immediately becomes inviting and familiar. It pervades a sense of class that I associate

with the image of formal attire. Cognitive heuristics are mental shortcuts that we take to

make the best possible judgments and decisions about our environment. Many of these

judgments stem from biases we have and are coated in attitudes and beliefs we have

accumulated through the years. This sociological theory essentially dictates the behaviors

that occur when we present our first impressions.