The Halo Effect and Attractiveness - Lab Report Example

The Halo Effect and Attractiveness Name: Institution: ABSTRACT The level of attractiveness in individuals is favored by various evaluative and judgmental ways. This study is aimed at knowing whether physically attractive stimulus persons, own more socially necessary personalitytraits as compared to their unattractive counterparts. The study is also aimed at knowing the type of individuals likely to lead a better life. In the study of more socially desirable traits, one would be interested in knowing whether the more attractive individuals could make better husbands and wives. This study, sixty students were enrolled in a psychology class thirty males and 30 females. These were to take part in the study. Attractiveness however is varied in people. What some people may term as attractive may not be necessarily attractive to other people.The survey, which rated one of three sets of four attractive and unattractive photographs of both men and women with respect to how likable, attractive, and trustworthy they perceived the stimulus to be. After that, the subject would choose which stimulus they trust to be the most in a hypothetical situation. From the result, it is clear that attractive individuals were seen as more trustworthy than unattractive individuals.There is also an advantage of attractive individuals having partners than the less attractive and also getting married as opposed to others. INTRODUCTION Humanity is faced with many important decisions in day to day life. Sometimes they are judging others and other times they are being judged. Physical attractiveness s plays a major role in making decisions about ones partners. In this case, one prefers to acquire the attractive partner. The attractive partner is perceived to poses good traits. There is also a typecast of the good looking individual processing good qualities and traits which may not be true. Physical attractiveness also plays a role in influencing the hiring decisions. This may form a bias when a decision is being made in the work place. Research indicates that facial attractiveness plays a big role in overall ratings of attractiveness. These facial attributes accompanying the attractiveness include colour, smoothness, tender skin, clear eyes, and shiny hair. These signs are known to be possessed by a healthy person (according to nutritionists). Attractive folks are favored in various evaluative and judgmental ways. The, what is beautiful is good,typecast is explained by the halo effect. This effect illustrates the predisposition for a single attributed perception of an individual to influence other perceptions about that individual. Psychology research has in most cases supported the marvel that attractive people are believed to have a wide diversity of good qualities. The good quality in this case could include the level of intelligence and how likeable an individual is. Physical attractiveness is in most cases not investigated as aforebear of predilection—even though anunfussy observation would point out that individuals would have varied reactions of comparing the attractive women to those that are less attractive. PROCEDURE 1. The subjects brought to the designated rooms and introduction on the experiment as a study of accuracy in person perception was done. 2. The subjects were briefed on the in attendance study. (This is the study aimed at comparing individualobservation accuracy of inexperienced college students. For the purposes of comparison, it was done withother groups of people that had received training on the interpersonal observation techniques.) 3. Every individual was given three envelopes. In each envelope was a photograph of a person whose age was close to that of the individual given the photograph.(The three photographs were those of a physically attractive individual, the individual of average attractiveness and the less attractive individual’s photo.) NB:Half of the persons received threepictures of girls, while the rest received pictures of boys. 4. Determination of the physical attractiveness then took place.Rating of each of thephotograph took place at the preliminary study. 5. Twelve different sets of three photographs each were then prepared.Each individual received one photograph that he was required to rate.The envelopes in this case were given randomly. 6. The subjects were requestedto record their judgments of the photographs they had in their envelopes in different booklets.(In the booklets, there was a warning to the people recording their findings that the study that was being carried out was an investigation of how accurate their observations were. This study being carried was not in any way interested in the persons judgment, politeness, or other factors usually considered as importantin social situations. It was emphasized that it was importantfor the subject to rate the stimulus personsforthrightly). 7. The opening of the envelopes was done in an orderly manner. The first envelope was opened and the rating was done considering twenty seven different personality characteristics.These ratings were made on scale of six point. The ends were then labeled by polar opposites. After the rating took place, the second and the third envelopes were opened in that order and rated also in that order. Findings in each were recorded. 8. The subjects were then given a task to evaluate the stimulus persons on five addedindividual characteristics. This case, the ratings were made on aslightly different scale. The subjects were asked todirect which stimulus person obsessed the "most"and "least" of a firm trait. The stimulus personbelieved to finest represent the bestcharacteristic was assigneda score of 3; the stimulus person thought topossess an in-between amount of the trait wasassigned a score of 2; and the stimulus personthought to least represent the trait was assigned ascore of 1. 