Why is the First Impression so Important and How Can We Improve It?

You walk into the meeting room with a lukewarm coffee, a half-memorized opening line and a smile that you can feel is a beat too late. Across the table, someone you’ve never met glances up, and something quiet and fast happens behind their eyes. A verdict, or the draft of one. You won’t hear it. You’ll only see its effects over the next forty minutes, in how warmly they laugh at your joke, whether they lean in, whether they ask follow-up questions or glance at the clock. It feels unfair, and honestly it kind of is, because the first impression arrives long before you’ve said anything worth judging.

Here’s the part that tends to surprise people. Experiments suggest that impressions of trustworthiness and competence can form from a face in about a tenth of a second, and that extra time mostly makes observers more confident rather than more accurate. Those early reads then act like a filter: later information gets bent to fit them. A single awkward hello can color a friendship, a job interview or a first date, and a smooth one can buy you a surprising amount of patience. Nothing about that is fair, exactly, but it is how people work.

The encouraging part is that most of it can be influenced.

This article explains why the first impression is so important, what research says about how it forms, and how we can improve it without turning into a stiff, rehearsed version of ourselves.

Why does a first impression matter so much?

Because it works as a mental shortcut that shapes everything that follows. People form a quick snap judgment, then interpret later behavior through it, which means early information carries more weight than its quality deserves. A first impression doesn’t decide your fate. It sets the starting odds.

Think about what’s at stake in ordinary life. A new manager decides within a meeting or two whether you seem reliable. A stranger at a party decides whether you’re worth a second round of conversation. A hiring panel, a landlord, a teacher meeting a new class, a date across a cafe table: each is making fast calls with limited data, because the alternative (suspending judgment until everything’s known) is not how brains cope with a crowded social world.

Why would evolution build us this way? A reasonable theory, and I’d call it a theory rather than a settled fact, is that quickly sizing up strangers for friend-or-threat signals gave our ancestors an edge. Knowing whether someone might help or harm you is a useful thing to know in a hurry. The same machinery now runs on job interviews and group chats, where the stakes are lower but the reflex hasn’t changed.

The practical consequences show up in at least four places. There’s who gets the benefit of the doubt: a person who seems warm and capable is forgiven the late reply, while a person who seems cold is not. There’s who gets invited back to the second interview, the second coffee, the next project. Then comes how your later behavior gets read, since ambiguous actions tend to be interpreted in line with the initial impression. And there’s how you feel about yourself in the room, because other people’s responses feed back into your confidence.

Take Jordan, an illustrative composite. Jordan starts a new job and spends the first week hunched over a laptop, answering questions in short sentences because the onboarding is overwhelming. Colleagues quietly conclude Jordan is aloof. Three months on, Jordan is chatty, funny and generous with help, yet the early label lingers, and people still seem a little surprised each time Jordan joins the lunch table.

None of this means you should obsess over every handshake. It does mean the opening minutes deserve a bit more care than most of us give them, if only because correcting a bad impression costs far more effort than creating a decent one.

How fast do people really judge you?

Faster than you can say hello. In a well-known set of experiments, Janine Willis and Alexander Todorov showed unfamiliar faces to Princeton students for just 100 milliseconds and found that the resulting ratings of trustworthiness, competence, likeability, attractiveness and aggressiveness lined up closely with ratings from people who had unlimited time to look.

The details matter. Their 2006 study used 66 photographs and 245 students across five experiments, and a longer look of half a second or a full second mostly raised confidence instead of changing the ratings. Judgments grew somewhat more negative when exposure went from 100 to 500 milliseconds. Trustworthiness ratings at 100 milliseconds correlated about .73 with untimed ones, while competence sat nearer .52, so some traits settle faster than others.

Now the caution, because it’s the part headlines skip. Those numbers show how quickly an impression forms, not that the impression is correct. Agreement between a fast rater and a slow rater tells you they react to the same face in similar ways; it doesn’t tell you the person in the photograph is actually trustworthy. Todorov himself has argued that face-based impressions are powerful yet unreliable guides to character.

