First Impressions

Published: at 12:00 AM

First Impressions

Your first take is like cooking with whatever’s already in your head. When someone asks what you think, your mind grabs a few accessible ingredients, throws them together, and serves up a confident answer. It feels solid. Often it isn’t.

Last week at the gym, I mentioned a new urban planning concept to my wrestling buddy – three sentences, max. He’d never heard of it before. By the end of my explanation, he had a rock-solid opinion, complete with supporting arguments and a prediction about why it would never work in our city. The whole knowledge-to-certainty pipeline took under a minute.

This post maps how opinions form, what people typically “know” at formation time, what makes an opinion strong, and where the weak links are that can be nudged or exploited. We’ll stick to mechanisms we can actually point to: agenda setting, priming, framing, repetition and fluency, source credibility, and moral identity.

What an opinion looks like at birth

For many topics, people don’t carry around a detailed, stable position. They receive messages, accept the ones that fit their predispositions, then sample from whatever is most accessible when asked. The result can be impressively coherent or paper thin depending on what’s top of mind.

Here’s the thing though – we basically have two gears when forming opinions:

And here’s where it gets interesting: people often wildly overestimate how much they know. Ask them to explain the actual mechanism behind their view and watch the confidence evaporate. Offer accuracy incentives and some “partisan facts” suddenly become negotiable. The upshot? First impressions are frequently built on a small, salient slice of information plus confidence theater.

What makes opinions strong

“Strong” attitudes are the ones that stick around, fight off challenges, and actually change behavior. The best predictors:

Below are the main levers that shape first impressions before you even notice. These get used everywhere. Politics, product launches, corporate comms, and everyday arguments.

1) Agenda setting: pick the stage, set the stakes

Control what gets airtime and you control what people think about. If the conversation is about “economic competence,” candidates or proposals get judged on that criterion. Shift it to “fairness,” and the same facts feel completely different. Agenda control changes which considerations are retrievable at the moment of judgment, which changes the judgment itself.

Exploit path: flood attention with one dimension of evaluation so other dimensions feel irrelevant or invisible.

Counter: ask “what’s missing from this conversation,” explicitly list alternative criteria, and force multi-attribute comparisons.

2) Priming: weight the yardstick before the measurement

Priming makes certain criteria more accessible right before you evaluate something. Watch how this works at a dinner party: someone mentions rising housing costs while passing the wine. Five minutes later when local politics comes up, guess which yardstick everyone reaches for?

Exploit path: time reminders so the intended criterion is fresh, then trigger the judgment.

Counter: pause, name the criterion you’re about to use, and consider whether a different one would be more diagnostic.

3) Framing: same facts, different lens

Frames select and emphasize aspects of reality. “90% survival” and “10% mortality” are informational twins that produce different gut reactions. In public issues, frames can align with your values without changing any facts, which makes acceptance feel natural.

Exploit path: keep the facts constant, switch the organizing principle (gain vs loss, rights vs responsibilities, fairness vs liberty), and let the audience do the rest.

Counter: reframe the same facts through a second lens, then compare downstream implications rather than debating labels.

4) Moral identity: fuse the belief to the self

Remember when your friend suddenly couldn’t even discuss that one political issue anymore? When every conversation turned into a crusade? That’s moral identity fusion in action. When an attitude gets tied to identity or moral conviction, it becomes sacred. Trade-offs feel like betrayals, and counter-arguments feel like personal attacks.

Exploit path: moralize early. Link the stance to widely held values or group membership. Use stories and examples, not just claims.

Counter: separate the practice from the principle. Affirm shared values, then examine whether the policy actually serves the value. Invite “value-consistent change” rather than “value betrayal.”

5) Repetition and fluency: make it easy to think

You’ve probably noticed this yourself. Familiar claims just feel truer and safer. Smooth wording, consistent visuals, and repeated exposure increase both liking and credibility, even without any new facts.

Exploit path: keep messages short, repeat them, standardize phrasing and visuals. Borrow the audience’s vocabulary.

Counter: tag high-fluency claims for explicit verification. Ask for the source and mechanism before accepting that comfortable feeling of truth.

6) Source credibility: borrow confidence

Expertise and trustworthiness cues are shortcuts that actually work pretty well, especially when you’re in a hurry. But here’s the kicker: credible sources can also boost your confidence in your own pro-message thoughts, which makes those attitudes harder to shake later.

Exploit path: demonstrate relevant expertise, signal independence from conflicts, and make verification easy.

Counter: distinguish relevance of expertise from possession of expertise. Check alignment of incentives.

7) Emotional set: steer the mode of reasoning

Different moods push different mental shortcuts. Anger narrows focus, increases certainty, and boosts blame. Anxiety increases information search but can make people grab desperately for any guidance.

Exploit path: match emotion to goal. Use anger to mobilize, anxiety to open attention to your solution.

Counter: label the emotion out loud. Ask whether the emotion is diagnostic of the claim, or just the context you’re in.

Practical checklist for better first impressions

Sources and further reading

Opinion formation and processing routes

Constructed opinions

Agenda setting, priming, framing

Attitude strength

Source credibility

Fluency and repetition

Moral identity and sacred values

Overconfidence, explanation, and incentives

Emotion and judgment

Resistance and inoculation

Previous Post
Auftragstaktik
Next Post
How Frontier LLMs Perceive Status