Experts have advocated anonymous grading as a means of eliminating actual or perceived evaluator bias in subjective student assessment. The utility of anonymity in assessment rests on whether information derived from student identity can unduly influence evaluation. The halo effect provides a conceptual background for why a bias might occur. In the present study examining the halo effect, psychology faculty members and teaching assistants were randomly assigned to grade a student giving a poor oral presentation or the same student giving a good oral presentation. All graders then assessed an unrelated piece of written work by the student. As hypothesized, the graders assigned significantly higher scores to written work following the better oral presentation. The results provide strong evidence of a halo effect in that prior experience with a student biased the grading of written work completed by the student. The findings suggest the need to keep students anonymous when feasible in order to minimize the risk of unfair grading.
BelseyC. (1988). Marking by numbers. AUT women, No. 15 (pp. 1–2). London, England: Association of University Teachers.
7.
BradleyC. (1984). Sex bias in the evaluation of students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 147–153.
8.
BrennanD. J. (2008). University student anonymity in the summative assessment of written work. Higher Education Research & Development, 27, 43–54.
9.
CardyR. L.DobbinsG. H. (1986). Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral dimension in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 672–678.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
CooperW. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218–244.
12.
DennisI. (2007). Halo effects in grading student projects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1169–1176.
13.
DennisI.NewsteadS. E.WrightD. E. (1996). A new approach to exploring bias in educational assessment. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 515–534.
14.
DoeS. R.GingerichK. J.RichardsT. L. (in press). An evaluation of grading and instructional feedback skills of graduate teaching assistants in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, X, XX.
15.
ErwinP. G.CalevA. (1984). The influence of Christian name stereotypes on the marking of children’s essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 223–227.
16.
FajardoD. M. (1985). Author race, essay quality and reverse discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 255–268.
17.
ForgasJ. P. (2011). She just doesn’t look like a philosopher … ? Affective influences on the halo effect in impression formation.European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 812–817.
18.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
19.
HaeranJ.CowlingJ. (2010). Objectivity in grading: The promise of bar codes. College Teaching, 57, 51–55.
20.
HarariH.McDavidJ. (1973). Name stereotypes and teachers’ expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 222–225.
21.
HolzbachR. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 579–588.
22.
HoustonH. B.BettencourtL. A. (1999). But that’s not fair! An exploratory study of student perceptions of instructor fairness.Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 84–96.
23.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
24.
LandyD.SigallH. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299–304.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256.
31.
NewsteadS. E.DennisI. (1990). Blind marking and sex bias in student assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 132–139.
32.
NievaV. F.GutekB. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267–276.
33.
Perry-LangdonN. (1990). Marking by numbers: Evaluation of the marking of final degree examinations in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies. Retrieved from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC: q94/21236
34.
PichéG. L.MichlinM.RubinD.SullivanA. (1977). Effects of dialect-ethnicity, social class and quality of written compositions on teachers' subjective evaluations of children. Communications Monographs, 44, 60–72.
35.
Pinot de MoiraA.MasseyC.BairdJ.MorrissyM. (2002). Marking consistency over time. Research in Education, 67, 79–87.
36.
RoenD. (1992). Gender and teacher response to student writing. In McCrackenN.ApplebyB. (Eds.), Gender issues in the teaching of English (pp. 126–141). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
37.
SpearM. G. (1984). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2, 55–60.
38.
Warren PiperD.NultyD. D.O’GradyG. (1996). Examination practices and procedures in Australian universities. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
39.
WhiteleggD. (2002). Breaking the feedback loop: Problems with anonymous assessment. Planet, 3, 7–8.