What about live behavior rather than photographs? The late Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal found something striking in 1993. Observers watched silent clips of university instructors, three ten-second clips per teacher, and their ratings correlated roughly .76 with end-of-semester evaluations written by students who had sat through an entire course. This line of work is called thin-slice research, and it suggests that brief samples of nonverbal behavior (posture, expressiveness, confidence, warmth) carry real information.

So are people fast or accurate? Both, in different ways, and under different conditions. They’re quick at forming impressions, reasonably decent when they have actual behavior to observe, and shaky when judging stable character from a still face.

You may have seen the claim that “you have seven seconds.” That specific number gets repeated constantly in career advice, but I haven’t found it tied to a single definitive experiment. What the research does support is looser and, in a way, more demanding: impressions start forming in milliseconds and keep updating over the first minutes of an interaction.

Picture Amira walking into a cafe to meet a blind date. Before she’s reached the table, he’s already registered her posture, her pace, her expression, the way she scans the room. He’s read her as friendly and slightly nervous. It took less time than closing a door.

What are people actually noticing in those first seconds?

Mostly two questions, asked silently: Is this person warm toward me? And: Can they do what they set out to do? Social psychologists call these dimensions warmth and competence, and they drive a remarkable share of how we size each other up.

Susan Fiske and her colleagues Amy Cuddy and Peter Glick argued in a 2007 review that warmth and competence are two universal dimensions of social judgment, and that warmth tends to be judged first. That ordering makes sense. Whether someone means you well matters more, in a split second, than whether they can act on their intentions. A friendly incompetent is a nuisance; a competent person who might wish you harm is a problem.

The quick read draws on cues that you rarely think about:

• Facial expression, especially whether a smile reaches the eyes or sits on the mouth like a sticker.
• Eye contact, which signals interest and confidence when steady and unease when it darts.
• Posture and movement: open, relaxed shoulders versus a hunched, closed stance.
• Voice, including pace, pitch and volume. A voice that trails off at the end of sentences can read as uncertainty.
• Grooming and clothing, which people use as a shorthand for effort, status and fit with the setting.
• Timing and attention: arriving on time, putting the phone away, remembering a name.

The strange thing is how little of this is deliberate on the sender’s side. Most of what gets “read” is leakage: nerves, fatigue, a hard morning, the argument with a landlord that’s still replaying in your head. Observers cannot tell the difference between “this person is anxious about the meeting” and “this person doesn’t like me.”

That leads to the single most useful practical point in the section. Because warmth gets weighed first, a plain gesture of attention often beats polish. Looking up when someone enters, using their name, asking a real question and listening to the answer: these small moves signal warmth quickly. Competence needs a bit longer to show and can be demonstrated through a clear answer or a thoughtful observation.

Cultural norms alter the specifics, and I’d be cautious about universal rules. Direct eye contact reads as respectful in some settings and as confrontational in others; a firm handshake means different things depending on region and context. The underlying questions about warmth and competence travel better than the behaviors that express them.

Why do first impressions stick even when we meet someone again?

Myth first: people assume that a first impression is just a weak guess that new facts will quickly overwrite. In practice it’s sticky, because several biases protect it. Early information gets extra weight, a single standout trait colors everything, bad news outweighs good, and we go looking for evidence that confirms what we already think.

Start with order. In a classic 1946 experiment, Solomon Asch gave people the same list of traits in different sequences. The person described as intelligent, industrious and impulsive before critical, stubborn and envious came across more favorably than the same person described with the negative traits first. This is the primacy effect: what you learn first shapes how you read the rest. Asch also showed that swapping just one word, “warm” for “cold,” in an otherwise identical list changed overall impressions dramatically.

Then there’s the halo effect, named from work by Edward Thorndike in 1920, who noticed that military officers rated their men highly on one quality tended to rate them highly on unrelated ones too. An attractive, confident person is assumed to be kind and smart. An awkward first sentence can cast the opposite shadow, an effect sometimes called the horn effect.

