Talk:Halo effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoletteLynne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johnegan26. Peer reviewers: Brienna Smith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morsaleenf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 May 2019 and 5 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valerieantico.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhonakthan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Update
The bit about AMD processors not being better than Intels... sounds like bias to me. 71.115.103.59 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is called the reverse halo effect not devil effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted an edit mentioning the 'devil effect' and 'horn effect' because it was a cut-and-paste job; however googling shows that both terms do appear to be widely used. I haven't seen as much mention if any of the 'reverse halo effect' outside of this article. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"The halo effect is very common among physically attractive individuals." So it's not felt by unattractive individuals? Why is there a photo of a serial killer with a caption that suggests KNOWING he's a serial killer will affect whether or not he's viewed as attractive? Isn't that the dead opposite of what the introduction is claiming? Sorry to say it but this entire article reads like it was written by 3 people with 3 very different understandings of what the halo effect actually is. As I understand it, and to put it bluntly, the halo effect directly states "beauty implies intelligence", not "stupidity implies ugliness" or "ugliness implies stupidity" or "intelligence implies beauty". We can conclude the latter 3, but that's not what the halo effect is actually stating. There needs to be an agreement as to whether we're trying to make the statement that the halo effect is simply the general trend to correlate groups of positive traits with each other, and groups of negative traits with each other, OR an agreement that there are in fact 4 forces at work here; good physical traits imply good social traits, good social traits imply good physical traits, bad physical traits imply bad social traits, and bad social traits imply bad physical traits. If the halo effect is in fact a general grouping of positive and negative traits, why would a phrase like "the horns effect" even exist? Wouldn't the assumption that an ugly person is unsocial still fall in the realm of the halo effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.171.83.193 (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why to modify?
In what sense u talk to update in the form of halo effect in photoshops like that or in the same meanng in educationl aresearch? Dr KS Sajan

I agree with Nick, I have a very different idea of the "Halo effect." As it states in the List of cognitive biases, "the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to 'spill over' from one area of their personality to another in others' perceptions of them." This goes for not just physical appearance, it's for everything. For example, take an awesome basketball player like Michael Jordan- many people I've met think he's the perfect person, is the most intelligent person they know, etc. but it's an example of the Halo effect. Is Jordan intelligent? He might well be, it doesn't really matter. Those people attribute his (great) skill in his sport to everything. I can list a ton of examples, but I think you get the picture. It's more than just appearance. -Chewbacca 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that as a common expression "halo effect" often refers to "chromatic abberation." Perhaps a disambiguation is in order? 68.55.41.66 R. Collins

I see no reason to merge the articles on the Halo Effect and Halo Vehicles. The effect is a cognitive/psychological effect, whereas a halo vehicle is a marketing or advertising gimmick. I can see how the two are related, but they are separate concepts. Someone doing psychological research might be confused if they start reading about halo vehicles while searching for the halo effect (and vise versa).

I agree. The idea of merging a psychological concept with an advertising gimmick is ridiculous. I was confused when I saw that someone suggested that. I'm researching implicit cognition and its relation to the halo effect, and I have no interest in advertising, thanks. -Sam

Confusing
I read:

"A common example of the halo effect is when a person is assumed to be smart because he or she is wearing spectacles. Another is that good-looking schoolchildren (or good looking people versus plain looking people) are assumed to be less clever."

and changed 'less' to 'more', thinking that it was an error - surely the halo effect means that one positive quality (good looks) causes observers to overestimate another positive quality (intelligence), so it should read 'more clever'. But then I read 'However it is believed that most beautiful people have an intelligence below the mean' in the article Physical attractiveness stereotype, which actually contradicts the halo effect (unless one regards intelligence as a negative quality).

