Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis

Abstract

The definition of halo error that dominated researchers' thinking for most of this century implied that (1) halo error was common, (2) it was a rater error, with true and illusory components, (3) it led to inflated correlations among rating dimensions and was due to the influence of a general evaluation on specific judgments, and (4) it had negative consequences and should be avoided or removed. Research is reviewed 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, the authors suggest a moratorium on the use of halo indices as dependent measures in applied research. They suggest specific directions for further 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)