On This Page:
The halo effect refers to the tendency to allow one specific trait or our overall impression of a person, company or product to positively influence our judgment of their other related traits.
The halo effect is a cognitive attribution bias, involving the unfounded application of general judgment to a specific trait (Bethel, 2010; Ries, 2006).
For example, suppose you perceive a person to be warm and friendly. In that case, you will attribute a number of other associated traits to that person without any knowledge that they are true, such as they are generous.
The word ‘halo’ stems from a religious concept. It refers to a circle of light that is placed above or around the head of a holy person or saint in order to honor his or her sanctity. Countless paintings from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period depict notable men and women with the heavenly light of the halo.
These paintings, in effect, lead the observer to form favorable judgments about their participants. Likewise, according to the psychological concept of ‘the halo effect,’ one patent attribute of a certain person leads an observer to draw a generalizing conclusion about that person (Ellis, 2018).
A single positive quality of a person may induce a positive predisposition toward every aspect of that person while one negative attribute of that person may induce an overall negative impression of that person.
While the former, which works in the positive direction, is the halo effect, the latter, which works in the negative direction, as we will discuss later, is called the horn effect.
Examples
In the Classroom
In the classroom, teachers are prone to the halo effect error when evaluating their students. For example, a teacher might assume that a well-behaved student is also bright and motivated before they have objectively evaluated the student’s capacity in these areas.
A research study conducted in 1968 by Rosenthal and Jacobson discovered that teachers generally develop expectations for their students based not merely on the school record but also on their physical appearance.
In the experiment, the teachers were provided with objective information, such as a child’s academic potential along with a photo of an attractive or unattractive girl or boy. The results indicated that the teachers’ expectations concerning the child’s academic future were significantly associated with the child’s attractiveness.
Another more recent study compared the influence of attractiveness on grading in university courses wherein the instructors either could or could not observe the appearance of their students (Hernandez-Julian & Peters, 2017).
The results indicated that appearance could impact grading in traditional classrooms; the students whose attractiveness was rated as above average procured significantly lower grades in online classes wherein the instructors could not observe the appearance of the students.
In the Workplace
A study by Parrett (2015) examined the impact of beauty on earnings based on the tipping data of restaurants in Virginia. He discovered that more attractive servers earned in tips nearly $1261 more annually than their unattractive counterparts.
The primary explanation stemmed from female customers’ tipping the better-looking females more than they did the unattractive females. The customer taste-based discrimination herein mattered more for females than for males.
Moreover, an investigation into educational attainment and self-evaluations as mediating mechanisms for the impact of attractiveness and intelligence on the financial strain and income seemed to indicate that physical attractiveness could directly and indirectly impact income (Judge, Hurst & Simon, 2009).
Academics and Intelligence
A study conducted by Landy and Sigall (1974) demonstrated the impact of the halo effect on male judgments of female academic competence. In their experiment, 60 male undergraduate students were asked to evaluate an essay supposedly written by a first-year female college student.
The male undergraduates had to assess the quality of the prose and the competence of the writer on a number of dimensions. The essays included both poorly written samples and well-written versions.
Of the 60 male participants, 20 were given a photo of an unattractive female as an author, another 20 were given a photo of an attractive female as the author, and the final 20 were provided with no photos.
Moreover, while 30 of the participants read the well-written version, the other 30 read the poorly-written sample. The results showed that the participants had evaluated the writer least favorably when she was unattractive and most favorably when she was attractive.
Furthermore, the effect of the writer’s attractiveness on the assessment of her writing was most salient when the objective quality of the essay was poor.
These results seemed to imply that the male readers were more inclined to tolerate poor performance by attractive females than by unattractive females.
A more recent study examined residual cues to intelligence in male and female faces while also seeking to control for attractiveness associated with the halo effect (Moore, Filippou & Perrett, 2011).
Out of over 300 photos of British college students, pictures of high-intelligence composite faces were created from the photos rated the highest in perceived intelligence, and pictures of low-intelligence composite from the photos rated the lowest in perceived intelligence.