I've changed this article back to read 'less clever', but this is not, then, an example of the Halo effect. Can someone who knows about this look at it and decide which it should be? It's confusing at the moment. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A while ago that text had been commented out. I also disagree with the text, as it doesn't seem to be relevant so I removed it completely - Jack · talk · 17:40, Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Removing proposed Merger#2
The proposal to merge Halo Vehicle and Halo effect was voted down. The proposal to merge Physical attractiveness stereotype into Halo effect, made over a year ago, doesn't appear to have been addressed, other than that the Phys.Attr article has a needs-re-org note on top.

Since there are non-psychology uses for the term Halo effect, and they're already overshadowed, adding more on this (psychology) matter would be overwhelming. Trink24 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Halo vehicle

 * Oppose - While the halo vehicles may make use of the effect, the two topics are too different to be merged, and the vehicle article's volume would overwhelm this one Jack · talk · 17:40, Wednesday, 7 February 2007
 * Strong Oppose - As stated by Jack that the vehicles make use of the effect, there is much distinction in place to make the halo vehicles more than simply an exemplar. -- Dcflyer 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agreed to the above; the halo effect is the discussion of a psychological concept, while halo vehicles are a specific category within the automotive industry. Merging into halo effect does a disservice to the automobile articles that link to and are listed in accordance with the halo vehicle article. Enigma3542002 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -The Halo Vehicle is long enough that it is different enough to not merge. And I agree with all of the above ideas. --Heero Kirashami 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.42.152 (talk • contribs)


 * Given the unanimous list of opposing voices to the merge, and since a significant period has lapsed (7 months+ since the January 2007 proposal), I have removed the merge tags from both articles. Enigma3542002 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

halo effect: it is the tendency of an individual of judging others from a single trait. for example:an introvert will be intelligent. fasionable will be clever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.7.120 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

References in Literature
The halo effect was a largely noted theme in Scott Westerfelds, the Uglies Series. I was wondering if it would be ok to use this as a possible section on here or if it would be a little irrelevant. --71.199.191.189 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)````

Doctors are a good way to demonstrate the Halo Effect
I wasn't going to post this, but since others are in the middle of it all I'll throw in my opnion. I didn't like the article because first it's first sentence didn't use plain language to establish the basic idea (which I think is important), instead it immediately launched into another word which most people would need to look up in order to understand.

Then, the examples cited are kind of ponderous, not instinctive, which makes understanding the definition even more difficult (for the layman).

I first heard the phrase being used in reference to a Doctor. He was constantly being held out as an authority on numerous topics where the fact that he was a doctor would have given his opinion no more credibility than anyone else. While I can start from there, and understand how the iPod makes other Apple products look "better", if I did not have this more basic understanding of how deferential people are to people with titles (and doctors in particular) it would have made understanding the concept more difficult. The big psychological terms confuse the definition even further. I'm not saying they shouldn't BE there, it's just a matter of placment, timing, structure, etc...

99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

chopped from intro
I chopped this from the intro:

Halo effects happen especially if the perceiver does not have enough information about all traits, so that he makes assumptions based on one or two prominent traits—these one or two prominent traits "overshadow" other traits, similar to the radiation of light in optical halo effects or halos in iconography (rings of light around someone's head).

Because, as I understand it, the halo effect means that people will overrate traits that they DO have information about, provided the subject has high ratings in other traits. Ashmoo (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

article now in serious need of editing...help...
a significant amount of material, perhaps some significant and some not, has been added over the last month. the article now needs a good editor and some rewriting. please help..... Soosim (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
A more substantial introduction that incorporates some background and discusses the theory's myriad applications.

Change the photo to someone who's potentially less polarizing...Thorndike?

A 'Background' section discussing the theory's historical roots (possibly incorporating philosophy and literature).

A second section covering early explorations in the Halo Effect.

A third section detailing the explosion of research over the ensuing decades.

An exploration of applications (placing the sections on legal setting and economics under one heading). Possibly including some notable examples?

An expansion of the 'reverse Halo Effect.' If it's important enough to be a heading, there should be something substantial to say.

Challenges and criticism should close it up, and it needs to be a bit more detailed.

General notes: capitalize 'Halo Effect' throughout.

MAJOR edits needed. Typographical, grammatical, etc. errors throughout.