Negativity adds weight. Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman reviewed evidence for negativity bias in 2001, concluding that negative events and information generally carry more psychological impact than comparable positive ones. In practice, one cold remark can outweigh several pleasant ones. It takes a stack of kind moments to erase a single sharp one, which is irritating but worth knowing.

Finally, confirmation bias keeps the loop running. Once you’ve decided a colleague is arrogant, you notice the times he interrupts and forget the times he doesn’t. Expectations quietly steer behavior too: if you expect coldness you may act guarded, and the other person responds in kind, which seems to prove you right.

Imagine Dani at a family gathering, meeting her sister’s new partner. He seems distracted for the first ten minutes (he was actually dealing with a dead phone and a lost parking ticket). Dani files him under “doesn’t care,” and from then on every pause reads as disinterest. A year later she still finds him a bit aloof, though he’s never been anything but kind.

The upshot isn’t despair. These mechanisms are strong but not unbreakable, and later sections cover what loosens them. Still, if you’ve ever felt your first few minutes were weighing more than they should, you weren’t imagining it.

Are first impressions accurate, or just confident?

Accurate in some narrow ways, unreliable in others, and almost always more confident than the evidence warrants. That’s the short, slightly unromantic answer. Brief samples of behavior can predict things like teaching ratings or interpersonal warmth, while appearance-based snap judgments of character are mostly shaky.

The cleanest warning comes from political science meeting psychology. Alexander Todorov and colleagues showed participants pairs of faces of candidates who had competed for U.S. congressional seats and asked which looked more competent. The face judged more competent had won in roughly 68 percent of Senate races. Think about what that means. Voters, or at least the forces shaping elections, seem to be nudged by how a face looks, while looks say little about how well someone will legislate. A better-than-chance prediction isn’t proof of insight; sometimes it’s proof of bias.

Distinguish three types of snap judgment, because lumping them together is where confusion creeps in. Judgments from behavior (how someone acts in a short clip) show moderate accuracy for traits like extraversion or warmth. Judgments from still faces show high agreement between raters but weak links to real personality or performance. And judgments filtered through stereotypes about age, gender, race, accent, weight or disability reflect social bias, not information.

That last one deserves a plain sentence. People with the “wrong” accent, name or appearance routinely get judged as less competent, and no amount of body-language coaching can fully fix that. It’s a problem with the observer. Anyone who evaluates others (interviewers, managers, teachers) can reduce the damage by using structured questions, scoring rubrics decided in advance, and, where possible, work samples. Blind auditions in orchestras are the most famous example of removing the face from the decision.

For the person being judged, here’s a slightly uncomfortable implication. Some of what people conclude about you will be wrong, and you can’t script it away. The aim is not perfect control but a fair chance to be seen accurately as the interaction continues. Time helps: later impressions become more differentiated, and Willis and Todorov noted that longer exposure led to more nuanced views.

Where does that leave us? Treat your own snap judgments as hypotheses, not facts. And treat other people’s early reactions to you with the same mild skepticism.

Why do I feel like I always make a bad first impression?

Quite possibly because you’re judging yourself far more harshly than anyone else is. Research on the liking gap shows that after conversations with new people, we systematically underestimate how much they liked us and enjoyed our company.

The psychologist Erica Boothby and colleagues documented this in a 2018 paper across five studies. Strangers chatted in a lab, then rated how much they liked each other and how much they thought the other liked them. Participants consistently guessed they were liked less than they actually were. The gap showed up after short and long conversations, in workshops for the general public, and among college dorm mates, where it persisted for several months before disappearing by the final survey point. A later large compiled sample of more than 1,800 young adults found the gap again, with a difference of about half a point on a seven-point scale. Modest in size, steady in direction.

Why does it happen? During a conversation your attention is crowded with your own inner commentary: Did I talk too much? Was that joke weird? Your partner can’t hear any of that. They’re watching behavior, which is usually friendlier than the story in your head. Shyer people showed bigger gaps in the original study, which makes sense; the more self-critical the narrator, the bigger the distortion.

