User:Kimhaney3/sandbox

The Halo Effect

The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which our judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by our overall impression of them. It can be found in a range of situations—from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions. The halo effect was given its name by psychologist [Edward Thorndike] and since then, several researchers have studied the halo effect in relation to attractiveness, and its bearing on the judicial and educational systems.

History of the Halo Effect

Thorndike and the “Halo Error”

Edward Thorndike, known for his contributions to [Educational Psychology], was the first psychologist to support the halo effect with [empirical research]. Thorndike gave the phenomenon its name in his 1920 article “The Constant Error in Psychological Ratings.” He had noted in a previous study made in 1915 that estimates of traits in the same person were very highly and evenly correlated. In “Constant Error,” Thorndike set out to replicate the study in hopes of pinning down the bias that he thought was present in these ratings. In Thorndike’s study, two commanding officers in the [United States Military] were asked to complete evaluations of their soldiers. The soldiers were evaluated along four dimensions, outlined below.

• Physical Qualities: Nearness, physique, bearing, voice, endurance, and energy level.
• Intelligence: Ease in learning, ability to apply concepts, problem solving capability, and the ability to arrive at a sensible decision in a crisis.
• Leadership Skills: Initiative, self-reliability, decisiveness, tact, ability to cooperate with others, and the ability to inspire others and command obedience.
• Personal Qualities: Industry, loyalty, readiness to responsibility, and selflessness.

For each of these four categories, commanding officers were asked to select the highest rated soldier, the lowest rated soldier, and one who was in the middle. The instructions provided on the evaluation forms made it clear that each dimension was to be rated independently, which is to say, the ratings of Physical Qualities, for example, should not be dependent on Personal Qualities ratings or vice versa. However, Thorndike’s study showed that the correlations among the four groups were very high and very even, much like the results of the 1915 study which spurred Thorndike to look for cognitive biases. For one group of soldiers, the correlations of Intelligence with Physique, Leadership Skills, and Personal Qualities were .51, .58, and .64, respectively. In reality, the relationship between Intelligence and Physique should be much smaller. These findings suggest that the ratings of one quality influenced the ratings of other qualities, and Thorndike called this error a halo error.

Supporting Evidence

Since Thorndike’s article was published, several researchers have conducted more focused studies on the halo effect. Lachman and Bass based the methodologies of their 2001 study directly off of Thorndike’s 1920 study, in order to provide a more meaningful and accurate understanding of the halo effect as Thorndike originally described it. In this study, 5 individuals were rated on a 7-point scale in terms of their likeability by 19 psychology students at [Wayne State University]. A week later, the same individuals were rated on 16 distinct traits (carefulness, sense of humor, sociability, etc.). 3 of the individuals were not rated as extremely well liked or extremely disliked, and the correlations between their likeability and trait ratings were .26, .32, and .36, which show very little, if any, bias. However, for the 2 individuals who were rated extremely well liked or extremely disliked, the correlations between likeability and the trait ratings were much higher (.60 and .76). This study lends support to Thorndike’s original study of the halo effect—that people are indeed influenced by their overall impression of a person when asked to rate individual traits. A similar study by researchers Nisbett and Wilson also examined the likeability halo effect. A total of 118 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology at the [University of Michigan] participated in the study. Half of the participants watched a videotaped interview of a college instructor who answered questions in a bight and pleasant manner, while the other half watched a videotaped interview of the same person, answering the same questions, only in a cold manner as opposed to a warm one. Participants then rated how much they liked the instructor along an 8-point scale as well as the instructor’s physical appearance and mannerisms. The researchers found that participants who viewed the cold and distant interview rated the instructor lower on all characteristics and likeability, whereas the participants who saw the instructor behaving pleasantly rating him high on all traits and likeability. What’s more, when asked if whether or not their feelings of liking the instructor affected their judgments about his physical appearance and mannerisms, participants denied being influenced by their general feeling toward him. This suggest that the halo effect is an unconscious process which makes it especially problematic for researchers hoping to control this bias and obtain accurate ratings.

The Role of Attractiveness

The halo effect isn’t limited to individual traits or overall likeability, a person’s attractiveness has also been found to produce a halo effect.

On Personality and Happiness

Researchers Dion and Berscheid provided evidence for the attractiveness halo effect in their 1972 study “What is Beautiful is Good.” 60 students from the [University of Minnesota] took part in the experiment, half being male and half being female. Each participant was given three photos to examine: one of an attractive individual, one of an individual of average attractiveness, and one of an unattractive individual. The participants judged the photos’ subjects along 27 different personality traits ([altruism], [conventionality], [self-assertiveness], stability, emotionality, [trustworthiness], [extraversion], kindness, sexual promiscuity, etc.). Participants were also asked to predict the overall [happiness] of the photos’ subjects, including marital happiness (likelihood of getting a divorce), parental happiness (likelihood of being a good parent), and social and professional happiness (likelihood of experiencing success and fulfillment). Finally, participants were asked to predict what sort of job status the photos’ subjects may have (for example, a high status job such as a doctor, a medium status job like a teacher, or a low status job like a factory worker). Results showed that participants overwhelmingly believed the more attractive subjects to have more socially desirably personality traits than either the averagely attractive or unattractive subjects. Participants also believed that the attractive individuals would lead happier lives in general, have happier marriages, be better parents, and have more career success than the unattractive or averagely attractive individuals. Also, results showed that attractive people were believed to be more likely to hold secure, prestigious jobs compared to unattractive individuals.