The entire article is VERY reference-weak, despite the numerous claims made. Many of the references are dated, and there's very little modern research cited (outside of practical applications/popular publications).

Summaries of studies need to be concise (i.e., each shouldn't take up one section) Matthew.murdoch (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive descriptions of experiments?
I recently removed a lot of excessive descriptions about the establishing the halo effect, figuring the results were more important than the methodology and that the reader could easily ready the studies themselves if they so wished. But I see Kimhaney3 has added a lot back in, and I'm hesitant to remove a someone else's work like that. But I'm a n00b, so I'll just ask: should the article keep the details on the studies' methodology? Prof. Squirrel (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Validity of studies
does anyone else think that some of these studies are worthless. they can point to multiple things. typical humans are in many ways psychologists themselves. just because someone rates an ugly person as dumb, mean, or any other negative trait doesn't mean that their ugliness was the cause. it could be that based on reality they made the logical answer. if someone asked me if i believed that a specific ugly person was stupid and mean, i'd guess yes because humans mistreat ugly humans. in any situation, humans will prefer an equally competent attractive person over an equally competent ugly person. a life time of dealing with this would make an ugly person stupid and mean. i think the halo effect, as well as other psychological and sociological concepts, are completely confusing. i wouldn't be surprised if the halo effect existed but it seems stupid to be sure of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.41.78 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Attractiveness and Writing
The tone of the article seems to suggest that attractive people are given higher marks.

The results of the study seem to suggest that unattractive people are unfairly punished.

The control and attractive photos, with the good essay, were nearly identical (6.6 and 6.7 out of 9). The control and attractive photos, with the bad essay, were very close (5.2 and 4.9). It was the unattractive person who received the changed result, getting 5.9 and 2.7, respectively.

As if there were almost no good halo, but unattractiveness caused people to react badly. JoshNarins (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

titles
needs to be something about the halo effect of having a title, honour or knighthood, for example someone with a title is often taken very seriously in court. --Penbat (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that, though, really the 'halo effect' - or is it simply an example of markers used for status in primates? Fustbariclation (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion
The wording in the introductory paragraph was a little confusing; however, I think it would be less confusing if there was an example given after the definition of halo effect. For instance, you could say, "For example, some people are rated and or seen as being more intelligent if they are attractive than someone who is less attractive." This example would not only help people to better understand your definition of a halo effect, but it would also help them to understand what you meant when you said "subsequent researchers have studied it in relation to attractiveness and its bearing on the judicial and educational systems." L.Warren18 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me LookingGlass (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro
I've found that the sentence that explains the first time this phrase is used has no citation or no link to where it is, simply stating "a paper in 1920". I'd like to research what paper this is referencing, and if not found I'd like to find something separate. NicoletteLynne (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence implies that it is the definition, however it is merely a version of the definition. NicoletteLynne (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Needs an overhaul
We have generated a liteature review here in WP - this page gathers a bunch of primary sources and synthesizes them; but this violates the WP:SYN policy. This needs to be reworked, using literature reviews and summarizing what they say. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
Since when was the halo effect only positive. To the knowledge that I have from psychology, halo effect paraphrased is 'an impression of a certain attribute creates the association with attributes of similar characteristic'... where does this differentiation between positive and negative come from aka horn effect Is the guardian really a credible source for psychology?

Reverse halo effect
I'm a bit late to the party, but the edit this edit from 2017 is misleading. The term "reverse halo effect" is still commonly used as a synonym of "horns effect", recent literature with other usage notwithstanding. --Brilliand (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The use of the term "Gestalt"
The article says in the first paragraph of "Psychology" in the "Context and applications" section 'someone with whom they have formed a positive gestalt.', when, evidently, they actually mean a 'positive impression'. The section goes on to use the term 'gestalt' as if it means 'an impression'. This makes the section appear, unnecessarily, technical, whilst obscuring a simple point. I suggest that 'Gestalt' is corrected to 'impression' in that section. Fustbariclation (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)