Consider Theo, an illustrative composite, leaving a networking event. On the train home he replays a rambling answer about his last project and decides everyone found him dull. The woman he spoke to is, at that moment, telling a friend he was easy to talk to and she’d like to follow up. He’ll never know unless he sends the follow-up himself.

There’s a limit to this reassurance, and I’d rather name it. The liking gap research mostly involved cooperative conversations among young adults in structured settings. It doesn’t mean every impression you make is secretly glowing. It does mean that your post-event verdicts are a flawed instrument, and that “I think it went badly” is poor evidence.

When the worry is intense, frequent and starts steering your life (skipping events, rehearsing conversations for hours, dreading introductions), it may be social anxiety rather than ordinary nerves. Social anxiety disorder is common and treatable, and cognitive behavioral therapy has solid evidence behind it. A primary care doctor (a GP in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) or a licensed therapist can help you sort out which is which.

Autistic and neurodivergent people face a different version: others may misread their eye contact, expressions or tone as disinterest or rudeness. In those cases the burden of adaptation shouldn’t fall on one side alone. Saying “I think best when I’m not making eye contact” can be a kind of gift to the other person.

How can you make a better first impression?

Focus on signaling warmth first, preparing a little, and paying attention to the other person instead of monitoring yourself. These habits work because they address what observers are actually reading, and they quiet the self-focused attention that makes people look stiff.

The sociologist Erving Goffman offered a useful frame in 1959. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life he described impression management: people continually shape the image they give off, much like actors, with a “front stage” for the audience and a “back stage” for dropping the act. Goffman wasn’t telling anyone to be fake. His point was that presenting yourself thoughtfully is a normal feature of social life, and pretending otherwise just means doing it badly.

Here’s a practical sequence you can use before and during a first meeting:

1. Prepare two or three real questions about the other person or the situation. Curiosity is the most portable form of warmth.
2. Arrive settled. Get there a few minutes early, walk slowly the last stretch, and take one long exhale before you open the door.
3. Start with a genuine smile and their name. “Great to meet you, Priya” does more than a polished elevator pitch.
4. Match the setting in dress and tone. Slightly more formal than the room is a safer error than slightly less.
5. Listen and show it: a nod, a follow-up question, a short summary of what they said. People remember feeling heard.
6. Keep your body open. Phone away, shoulders down, hands visible, face toward the person.
7. End with a clear closing line, such as “I really enjoyed this; can I send you that article?” Endings shape memory too.

Notice what’s absent: tricks. No power poses, no forced handshake, no mirroring routine. Some of those ideas have been oversold in popular advice, and the evidence behind several is weaker than the books suggest. If a technique makes you feel like an actor reading a script, it will probably read that way.

A small caution about overpreparing. A memorized pitch delivered on autopilot can lower warmth by making you seem distant. Aim for prepared but loose, like knowing the route but still noticing the scenery.

And be kind to your own nerves. A visible flicker of nervousness is rarely a deal breaker; people often read it as sincerity. What lands badly is disinterest, so give them your attention and let the rest wobble a bit.

Do first impressions work differently online and over video?

Yes, the same machinery runs, but with thinner and sometimes stranger cues. Online, impressions form from photos, usernames, subject lines, writing style and response speed, and a small detail can carry outsized weight because there’s so little else to go on.

Consider the common first-impression moments of modern life. A recruiter skims your LinkedIn photo and headline. A match decides on a dating profile in a swipe. A manager opens your email and reads the first line. A new neighbor sees your name in a group chat. Each is a thin slice, and each rewards clarity and warmth.

A few practical points are worth knowing. With photos, use a clear, recent image with good light and a relaxed expression; different photos of the same person can produce quite different impressions, which is one reason researchers who study face perception advise against reading too much into any single image. In written messages, open with the point and a human touch, because a message that reads as careless or curt can set the tone for the whole exchange. On video calls, put the camera at eye level, light your face from the front and make the sound clear; poor audio makes speakers seem less credible, so a decent microphone beats an expensive camera. As for response timing, reasonable promptness reads as respect, while long silence reads as indifference even when it’s just a busy week.

There’s reassuring news from the liking gap literature: researchers have found the gap persists across video and face-to-face getting-acquainted conversations too, which suggests the pattern of underestimating how well we come across isn’t unique to in-person meetings.

One more thing about video. Looking at the little picture of yourself during a call splits your attention in the same way self-monitoring does in person, and tends to make people stiffer. Hide the self-view if your platform allows it. Look at the person, or at least the camera when you make a key point.

Picture Naomi, an illustrative composite, joining her first remote team meeting from a kitchen corner with the laundry visible behind her and the camera aimed at her chin. She says smart things, but colleagues remember the angle. A quick adjustment (camera up, plain wall behind her, five-minute check of the microphone) would have let the content do the talking.

Digital impressions are also more permanent. A screenshot lasts. That cuts both ways: it raises the stakes of a careless post, and it gives you a chance to craft something considered.

What matters most in interviews, first dates and new jobs?

The core ingredients stay the same everywhere: warmth, competence and fit. What changes is which of them the situation emphasizes and what the quickest route to showing it looks like. A little tailoring goes a long way.

Interviews deserve extra comment. Many hiring decisions lean heavily on early rapport, a pattern that research on structured versus unstructured interviews has repeatedly flagged as risky. If you’re the candidate, you can’t change the format, but you can help the interviewer see your competence quickly: lead with results, use specific numbers where you honestly can, and tie your examples to the role.

First dates run on a different engine. Here, warmth and ease carry more weight than a list of achievements. A date who spends the evening performing an impressive version of themselves often leaves the other person feeling oddly unseen. Be curious, say something real, and let a few silences exist.

The first week at a new job is a slow-motion first impression. People are collecting small data points: do you follow through, do you treat the receptionist well, do you ask for help or hide? Little habits, such as acknowledging messages promptly and writing down names, accumulate. The early weeks are also when a “reliable” label gets attached, and it’s an inexpensive one to earn.

Should you adjust your personality for each? Adjust your volume, not your values. Wearing a suit doesn’t make you dishonest, but inventing a persona you can’t sustain will catch up with you by week three. An impression that can’t be maintained is merely a delayed bad one.

How do you fix a bad first impression?

Slowly, specifically, and with a lot of ordinary consistency. A damaged impression rarely flips because of a single grand gesture; it changes when someone sees a run of behavior that contradicts the earlier story. Treat it as repair work, not a rebrand.

Start by sizing the damage honestly. Did you say something hurtful, or just seem distracted? Was it a lapse (late, unprepared, snappy) or a misread (quiet, reserved, nervous)? Lapses call for a brief, sincere acknowledgment; misreads mostly call for time and a bit more visible warmth.

The psychologist Raymond Nickerson described confirmation bias in 1998 as a tendency to seek and interpret evidence in ways that support existing beliefs. That’s the obstacle. Once someone has filed you under “disorganized” or “cold,” they’ll tend to notice behavior that fits and discount behavior that doesn’t. So the fix is to supply clear, repeated, hard-to-ignore counter-evidence.

These steps usually help:

• Apologize briefly when you owe one: “I was short with you on Monday, and I’m sorry.” No long explanations, no excuses.
• Show the opposite behavior repeatedly. If you were late, be early three times in a row. Reliability beats speeches.
• Create a second first impression: a different setting, such as a coffee or a shared task, where people see a different side of you.
• Let someone vouch for you. A trusted colleague mentioning your strengths shifts perceptions faster than self-promotion.

Be careful not to over-correct. People who realize they came across badly sometimes flood the other person with enthusiasm, which can look needy or insincere. A steady, modest change usually persuades more.

And what if they simply won’t update? It happens. Some people hold on to early opinions out of habit or because the label is convenient. You can’t force a revision. You can stop auditioning, keep your standards for yourself, and give your attention to the people who do see you clearly.

A last thought on setbacks. After you’ve repaired things, you’ll probably have another awkward moment. Everyone does. A solid track record absorbs a bad afternoon much better than a thin one, and that’s the real return on the slow work: you’ve built a bank of goodwill that the next stumble can draw from.