Then each group of photos was further divided into male and female faces. The participants of the study, which comprised 92 males and 164 females, were to rate the composite faces for attractiveness and intelligence.
For the male composites, the high-perceived intelligence group was rated as notably more attractive than their low-perceived intelligence counterparts.
Moreover, the attractive male faces were also perceived to be friendlier and funnier by women as well as men. The results seemed to indicate that intelligence might be a crucial component of attractiveness in male faces.
On Sentencing for Crimes
A study by Michael G. Efran which examined the effects of physical attractiveness on the judgment of culpability and the severity of the sentences recommended for criminals, discovered that attractive criminals were likely to receive more lenient penalties than unattractive ones for the same crime (Efran, 1974).
According to the study, the societal perception which holds that more attractive individuals have better prospects for the future than less attractive individuals supposedly accounted for this discrepancy.
However, another study on the same topic by Sigall and Ostrove demonstrated more nuanced evidence (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975).
The experiment evaluated a hypothetical burglary and a hypothetical swindle. While the former involved a woman unlawfully procuring a key and embezzling $2200, the latter involved a woman inveigling a man to invest $2200 in a corporation that did not exist.
In the burglary (unrelated to the criminal’s attractiveness), the attractive defendant received a more lenient sentence than the unattractive one. However, in the swindle (wherein the crime was connected to the criminal’s attractiveness), the attractive defendant received the more severe sentence.
The results seemed to suggest that the customary leniency given to the more attractive criminal was reversed or negated when the nature of the offense involved the criminal’s attractiveness.
Research
The American psychologist Frederick L. Wells (1907) first identified the halo effect in a study of ratings of the literary merit of authors.
However, it was Edward Thorndike who first recognized it with empirical evidence. Thorndike was an early behaviorist who delved into the psychology of learning. He officially introduced the term ‘the halo error’ in 1920 in his article, “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings”.
Thorndike described the halo effect as the cognitive bias whereby one aspect of a person shapes one’s opinions of the other dimensions and features of that person. Although Thorndike initially employed the term only to refer to people, subsequently, its use has been expanded even to the spheres of marketing.
In A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings, Thorndike (1920) sought to pin down this cognitive bias via replication.
In the experiment for the study, he would ask two commanding officers in the military to assess their soldiers based on their intellect, physical qualities (such as voice, physique, energy, neatness, and bearing), leadership skills, and personal qualities (such as loyalty, selflessness, cooperation, and dependability).
The bias that he thought characterized the ratings was confirmed. Thorndike discovered that a person’s attractiveness significantly influenced how that person’s other attributes were assessed.
His study demonstrated notable correlations; the correlation for physique with character was .28, for physique with intelligence was .31, and for physique with leadership was .39.
The ratings were seemingly impacted by a marked tendency to view a person in general as either good or bad and then jump to conclusions concerning other qualities of that person. These conclusions were based on the initial impression of or the general feeling concerning the relevant individuals.
For instance, the ratings on one special attribute of an officer would often begin a trend in the ratings in the direction of the perceived special attribute; a positive trait would engender a positive trend, and a negative trait a negative trend.
The final results for a particular soldier would invariably correlate with the rest of the results regardless of whether the special attribute was positive or negative.
Halo Effect Experiment
One classic experiment that demonstrates the halo effect in psychology is the study conducted by Solomon Asch in 1946. In the experiment, participants were shown a series of photographs of individuals and asked to rate them on various personality traits.
The catch was that the participants were shown either an attractive or unattractive photograph of the same person, randomly assigned.
The results revealed a clear halo effect. Participants consistently rated the individuals in the attractive photographs as having more positive personality traits than those in the unattractive photographs.
They attributed qualities such as intelligence, kindness, and social skills to attractive individuals while assigning less favorable traits to the unattractive ones.
This experiment demonstrated how the initial impression of physical attractiveness influenced participants’ perception of other unrelated qualities, illustrating the presence and impact of the halo effect in shaping our judgments and evaluations of others.
The Reverse Halo Effect
The reverse halo effect refers to the phenomenon whereby positive perceptions of a person can yield negative consequences (Edward, 2004).