Academics and Intelligence

Landy and Sigall’s 1974 study demonstrated the halo effect on judgments of intelligence and competence on academic tasks. 60 male undergraduate students rated the quality of written essays, which included both well-written and poorly written samples. One third of the participants were presented with a photo of an attractive female as an author, another third were presented with a photo of an unattractive female as the author, and the last third were not shown a photo. Participants gave significantly better writing evaluations for the more attractive author. On a 9-point scale, with 1 being the poorest, the well-written essay by the attractive author received an average score of 6.7, while the unattractive author received a 5.9 on the same essay (the group without a photo rated the essay 6.6 on average). For the poorly written essay, the gap was larger. The attractive author received an average score of 5.2, the control a 4.7, and the unattractive author a 2.7. These results suggest that people are generally more willing to give physically attractive people the benefit of the doubt when performance is below standard. Unattractive people are less likely to receive this favored treatment. This study confirms the attractiveness halo effect and its bearing on beliefs of academic competence. In Moore, Filippou, and Perret’s 2011 study, the researchers sought to determine if residual cues to intelligence and personality existed in male and female faces. Researchers attempted to control for the attractiveness halo effect, but failed. They manipulated the perceived intelligence of photographs of individuals, and it was found that those faces that were manipulated to look high in perceived intelligences were also rated as more attractive. It was also found that the faces high in perceived intelligence were also rated highly on perceived friendliness and sense of humor.

Effects on Jurors

Multiple studies have found the halo effect operating within juries. Research shows that attractive individuals receive lesser sentences and are not as likely to be found guilty than an unattractive individual. Efran (1974) found that subjects were more generous when giving out sentences to attractive individuals than to unattractive individuals, even when exactly the same crime was committed. One reason why this occurs is because people with a high level of attractiveness are seen as more likely to have a brighter future in society due to the socially desirable traits they are believed to possess. Monahan (1941) did a study on social workers who are accustomed to interacting with people from all different types of backgrounds. The study found that the majority of these social workers found it very difficult to believe that beautiful looking people are guilty of a crime. Perhaps the most well known study involving the halo effect and jurors’ decisions and behavior is Ostrove and Sigall’s 1975 study in which attractiveness was juxtaposed with the nature of the crime to see its effect on the jurors. A total of 120 undergraduate college students participated in the study, half being male and half being female. Participants were shown a picture of an attractive person and an unattractive person, along with a brief description of the crime they allegedly committed. For this experiment, there were two different crimes: a burglary (in which a female illegally obtained a key and stole $2200) and a swindle (in which a female manipulated a male into investing $2200 in to a false business). It was found that participants gave more guilty votes and a harsher sentence to the unattractive person than the attractive person for the crime of burglary. However, in the swindle crime, the attractive person received more guilty votes and a harsher punishment than the unattractive person. This suggests that people don’t assume that and attractive person would commit such a “low” crime as burglary, whereas an unattractive person would. On the contrary, for the swindle crime, it seems that attractive people are believed to be more apt to use their good looks to manipulate others, while unattractive people are believed to be unable to do this, either on account of their appearance or because they lack the intelligence required to accomplish such a crime.

The Halo Effect in Education

Abikoff (1993) found that the halo effect is also present in the classroom. In this study, 139 regular and special education elementary school teachers watched videotapes of what they believed to be children in regular 4th-grade classrooms. In reality, the children were actors, depicting behaviors of a child with [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] (ADHD), a child with [oppositional defiant disorder], or a child without any disorders. The teachers were asked to rate the frequency of hyperactive behaviors observed in the children, and a bias was evident in the results. The teachers rated hyperactive behaviors accurately for the child behaving like one with ADHD, however, the ratings of hyperactivity and other behaviors associated with ADHD were rated much higher for the child behaving as though he had oppositional defiant disorder, showing a halo effect for children with oppositional defiant disorder. Foster and Ysseldyke (1976) also found the halo effect present in teachers’ evaluations of children. 100 regular and special education elementary school teachers were assigned to 1 of 4 label groups (each consisting of children labeled as emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, mentally retarded, and normal). The teachers were asked to compile a list of behaviors that could be expected from children in each of the 4 labels. Then, the teachers watched the same videotape of a normal 4th-grade boy and completed a referral form based on the behaviors seen in the video. Each group was told that the boy belonged to a different label group. The results showed that teachers held negative expectancies toward emotionally disturbed children, and maintained these expectancies even when presented with normal behavior. In addition, the mentally retarded label showed a greater degree of negative bias than the emotionally disturbed or learning disabled.

Criticisms and Limitations

Although there is strong support for the halo effect in research over the years, some researchers allege that the halo effect is not nearly as pervasive as once believed. Kaplan’s 1978 study yielded much of the same results as are seen in other studies focusing on the halo effect—attractive individuals were rated high in qualities such as creativity, intelligence, and sensitivity than unattractive individuals. In addition these results, Kaplan found interesting and valuable information about the halo effect with regard to gender. It was found that women were influenced by the attractiveness halo effect only when presented with opposite sex individuals. When presented with an attractive member of the same sex, women actually tended to rate the individual lower on socially desirable qualities. These findings suggest that there is an interaction between the halo effect and gender.

Jealousy

The issue of jealousy is one that pervades the entire body of research on the halo effect. Jealously of another person for whatever reason could affect our views of them, which creates a bias in ratings that has nothing at all to do with the halo effect. Landy and Sigall’s study involving task evaluation and attractiveness demonstrated that attractive people were given more leeway with regard to essay quality than unattractive people. The study also found that a person was more likely to discriminate against an attractive person if they were a member of the same sex, which produced an opposite halo effect. Dermer and Thiel (1975) also found a gender interaction in the attractiveness halo effect, and that this interaction occurred more often in females than in males. The researchers found that participants would rate attractive members of the same sex high in socially undesirable qualities to make them seem less appealing.

References: