The halo effect is a cognitive bias in which one trait, or our overall impression of a person, company or product, positively influences our judgment. That judgment then extends to their other, unrelated traits.
The halo effect refers to the tendency of people to rate attractive individuals more favorably for their personality traits or characteristics as compared to those who are less attractive.
How the Halo Effect Works
Suppose you perceive someone as warm and friendly. You will then assume other traits about them, such as generosity, with no real knowledge that they are true (Ries, 2006).
Why does the mind do this? Asch (1946) argued that we form one unified impression of a person rather than adding up separate traits.
That pressure toward a coherent picture does the damage: a positive overall feeling generates positive inferences about specific traits, and a negative one generates negative inferences.
Two features of impression formation feed the halo:
- First impressions: Early information is weighted heavily, so an early positive impression becomes a halo that recolours everything after it. An early negative one becomes a horn.
- Coherence-seeking: A consistent picture is easier to hold in mind than a jumble of contradictory traits. The cost is accuracy: we over-attribute qualities that merely fit.
The term borrows from religious art. A halo is a circle of light placed above or around the head of a holy figure, honouring their sanctity. Countless Middle Ages and Renaissance paintings depict notable figures this way, and the imagery leads viewers to judge those figures favourably.
The halo effect works the same way. One obvious trait leads an observer to a broader, unfounded conclusion about the whole person (Ellis, 2018). A single positive quality can create a positive predisposition toward every other aspect of that person.
One negative attribute can do the reverse. The positive version is the halo effect; the negative version, covered later, is the horn effect.
The halo effect is also not a stereotype. It generalises from one trait of an individual, whereas a stereotype applies generalisations to a whole group. The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype sits where the two overlap.
Examples of the Halo Effect
One classic study explains why attractiveness travels so far into unrelated judgements. It is the most-cited demonstration of the effect.
- Aim: Dion, Berscheid and Walster (1972) tested whether physical attractiveness triggers a halo. They asked whether good-looking individuals are also assumed to have better personalities and life prospects.
- Method: Participants were shown photographs of people pre-rated as attractive, average or unattractive. They judged each person’s traits and predicted marital happiness, career success and overall life satisfaction.
- Results: Attractive people were credited with more desirable personalities, such as being kinder and more interesting, and with happier marriages and more prestigious jobs. Few areas favoured the unattractive group.
- Conclusion: Physical attractiveness sets off a broad halo: the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype. One visible trait inflates judgements of unrelated qualities, and even predictions about a stranger’s future.
In the Classroom
In the classroom, teachers are prone to the halo effect error when evaluating their students. A teacher might assume a well-behaved student is also bright and motivated. That judgement often comes first.
It arrives before they have objectively evaluated the student’s actual ability. Clifford and Walster (1973) found that teachers develop expectations for a child partly from appearance, not just the school record.
Teachers were shown a child’s report card together with a photo of an attractive or unattractive child. Every teacher saw identical academic information.
Attractiveness still shaped their judgement. The teachers’ expectations for the child’s future, peer relationships and academic potential were all significantly linked to how attractive the child appeared.
Hernández-Julián and Peters (2017) tested a modern parallel: grading in traditional face-to-face classes against anonymously graded online courses, where instructors could not see the students.
Attractive students earned higher grades in person. That attractiveness premium disappeared once grading was anonymous online, showing that blind marking removes the bias rather than students’ underlying ability changing.
Halos can also become self-fulfilling. In the Pygmalion effect documented by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), raised teacher expectations improved pupil performance.
Expectations set by a halo can therefore come to shape a pupil’s actual behaviour, not just the teacher’s opinion of it.
In the Workplace
A study by Parrett (2015) examined the impact of beauty on earnings based on the tipping data of restaurants in Virginia. He discovered that more attractive servers earned in tips nearly $1261 more annually than their unattractive counterparts.
Female customers drove the effect. They tipped better-looking female servers more than unattractive ones. Customer taste-based discrimination mattered more for female servers than for male servers.
Judge, Hurst and Simon (2009) found that physical attractiveness affects income both directly and indirectly, partly through education and people’s own self-evaluations.
Halo error also distorts hiring and appraisal. A manager impressed by one salient quality, such as a polished CV, a confident manner or attractiveness, tends to rate an employee highly on every appraisal dimension.
One strong or weak attribute then contaminates ratings of unrelated competencies, which undermines their diagnostic value. Two standard countermeasures help:
- Structured scales: Behaviourally anchored, criterion-based rating scales spell out what each dimension means.
- Multiple raters: Several independent raters, averaged together, dilute any one person’s halo.
Meta-analytic evidence on job-performance ratings is weighed in the Evidence Check below.
Academics and Intelligence
Landy and Sigall (1974) tested the halo effect in academic grading. Sixty male undergraduates evaluated an essay supposedly written by a first-year female student, in either a well-written or a poorly-written version.
Twenty raters saw a photo of an unattractive author, 20 saw an attractive author, and 20 saw no photo. Each rated the prose quality and the writer’s competence.
Attractive authors were rated most favourably; unattractive authors, least favourably. The gap was largest for the poorly-written essay.
Male readers, in other words, forgave weak writing more readily when the author was attractive.
Moore, Filippou and Perrett (2011) asked a different question: do faces carry a genuine cue to intelligence, separate from attractiveness?
From over 300 British college students’ photos, the researchers built two composite faces: one from the highest-rated for perceived intelligence, one from the lowest. Each composite was split by sex.
Ninety-two male and 164 female raters then judged the composites for attractiveness and intelligence.
For the male composites, the high-intelligence face was rated notably more attractive than the low-intelligence face.
Both male and female raters agreed. It was also judged friendlier and funnier.
Intelligence, it seems, is itself a component of attractiveness in male faces.
On Sentencing for Crimes
A study by Michael G. Efran examined the effects of physical attractiveness on judgments of culpability and the severity of recommended sentences (Efran, 1974). Attractive criminals were likely to receive more lenient penalties than unattractive ones. The crime was the same.
According to the study, this discrepancy was accounted for by the societal perception that more attractive individuals have better future prospects.
However, another study on the same topic by Sigall and Ostrove demonstrated more nuanced evidence (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975).
The experiment evaluated a hypothetical burglary and a hypothetical swindle. The burglary involved a woman unlawfully procuring a key and embezzling $2200. The swindle involved a woman persuading a man to invest $2200 in a corporation that did not exist.
The two crimes produced opposite results for the attractive defendant:
| Crime | Link to attractiveness | Sentence for the attractive defendant |
|---|---|---|
| Burglary | Unrelated | More lenient than for the unattractive defendant |
| Swindle | Connected | More severe than for the unattractive defendant |
The customary leniency shown to attractive defendants was reversed once the crime itself involved their attractiveness.
Marketing and the Health Halo
The halo effect also extends to consumer products, in what researchers call the health halo. A label such as “organic,” “low-fat,” “natural” or “gluten-free” makes a whole product seem healthier than the evidence supports.
One desirable-sounding attribute inflates judgements of the product’s calories, quality and healthiness, even when that inference is unwarranted. Shoppers under-estimate calories or over-consume. It is the “what is beautiful is good” logic applied to food rather than to people.
Marketers engineer halos deliberately. A strong “hero” product lifts expectations for a company’s whole range (Ries, 2006).
Attractive, likeable spokespeople work the same way: consumers transfer positive feelings about the endorser onto the brand. A well-known brand can charge a premium because its reputation substitutes for direct evidence about the item in front of the shopper.
Origins of the Halo Effect
The American psychologist Frederick L. Wells (1907) gave an early hint of the halo effect. Judges rating the literary merit of authors produced suspiciously uniform ratings.
However, it was Edward Thorndike who first recognized it with empirical evidence. Thorndike was an early behaviorist who delved into the psychology of learning. He officially introduced the term ‘the halo error’ in 1920 in his article, “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings”.
Thorndike described the halo effect as the bias whereby one aspect of a person shapes opinions of their other, unrelated qualities. He first used the term only for people, but its use has since expanded even to marketing.
