Review of a Journal Article
The Halo Effect: When Your Own Mind is a Mystery
by
Kerry Keith Murdock
7/29/2010
I am writing my review on the Journal Article, “The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.” by Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-6.
With this article they hoped to prove that a person’s overall assessment towards another person can sway their judgments.
In the completion of the reading about certain social behaviors in Chapter 4, I came to the conclusion that I disagreed with Darwin’s theory on natural selection and placed this statement on my online blog-site: “I don’t believe in natural selection. After all of the countless generations throughout the ages, there are still stupid people in the world.”
Apparently, groups of researching psychologists were also perplexed by this concept. Why do smart people make dumb mistakes? How come the best of the best make the worst mistakes when their moments of inspiration, power, and enlightenment are required the most? And why do the Utah Jazz constantly stumble at the playoff’s most important finish line (aside from biased and bankrolled officials)? The researchers decided to find out.
In their online article titled, “Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things: 10 Brilliant Social Psychology Studies” psychologists tried to put a name to the question of “huh?” by scientifically explaining the reasons why people did dumb things.
Although the in-depth research focused on 10 different aspects I’m only going to review their first topic, titled, “The Halo Effect: When Your Own Mind is a Mystery.” A copy of this full article can be seen online at:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/10-piercing-insights-into-human-nature.php
Their theory of the ‘halo effect’ is simple: can a person’s overall evaluation of another be swayed by subconscious traits? They explain that it’s already been happening for decades, through government campaigns, business marketing strategies, and Hollywood actors. The general concept is if a person, or people, appear to be attractive, happy, and likeable then we automatically assume that they are also smart, friendly, and therefore good leaders. Often times we are surprised to find the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ when the truth comes out and the real person underneath does not match the individual we envisioned.
A perfect example of this comes from my own unique experience having participated as an extra in various, local film productions. The film “Dumb and Dumber” was filmed in Utah, and many of my extra cohorts had the opportunity to meet Jim Carrey face to face. While he portrays characters that are loveable, funny, and reckless they were shocked to learn that in real life he was actually rude, demanding, and egocentric.
Unfortunately, we also see plenty of the same types of examples in politicians whom many categorize as ‘baby kissers.’ They appear to have all the answers while dressed in their fine suits and donning their all-day-smiles while campaigning only to show their true characteristics once assigned to office; lacking in respectability and moral judgment. President Bill Clinton is the more poignant example that comes to mind.
In the business world, marketing strategies employ this concept in force to drive sales. In the novel “Reputation Marketing” by John Marconi he provides examples where books that have the stamp of ‘Harvard Classics’ on the cover are twice as expensive as the same book without the haughty label. This concept is also used by the fashion world: a pair of jeans can fetch a price twice as much as its exact counterpart simply by carrying the name of a famous designer, icon, or artist. A pair of jeans endorsed by Miley Cirus is bound to make its way to the store’s register faster with than without.
So, if our history is so rich with examples why do we continue to put our faith in the faithless and our hopes in the hopeless? As the saying goes, ‘history repeats itself.’ Why didn’t we learn our lesson last time? Are we that shallow? Let’s see what we can discover and if we really are ‘dumb’ or simply ‘fooled.’
In 1970 Richard Nisbett set out to prove that we are not as the history books suggest. As a well-known psychologist he conducted an experiment on a body of students’ judgments. Dr. Nisbett and his team of researches hoped to prove the theory that our thought processes are not as accessible as we had thought in general regarding the halo effect. They also wanted to prove that we are also not even aware it is happening and may even deny it if questioned. And knowing this would be why the well-dressed, sweet-smiling ‘wolves’ are so willing to take advantage of our disadvantage.
In 1977 Dr. Nisbett and Dr. Wilson wanted to study the judgments of a body of students. Using an actor to play the role of a lecturer the students were originally told that they would be evaluating a teacher. The researchers also informed the students that they wanted to know if their judgments were based on the amount of exposure they had on the lecturer. This was, of course, far from the truth so the students remained blind to the actual test, meaning, they could not tarnish the results based off of personal bias.
The students were divided into two groups and were shown a different video of the same actor answer the same handful of questions using a strong Belgian accent. In one video the actor was friendly and cheerful. In the other video he was mean and cold. As part of the researcher’s control conditions they made sure that the actor’s portrayal of one character was less likeable than the other. One character portrayed that he liked to teach and other that he did not. In the both videos the actor kept his accent and mannerisms consistent.
