We propose stronger halo effects in trait assessments from positive information relative to negative information. Due to positive information’s higher similarity, positive information should foster both indirect (from a global impression to traits) and direct halo effects (from traits to traits). Negative information’s relative distinctiveness should foster only direct halo effects, leading to weaker halo effects overall. Four experiments support these predictions using agency traits and communion traits and behaviors. Further supporting the predictions, halo effects from positive information were visible both within (i.e., from communion/agency information to communion/agency traits) and across (i.e., from agency/communion information to communion/agency traits) these fundamental dimensions of social perception. Halo effects from negative information were visible only within dimensions. The study thereby explains why halo effects from negative information are usually weaker; it supports different processes underlying halo effects; and it provides a case in person perception where positive information has more impact than negative information.
AbeleA. E.UchronskiM.SuitnerC.WojciszkeB. (2008). Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1202-1217.
2.
AbikoffH.CourtneyM.PelhamW. E.KoplewiczH. S. (1993). Teachers’ ratings of disruptive behaviors: The influence of halo effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 519-533.
3.
AlvesH.KochA. S.UnkelbachC. (2016). My friends are all alike—The relation between liking and perceived similarity in person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 103-117.
4.
AlvesH.UnkelbachC.BurghardtJ.KochA. S.KrügerT.BeckerV. D. (2015). A density explanation of valence asymmetries in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 43, 896-909.
5.
AnastasiowN. J. (1963). “Success” in first grade as seen by teachers: Gough’s Adjective Check List and teachers’ ratings. Psychological Reports, 13, 403-407.
6.
AndersonN. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 393-400.
7.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
8.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
9.
BarghJ. A.ChaikenS.GovenderR.PrattoF. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
10.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
11.
BermanJ. S.KennyD. A. (1976). Correlation bias in observer rating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 263-273.
12.
BruckmüllerS.AbeleA. E. (2013). The density of the Big Two: How are agency and communion structurally represented?Social Psychology, 44, 63-74.
13.
CarlstonD. E.SkowronskiJ. J. (1994). Savings in the relearning of trait information as evidence for spontaneous inference generation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 840-856.
14.
CarlstonD. E.SkowronskiJ. J. (2005). Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 884-898.
15.
ClarkH. H.ClarkE. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
16.
CooperW. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244.
17.
DennisI. (2007). Halo effects in grading student projects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1169-1176.
18.
DeYoungC. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138-1151.
19.
DigmanJ. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
20.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
21.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. D.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception?Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
23.
FeingoldA. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.
24.
FiedlerK.FreytagP.UnkelbachC. (2007). Pseudocontingencies in a simulated classroom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 665-677.
25.
FiedlerK.UnkelbachC. (2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 639-656.
26.
FisicaroS. A.LanceC. E. (1990). Implications of three causal models for the measurement of halo error. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 419-429.
27.
FiskeS. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
28.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.
29.
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.
30.
FroneM. R.AdamsJ.RiceR. W.Instone-NoonanD. (1986). Halo error: A field study comparison of self- and subordinate evaluations of leadership process and leader effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 454-461.
31.
GasperK.CloreG. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13, 34-40.
32.
GriffithsT. L.SteyversM.TenenbaumJ. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211-244.
33.
HolzbachR. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 579-588.
34.
ItoT. A.LarsenJ. T.SmithN. K.CacioppoJ. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.
35.
JonesE. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107-117.
36.
JonesE. E.DavisK. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899-913.
38.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69.
39.
KanouseD. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 703-708.
40.
KanouseD. E.HansonL. R. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinsS.WeinerB. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47-62). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
41.
KochA. S.AlvesH.KrügerT.UnkelbachC. (in press). A general valence asymmetry in similarity: Good is more alike than bad. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
42.
KulkaR. A.KesslerJ. R. (1978). Is justice really blind? The influence of litigant physical attractiveness on juridical judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 366-381.
43.
LanceC. E.LaPointeJ. A.FisicaroS. A. (1994). Tests of three causal models of halo rater error. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 83-96.
44.
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.
45.
LeisingD.OstrovskiO.BorkenauP. (2012). Vocabulary for describing disliked persons is more differentiated than vocabulary for describing liked persons. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 393-396.
46.
MatlinM. W.StangD. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, UK: Schenkman.
47.
MichelsonL.MannarinoA.MarchioneK.KazdinA. E.CostelloA. (1985). Expectancy bias in behavioral observations of therapeutic outcome: An experimental analysis of treatment and halo effects. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 407-414.
48.
MummaG. H. (2002). Effects of three types of potentially biasing information on symptom severity judgments for major depressive episode. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1327-1345.
49.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250-256.
50.
PeetersG.CzapinskiJ. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33-60.
51.
RizzoW. A.FrankF. D. (1977). Influence of irrelevant cues and alternate forms of graphic rating scales on the halo effect. Personnel Psychology, 30, 405-417.
52.
RobbinsS. P. (1989). Organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
53.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
54.
RuderM.BlessH. (2003). Mood and the reliance on the ease of retrieval heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 20-32.
55.
SaalF. E.DowneyR. G.LaheyM. A. (1980). Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 413-428.
56.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 689-699.
57.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142.
58.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1992). Caught in the act: When behaviors based on highly diagnostic behaviors are resistant to contradiction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 435-452.
59.
SurawskiM. K.OssoffE. P. (2006). The effects of physical and vocal attractiveness on impression formation of politicians. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 25, 15-27.
60.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245.
61.
ThorndikeE. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.
62.
UlemanJ. S.NewmanL. S.MoskowitzG. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 211-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
63.
UnkelbachC. (2012). Positivity advantages in social information processing. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 83-94.
64.
UnkelbachC.FiedlerK.BayerM.StegmüllerM.DannerD. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 36-49.
65.
UnkelbachC.ForgasJ. P.DensonT. F. (2008). The turban effect: The influence of Muslim headgear and induced affect on aggressive responses in the shooter bias paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1409-1413.
66.
UnkelbachC.GuastellaA. J.ForgasJ. P. (2008). Oxytocin selectively facilitates recognition of positive sex and relationship words. Psychological Science, 19, 1092-1094.
67.
UnkelbachC.von HippelW.ForgasJ. P.RobinsonM. D.ShakarchiR. J.HawkinsC. (2010). Good things come easy: Subjective exposure frequency and the faster processing of positive information. Social Cognition, 28, 538-555.
68.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimuli sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
69.
YzerbytV. Y.KervynN.JuddC. M. (2008). Compensation versus halo: The unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1110-1123.
70.
ZysbergL.NevoB. (2004). “The smarts that counts?” Psychologists’ decision-making in personnel selection. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 117-124.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