In A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings, Thorndike (1920) set out to test this bias empirically. His method was simple.
He asked two commanding officers to rate their soldiers on four separate qualities:
- Intellect
- Physical qualities, such as voice, physique, energy, neatness and bearing
- Leadership skills
- Personal qualities, such as loyalty, selflessness, cooperation and dependability
The bias he suspected was confirmed, but it had nothing to do with attractiveness. Thorndike found that a single global impression, such as “this is a good soldier,” drove the ratings on every separate trait.
The correlations were striking. Physique correlated with character at .28, with intelligence at .31, and with leadership at .39.
A tendency to view a person as generally good or bad shaped every rating. Raters jumped to conclusions about a soldier’s other qualities from that first impression alone.
One high rating triggered a trend. A positive trait pulled every other rating upward; a negative trait pulled them all down.
A soldier’s ratings converged, whichever direction the initial trait pointed.
Halo Effect Experiment: Asch’s Warm-Cold Study
One classic demonstration of the halo effect is Solomon Asch’s (1946) study of how a single trait can reorganise an entire impression of a person.
- Aim: Asch tested whether we build impressions by adding up separate traits, or by organising them around a few dominant, central traits.
- Method: Participants read adjectives describing a hypothetical person, then rated further traits; one list said “warm,” an identical list “cold.” A further comparison swapped “polite” and “blunt.”
- Results: Changing “warm” to “cold” transformed the whole impression: the “warm” person was rated far more generous, happy, sociable and humorous. Swapping “polite” for “blunt” made little difference.
- Conclusion: Impressions are not a simple sum of separate traits. Central traits like warm-cold organise the whole impression and spread to unrelated qualities, which is the process that drives the halo effect.
Asch also found a primacy effect: the same adjectives produced a more favourable impression when the positive ones came first.
The Reverse Halo Effect
The horn effect is the halo effect’s mirror image: one negative trait unduly darkens the whole impression, so a single flaw overshadows real strengths.
The reverse halo effect, also called the horns effect, is a cognitive bias. A negative overall impression of a person darkens perception of their specific, unrelated traits. It is the opposite of the halo effect, where a positive impression leads to positive perceptions.
The reverse halo effect works the same way in miniature. Negative traits overshadow positive qualities, producing biased judgments and evaluations.
For instance, the horn effect may lead us to stereotype an overweight person as lazy. There is no evidence that morality is tied to appearance.
The same machinery that spreads a positive glow also spreads a negative shadow. The evidence for the horn effect comes from three places:
- Asch’s “cold” person: Described as “cold,” the same person was rated worse on many unrelated qualities than the “warm” one (Asch, 1946).
- The cold instructor: His fixed features, such as appearance and accent, were judged irritating simply because the overall impression was unfavourable (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
- Everyday slips: One early misstep in an interview, or a single unflattering photograph, can bias every later judgement of a person downward.
Mood can also switch the halo off. In an experiment by Forgas (2011), 246 participants first recalled happy or sad past events. They then read a philosophical essay with an image of the writer attached, either an older man or a young woman.
Positive mood increased the halo effect. Negative mood eliminated it.
Sad participants, in other words, processed the essay more systematically and relied less on the irrelevant image.
Eagly et al.’s (1991) meta-analysis found the same pattern: the attractiveness stereotype is strongest for social traits and weaker for integrity (see Critical Evaluation, below).
Sigall and Ostrove (1975) found that criminals who use their good looks to their advantage are more likely to receive harsher penalties than unattractive criminals.
Evidence Check: Does the Halo Effect Hold Up?
Verdict: Supported with qualifications.
The core finding holds: a global evaluation leaks into judgements of unrelated qualities. The evidence is strongest for physical attractiveness and for ratings of job performance, each backed by meta-analysis. The mechanism is less settled.
The size of the halo also depends on what is being judged.
Three claims are weighed:
- Asch’s central traits: A rerun found no primacy of warmth. Experiment; not yet replicated.
- The attractiveness halo: Real but moderate, and content-specific. Meta-analysis or systematic review; independently replicated.
- Halo error in ratings: It inflates correlations among rated dimensions. Meta-analysis or systematic review; not yet replicated.
Asch’s Central Traits and the Rerun
Level of evidence: Experiment; not yet replicated.
Asch’s (1946) experiments found that swapping “warm” for “cold” in an otherwise identical trait list transformed the whole impression. Swapping “polite” for “blunt” barely changed it.
Warm-cold is therefore a central trait that reorganises how we see a person.
Nauts et al. (2014) reran the parts of Asch’s paper most relevant to a primacy-of-warmth effect, the idea that warmth-related judgements shape impressions more than competence-related ones.
They found no evidence for it. The role of warmth was highly context-dependent, and competence was at least as important.
That counts against the later reading, not against Asch. The rerun’s authors note that a primacy of warmth does not fit his gestalt view. Context-dependent weight for warmth is what a configural account predicts, because each trait’s meaning depends on the others around it.
How far can this be trusted? Asch used brief written descriptions of an imaginary person, with no preregistration. The rerun’s abstract gives no sample size or effect size, so it cannot be set against the original number for number.
Its most trustworthy finding is the context dependence. The warm-cold contrast itself has had no large modern rerun.
The Attractiveness Halo Is Real but Moderate
Level of evidence: Meta-analysis or systematic review; independently replicated.
Eagly et al. (1991) meta-analysed research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Participants ascribed more favourable personality traits and more successful life outcomes to attractive than to unattractive targets.
The average effect was moderate. It varied considerably from study to study.
Content explained much of that variation. The size of the effect depended on the quality being judged:
- Largest: social competence.
- Intermediate: potency, adjustment and intellectual competence.
- Near zero: integrity and concern for others.
The effect also varied with individuating information.
A separate team agreed. Langlois et al. (2000) reported 11 meta-analyses and concluded that attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive ones, even by people who know them.
Gulati et al. (2024), described later in this article, found the same 462 faces earning higher intelligence and trustworthiness ratings once filtered.
Chefor and Chefor (2025) meta-analysed service encounters. They reported a moderate overall effect on service outcomes, ranging from slightly negative to moderately positive depending on the outcome, context and indicators used.
So the halo is real, bounded and content-specific. Near-zero differences for integrity show that it is not a blanket “good”.
The most trustworthy source is the 1991 meta-analysis, because it integrates many studies and quantifies the variation. Its limits are that it pools mostly laboratory ratings of photographs or descriptions, and it is more than thirty years old.
Halo Error in Performance Ratings
Level of evidence: Meta-analysis or systematic review; not yet replicated.
Thorndike (1920) found that raters’ judgements of separate qualities were far more highly intercorrelated than independent judgements would be. A global impression had contaminated the specific ratings.
Viswesvaran, Schmidt and Ones (2005) tested this on a far larger scale. They used a database integrating 90 years of studies of rated dimensions of job performance.
Halo substantially inflated the correlations among rated dimensions: by 33% for supervisors and by 63% for peers.
The correction also left something behind. After controlling for halo error and three other sources of measurement error, a general factor remained, accounting for 60% of total variance.
So not every correlation among dimensions is a bias. Halo error is a portion of the overlap, not all of it.
This evidence is strong on one point and silent on another. It shows that halo inflates ratings.
It does not test why raters let a global impression leak, because it rests on correlations rather than on any manipulation of a rater’s impression. It also concerns job ratings, not the soldiers, photographs and trait lists used elsewhere in this article.
Critical Evaluation
The halo effect is one of psychology’s most consistently replicated biases. Researchers still debate exactly how it works, how strong it is, and how to stop it.
A Robust, Century-Old Finding
The halo effect has replicated for more than a century. It runs from Wells’s (1907) ratings of literary merit and Thorndike’s (1920) study of military officers to modern findings on hiring, grading, marketing and the courtroom.
Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani and Longo’s (1991) meta-analytic review confirmed this. The attractiveness stereotype is a reliable effect, not a one-study artefact.
Much of the classic evidence, though, comes from photographs or brief video clips rated under laboratory conditions. There, one cue is unusually salient. No competing information is available, and real, extended encounters give people richer, disconfirming information that can dilute an initial halo.
Field evidence helps settle how far the lab findings generalise. Studies of grading (Landy & Sigall, 1974), tipping (Parrett, 2015) and sentencing (Efran, 1974; Sigall & Ostrove, 1975) all show the bias surviving outside the laboratory. It is not merely a rating-scale artefact.
Contemporary Research
The classic evidence predates digital filters.
- Aim: Gulati et al. (2024) tested whether an AI beauty filter that raises only a face’s rated attractiveness also inflates ratings of its intelligence and trustworthiness. They also asked whether the halo shrinks on an already attractive face.
- Method: 2,748 participants rated facial images of 462 people in two versions: the original photo and the same photo after an AI beauty filter. Raters judged attractiveness, intelligence and trustworthiness for each image.
- Results: The same faces scored higher on attractiveness, intelligence and trustworthiness once filtered. The halo was measurably weaker in the already-attractive condition than in the original photo.
- Conclusion: Filters do not remove the bias: the attractiveness halo extends to digitally manufactured cues and inflates trust and intelligence ratings. A face already rated highly has less room left for the halo to inflate further.
It Operates Outside Conscious Awareness
- Aim: Nisbett and Wilson (1977) tested whether a global impression secretly changes judgements of a person’s specific traits. They asked whether people can even detect it happening.
- Method: Students watched the same instructor on video, behaving either warmly or coldly and distantly. They rated his appearance, mannerisms and accent, then said whether overall liking had shaped those ratings.
- Results: The warm version made his appearance, mannerisms and accent seem appealing; the cold version made the same features seem irritating. Almost no one noticed the real cause.
- Conclusion: The halo effect works unconsciously. Good intentions are not enough to stop it, because people cannot reliably introspect on their own bias.
What Causes It? Competing Explanations
There is genuine debate about the mechanism behind the halo effect, and at least three accounts compete to explain it.
Asch’s (1946) configural account treats the halo as a by-product of forming one coherent impression. A central trait such as warm-cold reorganises the meaning of everything else and pulls unrelated judgements along with it.
A rival view is more elemental. It holds that people simply average the emotional tone of each piece of information they receive. A strongly positive item then drags the overall rating upward, regardless of any coherent story being told.
Two further accounts compete.
A third explanation invokes implicit personality theory: people carry stored, culturally shared beliefs about which traits go together, such as warmth with generosity (Schneider, 1973). Told that someone is warm, a perceiver looks up what warm people are usually like and supplies the rest without direct evidence.
This account makes a distinctive prediction.
The content of the halo should track a culture’s shared trait stereotypes, not a universal perceptual rule. That is the pattern in Wheeler and Kim’s (1997) cross-cultural data.
The affect-transfer account locates the mechanism lower down.
Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) unconscious-alteration finding suggests that a global feeling, such as liking, spreads to specific judgements directly and outside awareness. The perceiver need hold no belief that warm people are generous. That best explains why people cannot detect the halo even when asked directly.
These accounts are not mutually exclusive. Most halo researchers now treat them as complementary layers: an unconscious affective nudge, elaborated through stored trait associations into a gestalt-like impression. Several accounts operating together is one reason the bias is so hard to eliminate.
A Kernel of Truth, but a Bounded One
The halo effect is a bias, but not entirely fictional.
Moore, Filippou and Perrett (2011) built composite faces from over 300 British college students’ photos. They found a small, genuine link. Facial attractiveness weakly predicted measured intelligence.
People’s assumed link between looks and intelligence, though, is far stronger than this real one. The bias exaggerates a weak, genuine relationship into a confident, sweeping inference. That is exactly what makes it misleading rather than simply false.
The bias is also not uniform across judgements.
Eagly et al. (1991) showed it is strongest for social competence, such as being seen as more sociable and popular. It is much weaker for integrity, so “beautiful is good” really means “beautiful is socially good.”
Culture matters too.