The reverse halo effect, also known as the horns effect, is a cognitive bias where a negative overall impression of a person influences the perception of their specific traits or abilities. It is the opposite of the halo effect, where a positive impression leads to positive perceptions.
In the reverse halo effect, negative traits or shortcomings of an individual can overshadow their positive qualities, leading to biased judgments and evaluations.
For instance, the horn effect may cause us to stereotype that someone who is physically overweight is also lazy, although there is no evidence to indicate that morality is tied to appearance.
An experiment conducted by Joseph Forgas on 246 individuals bears this out. Following recalling happy or sad past events, the participants were required to read a philosophical essay with an image of either a young female or an old male attached as the writer.
The results showed that those who had recalled sad events and were, therefore, in a negative mood rated lower for the young female. A negative effect seemed to have eliminated or reversed the halo effect.
Furthermore, research also shows that both females and males who are more attractive are likely to be more vane and egotistical (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo, 1991).
Moreover, as noted above concerning the study of Sigall and Ostrove, individuals who commit crimes using their good looks to their advantage are more likely to receive harsher penalties than unattractive criminals (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975).
Key Takeaways
- The halo effect also called the halo error, is a type of cognitive bias whereby our perception of someone is positively influenced by our opinions of that person’s other related traits.
- In his article, A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings, American psychologist Edward Thorndike first recognized the halo effect with empirical evidence in 1920.
- The halo effect can shape our perception of others’ intelligence and competence, and its influence can be seen in many settings, from the classroom to the courthouse.
- An example of the halo effect is the attractiveness stereotype, which refers to the tendency to assign positive qualities and traits to physically attractive people. People often judge attractive individuals for higher morality, better mental health, and greater intelligence. This cognitive error in judgment reflects one’s individual prejudices, ideology, and social perception.
- The reverse halo effect is the phenomenon whereby positive perceptions of a person can yield negative consequences.
- The horn effect, closely tied to the halo effect, is the cognitive bias whereby a single negative trait unduly shapes one’s opinion of another.
FAQs
What is the halo effect?
The halo effect refers to the cognitive bias where positive attributes or qualities in one aspect of a person (such as physical attractiveness) influence the perception of their other traits (such as intelligence or kindness), even without evidence supporting those assumptions.
What is the halo effect in organizational behavior?
The halo effect bias can influence how individuals are perceived and evaluated in the workplace, leading to unfair judgments and decisions. The halo effect can impact various aspects of organizational behavior, including performance appraisals, hiring decisions, and promotions.
What is the difference between stereotype and halo effect?
The main difference between stereotype and halo effect is the scope of application. Stereotype refers to a general perception or belief about a group of people based on their shared characteristics.
It is a broad generalization that may not apply to every individual within the group. On the other hand, halo effect is a cognitive bias that affects the perception of individuals, focusing on one positive or negative characteristic to form an overall impression, regardless of their group membership.
References
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258.
Burns, M., & Griffith, A. (2018). The Learning Imperative: Raising performance in organisations by improving learning. Crown House Publishing Ltd.
Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of education, 248-258.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological bulletin, 110 (1), 109.
Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8 (1), 45-54.
Ellis, G. (Ed.). (2018). Cognitive Biases in Visualizations. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Hernández-Julián, R., & Peters, C. (2017). Student appearance and academic performance. Journal of Human Capital, 11 (2), 247-262.
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 742.
Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 299.
Moore, F. R., Filippou, D., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). Intelligence and attractiveness in the face: Beyond the attractiveness halo effect. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9 (3), 205-217.
Parrett, M. (2015). Beauty and the feast: Examining the effect of beauty on earnings using restaurant tipping data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 49, 34-46.
Ries, A. (2006). Understanding marketing psychology and the halo effect. Advertising Age, 17.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3 (1), 16-20.
Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (3), 410.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 4 (1), 25-29.
Wells, F. L. (1907). A Statistical Study of Literary Merit. (Columbia Univ. Cont. to Phil. & Psych., 16, 3.). Archives of Psychology.
