Skip to main content

To a fault

The Original Article was published on 02 September 2022


Are first impressions misleading? This commentary explores that question by drawing on the more general cognitive psychology literature aimed at understanding when, why, and how any non-analytic reasoning process can help or hurt decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., Norman, G. R., Neufeld, V. R., & Feightner, J. W. (1982). The clinical reasoning process of randomly selected physicians in general medical practice. Clinical Investigative Medicine, 5, 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2005). What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 39(1), 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2013). Titles, Abstracts and Authors. In G. M. Hall (Ed.), How to write a paper (5th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2018). Cognitive influences on complex performance assessment: Lessons from the interplay between medicine and psychology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Cunnington, J. P. (2006). The difficulty with experience: Does practice increase susceptibility to premature closure. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(3), 192–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., Neville, A. J., & Norman, G. R. (1998). Exploring the etiology of content specificity: Factors influencing analogic transfer and problem solving. Academic Medicine, 73(10 Suppl), S1–S5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J., Trinh, K., Wood, T. J., & Norman, G. R. (2012). Association between a medical school admission process using the multiple mini-interview and national licensing examinations scores. Journal Of The American Medical Association, 308(21), 2233–2240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klusmann, D., Knorr, M., & Hampe, W. (2022). Exploring the relationships between first impressions and MMI ratings: A pilot study. Advances in Health Sciences Education.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2005). Research in clinical reasoning: Past history and current trends. Medical Education, 39(4), 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. Bmj, 320, 768–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2012). Programmatic assessment and Kane’s validity perspective. Medical Education, 46(1), 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, T., Pugh, D., Touchie, C., Chan, J., & Humphrey-Murto, S. (2018). Can physician examiners overcome their first impression when examinee performance changes? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 23, 721–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin W. Eva.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original article can be found online at

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eva, K. To a fault. Adv in Health Sci Educ 28, 537–540 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: