Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis.

The definition of halo error that dominated researchers' thinking for most of this century implied that (a) halo error was common; (b) it was a rater error, with true and illusory components; (c) it led to inflated correlations among rating dimensions and was due to the influence of a general evaluation on specific judgments; and (d) it had negative consequences and should be avoided or removed. We review research showing that all of the major elements of this conception of halo are either wrong or problematic. Because of unresolved confounds of true and illusory halo and the often unclear consequences of halo errors, we suggest a moratorium on the use of halo indices as dependent measures in applied research. We suggest specific directions for future research on halo that take into account the context in which judgments are formed and ratings are obtained and that more clearly distinguish between actual halo errors and the apparent halo effect. When an individual is rated on multiple performance dimensions or attributes, the rater's overall impression or evaluation is thought to strongly influence ratings of specific attributes (Cooper, 1981 b), a phenomenon that is referred to as halo error (Thorndike, 1920). Discussions of halo error are most frequently encountered in the context of evaluative judgment (e.g., in interviews and performance appraisals), but similar phenomena have been noted in research on illusory correlation (Chapman & Chapman, 1969), implicit personality theory (Lay & Jackson, 1969), and interpersonal judgments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).