FAQs about the Importance of First Impressions

How long does it take to form a first impression?

Remarkably little time. In studies by Janine Willis and Alexander Todorov, people formed trait judgments of unfamiliar faces after only 100 milliseconds, and later work suggests some trustworthiness impressions can begin even sooner. For real interactions, impressions keep forming and updating over the first minutes as people hear your voice, watch your behavior and read the situation. You may have heard that it takes seven seconds, but that figure is a popular rule of thumb rather than a precise finding. A safer way to think about it: impressions start almost instantly and then get revised, but the earliest layer tends to stick.

Are first impressions usually right?

Sometimes, and in limited ways. Short samples of real behavior can predict outcomes such as teaching evaluations; Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal found that ratings of thirty seconds of silent footage lined up closely with end-of-semester student ratings. Judgments based on a still face are different: people agree with each other, but those judgments predict character poorly. Stereotypes about age, race, gender or accent also distort impressions. The most defensible position is that first impressions carry some information and a lot of bias, so it makes sense to treat them as starting hypotheses and not final conclusions.

Can you change someone’s first impression of you?

Yes, but it takes consistent evidence. Because of primacy, the halo effect and confirmation bias, people tend to read new behavior through their original view. A single apology or charming moment rarely overturns it. What does work is a run of behavior that clearly contradicts the old story: showing up on time repeatedly, following through, being warm in different settings. A trusted third party who speaks well of you can also help. Expect it to take weeks or months with colleagues and sometimes longer with people who hold strong opinions.

Why do I feel like people dislike me after I meet them?

You may be experiencing the liking gap. Research by Erica Boothby and colleagues found that after conversations, people systematically underestimate how much their partners liked them, partly because we replay our own awkward moments while the other person barely noticed them. The effect was larger in shyer participants. If the feeling is occasional, treat it as a poor measuring tool and wait for actual evidence, such as a follow-up message or invitation. If it’s constant, makes you avoid people, or comes with intense dread, social anxiety may be involved and a therapist can help.

Does body language really matter in a first impression?

It matters, though less magically than popular advice claims. Posture, facial expression, eye contact and voice all feed the quick judgments of warmth and competence that people make. Thin-slice research shows that brief nonverbal samples can carry real information about a person. But no single gesture, such as a handshake or a particular stance, works as a trick, and meanings vary across cultures. Aim for relaxed, attentive and open, and focus on the other person instead of monitoring yourself. Genuine interest tends to produce good body language without much effort.

Are first impressions different online than in person?

Different cues, same process. Online, people rely on photos, writing style, response speed, video quality and profile details, so small signals count for more. Research on the liking gap found the underestimation of how well we come across appears in video chats as well as face-to-face talks. A clear photo, a message that gets to the point warmly, decent audio and a camera at eye level go a long way. One difference is permanence: a bad post or screenshot can circulate, which makes a bit of care before sending worthwhile.

Should I be myself or adjust to make a good impression?

Both, within reason. Erving Goffman argued that managing how we present ourselves is a normal part of social life, like dressing for the occasion or toning down a loud laugh at a funeral. That’s different from inventing a character. Adjust volume, formality and the details you share to suit the setting, while keeping your values and basic manner intact. A persona that takes heavy effort to maintain tends to slip within weeks and leaves a worse impression than the honest, slightly nervous version would have.

What is the halo effect in first impressions?

It is the tendency for one positive quality to spread across judgments of unrelated qualities. Edward Thorndike described it in 1920 after finding that military officers rated highly on one trait were often rated highly on others. In everyday life, a confident, attractive or well-dressed person is assumed to be smarter and kinder, while the reverse, sometimes called the horn effect, makes one flaw cast a shadow. Knowing about it won’t make you immune, but it can help you pause before deciding someone is competent or incompetent on the basis of a single trait.

Bibliography

• Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431-441.
• Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258-290.
• Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1742-1756.
• Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
• Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320.
• Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
• Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623-1626.
• 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.