The stereotype’s content also shifts across cultures. Wheeler and Kim (1997) compared Korean and North American raters. Collectivist participants did not credit attractive people with greater potency, the trait North American samples reliably inflate.
They did credit them with greater integrity and concern for others, the reverse of the North American pattern. Stereotyping by appearance looks close to universal, but what a culture treats as “good” determines which specific traits the halo inflates (Wheeler & Kim, 1997).
The bias is bounded in direction too.
Sigall and Ostrove (1975) showed it can even flip into a penalty. Attractiveness earned leniency for a burglary unconnected to looks, but a harsher sentence once the crime looked like it exploited that same attractiveness.
Reducing the Bias
Because the halo effect operates largely outside conscious awareness (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), willpower alone rarely stops it. Good intentions are not enough either.
The safeguards that work change how a judgement is made, not how hard the judge tries.
Structured, criterion-based rating scales spell out what each dimension means, rather than asking for one overall impression. That makes it harder for a single trait to drag every score the same way. More raters help too. Multiple independent raters, averaged together, dilute any one person’s halo.
Blind or anonymised evaluation removes the triggering cue altogether.
Hernández-Julián and Peters’s (2017) comparison of face-to-face and anonymously graded online courses found the attractiveness premium in grades disappeared once instructors could not see the students.
The common thread is decomposition. One global rating gets broken into separate, evidence-based judgements on each dimension, so a single impression cannot silently carry over into all the others.
Key Takeaways
- What It Is: The halo effect is a cognitive bias where a global impression of a person, good or bad, biases judgements of their specific, unrelated traits.
- Named by Thorndike: Edward Thorndike first demonstrated it in 1920, finding that military officers’ ratings of soldiers on separate traits were implausibly intercorrelated.
- Attractiveness Bias: The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype leads people to assume good-looking individuals also have more desirable personalities and better prospects (Dion et al., 1972).
- It Works Unconsciously: People show the bias yet cannot detect that a global impression shaped their specific judgements (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
- Wide-Ranging Consequences: It affects hiring, grading, marketing and courtroom decisions, and structured, criterion-based judgement is the best defence against it.
- Bounded, Not Universal: The halo can flip into a penalty when attractiveness looks like it helped the crime (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975). It is also stronger for some traits than others.
- Verdict: Supported with qualifications – the bias is real and measurable, but its mechanism is less settled and the size of the halo depends on what is being judged.
- The Horn Effect: Its mirror image, where one negative trait darkens the whole impression, is called the horn effect (or reverse-halo effect).
References
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.
Chefor, G. L., & Chefor, E. (2025). What is beautiful is not all good: A meta-analysis on the effects of physical attractiveness on service outcomes. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 36(4), 594–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-05-2024-0128
Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46(2), 248–258.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109
Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 45–54.
Ellis, G. (Ed.). (2018). Cognitive Biases in Visualizations. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Forgas, J. 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(7), 812–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.842
Gulati, A., Martínez-García, M., Fernández, D., Lozano, M. A., Lepri, B., & Oliver, N. (2024). What is beautiful is still good: The attractiveness halo effect in the era of beauty filters. Royal Society Open Science, 11(11), 240882. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240882
Hernández-Julián, R., & Peters, C. (2017). Student appearance and academic performance. Journal of Human Capital, 11(2), 247–262.
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 742–755.
Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 299–304.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
Moore, F. R., Filippou, D., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). Intelligence and attractiveness in the face: Beyond the attractiveness halo effect. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9(3), 205–217.
Nauts, S., Langner, O., Huijsmans, I., Vonk, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2014). Forming impressions of personality: A replication and review of Asch’s (1946) evidence for a primacy-of-warmth effect in impression formation. Social Psychology, 45(3), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000179
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
Parrett, M. (2015). Beauty and the feast: Examining the effect of beauty on earnings using restaurant tipping data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 49, 34-46.
Ries, A. (2006). Understanding marketing psychology and the halo effect. Advertising Age, 17.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20.
Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(5), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034496
Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 410–414.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108
Wells, F. L. (1907). A Statistical Study of Literary Merit. Archives of Psychology, 1(7), 1–30.
Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 795–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297238001