After the video the students were asked to rate the lecturer on several physical factors, mannerisms, and his accent, as well. Naturally, the students who saw the ‘good guy’ teacher gave him high marks regarding his appearance, manners, and accent. The researchers were not surprised, since this was comparable to previous results on halo effect studies.
Having the results of the first part of their experiment the researchers moved onto the second phase: to see if we are aware of our judgments, even when asked about them. This is where the true surprise came. When the researchers asked as to why they gave the lecturer the high ratings the students responded that they did not know why. The researchers persisted, not satisfied with the student’s responses but their original opinions remained the same-that they simply did not know why. Even after the study the suggestion was provided to the students that perhaps they gave the teacher the higher marks due to how much they might have liked him. Even with the study ‘concluded’ the students responded that they had liked what he had said and that his personal characteristics had not influenced them at all.
The students refused to be ‘suckered in,’ not knowing that they had been all along! They had formed a bias that was preconceived in their unconscious, based on what the actor portrayed-not what he had said. Remember, in the staged lecture the actor used the exact same dialogue for both productions and in response to the exact same questions. They let the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ in, hook, line, and sinker.
On the other hand, the second group of students that watched the ‘bad guy’ lecturer had even worse results. The students got it all wrong: some even thought that his personal characteristics actually did affect how they thought about him and how much they did like him.
Is it any wonder, then, that politicians smile as much as they do when in public? They can’t afford to let any shred of their moral character slip for even a moment; for what the eye can’t see the subconscious could.
Wanting further proof, the researchers brought all the students back in a second time. Again, they interviewed the students, asking them if it was remotely possible that perhaps their overall opinion of the lecturer had biased their thoughts on the teacher’s abilities to do his job. Still, the student’s opinions remained to be fooled as they stated that his personality had not swayed them in their decisions. Despite how likeable he might have appeared to be they were still persuaded that his appearance, accent, and mannerisms did not sway their judgments in his teaching skills.
An interesting study to be sure, but what happens when the effects in question are actually swayed by something beyond the researcher’s comprehension? I’m afraid the article didn’t mention taking into account regarding the weather outside: it could have been a beautiful sunny day which might have lifted the student’s spirits. What if the actor had taken his portrayal from a famous comedy character that the students could reflect from and had based their judgments off of his ‘performance’ and not his lecture. What if the actor reminded them of a similarly-styled, jovial family member? If this was a co-ed college, were the students sitting boy-girl-boy-girl that could have led to some positive attitudes?
What about timing or distraction? If the study had taken place during midterms or finals the students might have had their thoughts focused elsewhere. Their answers might have been a quick response just so they could get going on something they might deem ‘more important.’
And, why was the study never conducted at a different location with different students under similar circumstances, such as with another actor? If their theory was universal than a study abroad certainly could have revealed many interesting results.
We are instructed by wise men to judge wisely but in a case such as this I can’t necessarily agree that their report could be accurately concluded. I’m afraid too many variables may be missing. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” What may appear to be the perfect example of attractive, wise, and able to some may not fall in the same stereotype to others worldwide. Some shepherds internationally may spot a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing for exactly what it is and, in essence, “call the kettle black.” Many Arab citizens may see a smiling, richly-dressed American tourist as an arrogant pig. European tourists strolling down the sidewalks of many of our rich cities may spot well-groomed, high-fashioned, but obese people. In a rich Asian society their elders are considered wise and not their clothes. And already, Americans are taught to be wary of the fast-talking car or door-to-door salesman.
However, the truth remains, as Al Capone once said, “A smile and a gun will get you more in life than a smile alone.” But over the decades the concept of the ‘gun’ has loaded with new ammunition. So until we develop bullet-proof personalities the politicians will continue to smile, the Hollywood elite will still wear the fanciest duds, and market researchers will never cease to slap as many endorsement titles on kid’s lunchboxes as possible.
Here are some questions to consider before you head to the polls, choose one ticket at the blockbuster movie box office over another, or pick that toy your child ‘really-really-really’ wanted for their birthday. Are you being subconsciously affected by the halo effect? Are your judgments being swayed by appearance, mannerisms, or speech? Are you judging the product or person by the traits you thought you were or are you subconsciously letting other aspects affect your judgment? Are you truly making an educated decision?
As another old saying goes, “Never judge a book by its cover.” It could be a penny-cover dud in a hardback cover or a new, inexpensive, best-selling classic.
And don’t forget to think twice. After all, you may be fooled and not know it. No? Is that your final answer?
