[1][2] The halo effect is "the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality.
"[3] The halo effect is a cognitive bias which can prevent someone from forming an image of a person, a product or a brand based on the sum of all objective circumstances at hand.
[7][6][8][9][10] The halo effect is a perception distortion (or cognitive bias) that affects the way people interpret the information about someone with whom they have formed a positive gestalt.
xi [7] The halo effect is an evaluation by an individual and can affect the perception of a decision, action, idea, business, person, group, entity, or other whenever concrete data is generalized or influences ambiguous information.
The halo effect is sometimes used to refer specifically to when this behavior has a positive correlation, such as viewing someone who is attractive as likely to be successful and popular.
[25][26] The term "halo effect" has also been applied to human rights organizations that have used their status to move away from their stated goals.
Political scientist Gerald Steinberg has claimed that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) take advantage of the halo effect and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the news media.
[27][28] The Ronald McDonald House, a widely known NGO, openly celebrates the positive outcomes it receives from the halo effect.
This awareness is attributed to the halo effect, as employees, customers, and stakeholders are more likely to be involved in a charity that they recognize and trust, with a name and logo that are familiar.
"[c] The halo effect can also be used in the case of institutions as one's favorable perceptions regarding an aspect of an organization could determine a positive view of its entire operations.
This can also be demonstrated in the positive perceptions of financial institutions that gained favorable coverage in the media due to meteoric growth but eventually failed afterward.
[4] 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.
"[37] In "A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings", Thorndike asked two commanding officers to evaluate their soldiers in terms of physical qualities (neatness, voice, physique, bearing, and energy), intellect, leadership skills, and personal qualities (including dependability, loyalty, responsibility, selflessness, and cooperation).
In 2023, a large study of 2748 participants found that the same individuals received significantly higher ratings of intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability and happiness after having applied a beauty filter.
However, the study also found that beautified men received significantly higher scores to their perceived intelligence compared to women.
[47] The participants judged the photos' subjects along 27 different personality traits (including altruism, conventionality, self-assertiveness, stability, emotionality, trustworthiness, extraversion, kindness, and sexual promiscuity).
[47] Results showed that most of the participants overwhelmingly believed more attractive subjects have more socially desirable personality traits than either averagely attractive or unattractive subjects, would lead happier lives in general, have happier marriages, and have more career success, including holding more secure, prestigious jobs.
A study by Landy & Sigall (1974) demonstrated the Halo Effect, looking at male judgments of female intelligence and competence on academic tasks.
Research conducted by Moore, Filippou & Perrett (2011) sought residual cues to intelligence in female and male faces while attempting to control for the attractiveness halo effect.
Participants for the study were recruited online; 164 female and 92 male heterosexual residents of the UK rated each of the composite faces for intelligence and attractiveness.
Officeholders who create what The New York Times called "a living legacy" benefit from a halo effect when their overall accomplishments are subsequently evaluated.
Dermer & Thiel (1975) continued this line of research, going on to demonstrate that jealousy of an attractive individual has a slight effect in evaluation of that person.
Eagly et al. (1991) also commented on this phenomenon, showing that more attractive individuals of both sexes were expected to be higher in vanity and possibly egotistic.
[59] Applied instances of the reverse halo effect include negative evaluations of criminals who use their attractiveness to their advantage[16] and rating a philosophical essay lower when written by a young female than an old male.
[63][64] The Guardian wrote of the devil effect in relation to Hugo Chavez: "Some leaders can become so demonized that it's impossible to assess their achievements and failures in a balanced way.
"[66] "In the work setting, the halo effect is most likely to show up in a supervisor's appraisal of a subordinate's job performance.
"[67] Murphy, Jako & Anhalt (1993) argue: "Since 1980, there have been a large number of studies dealing directly or indirectly with halo error in rating.
Taken together, these studies suggest that all seven of the characteristics that have defined halo error for much of its history are problematic and that the assumptions that underlie some of them are demonstrably wrong."
When someone is in a favorable mood, the halo effect is more likely to be influential—this was demonstrated by study participants choosing between pictures of an elderly man with a beard and a young woman, and deciding which subject possessed more philosophical attributes.
Forgas's study suggests that when one is gauging the extent of the halo effect in a situation, one must consider the emotional state of the person making the judgment.