9. The subjects were asked how philanthropic, conservative,aggressive, exciting, stable, sensitive, dependent,safe, stimulating, genuine, sensitive ,outgoing,sexually permissive, sincere, warm, sociable, competitive, obvious, kind, modest, strong, serious,sexually warm, simple, poised, bold, and sophisticatedeach stimulus person was. 10. They were then told to rate the stimulus persons on the subsequenttraits: friendliness, enthusiasm, physical attractiveness,social poise, and trustworthiness.The ratingsof each stimulus person on the given characteristics were simply summed up, so as to come up with the extent towhich the subject perceived each stimulus person associally desirable. Assessment to determine whether or not attractive personsare expected to lead happier and more successfullives than unattractive persons, subjects wereasked to estimate which of the stimulus personswould be most likely and which least likely, to havea number of different life experiences. 11. The subjectswere reminded again that their estimates wouldeventually be checked for accuracy as the lives ofthe various stimulus persons evolved. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Trait ascription Unattractive stimulus person Average stimulus person Attractive stimulus person Social desirability of the stimulus persons personality 56.31 62.42 65.39 Occupational status of the stimulus person 1.70 2.02 2.25 Marital competency of the stimulus person .37 0.71 1.70 Parental ability of the stimulus person 3.91 4.55 3.54 Social and trained happiness of theperson under study 5.28 6.34 6.37 Overall happiness of the person under study 8.83 11.60 11.60 Marriage likelihood 1.52 1.82 2.17 Nb: The higher the number, the more sociable desirable, the more admired and profession, etc., the stimulus individualis expected to have. DISCUSSION From the results, the person said to be attractive is more desired than the less attractive individual. However, the range in the results is small as it ranges from 56.31 for the less attractive to 65.39 for the more attractive individual. This is because in most cases, people would prefer those that are good looking to their counterparts. They also have a big advantage of having many people wanting to associate with them and thus the social advantage. According to the results, thepeople whoare good looking have higher of getting better jobs than their counterparts. People have a stereotype of which is beautiful is good. In most cases the employers will prefer the attractive individuals as they create good face of their premises. Attractiveness could range from good skin colour to those that have good looking physical traits. This range is however small. Attractive individuals were expected to marry earlier and are less likely to remain single. Since the attractive high social interactions, they are also more likely to have a chance in the cause of their social lives to get potential husbands as well as lovers.The physical attractivenessstereotype exists and that its contentis perfectly compatible with the "What is beautiful is good" hypothesis. The physically attractive persons are assumed to possessmore socially desirable personalities than those of lesser attractiveness. It is also assumed that their lives will be happier and more successful. This is as a result of the advantage they experience over their lesser attractive counterparts. The results also suggest that the physicalattractiveness variable may have a number of implications for a variety of aspects of social interaction and influence. The individuals with better looks are more likely to have an upper hand in the job market. They are also likely to be less likely to be convicted in the case of crime. The hypothesis that attractive individuals would be seen as more trustworthy than the unappealing persons was supported. In this study, women were noted to be more trust worthy as compared to women. It is noted from the study that attractiveness has more control on the judgments of women than men. From the results, attractive individuals are likely to have less parental competence. This however could be influenced by the fact that they are more socially active. This thus sees them spend less time with their young one. Their counterparts have more time to spend with their kin. They are likely to have a high concentration to their families. The social and professional happiness of attractive individuals is also according to the results higher. This could be attributed to the fat that they are given attention by a wider range of people. However, generally the range of general happiness is not as wide. The most widespreadrestriction in the study was the lack of diversity within the sample. It was also in the survey. Errors could have arisen in this study as a result of judgmental errors. This bias could be reduced by carrying out more studies. This could lower the magnitude of the error made. Bibliography 1.Morgan, B. L. (2009). Effects of the "What is Beautiful is Good" Stereotype on Percieved Trustworthness. Journal of Undergraduate Research XII . 2. T. Joel Wade, J. L. (2002). Personality and Individual Differences. Lewisburg: Elsevier Science ltd Read More

These facial attributes accompanying the attractiveness include colour, smoothness, tender skin, clear eyes, and shiny hair. These signs are known to be possessed by a healthy person (according to nutritionists). Attractive folks are favored in various evaluative and judgmental ways. The, what is beautiful is good,typecast is explained by the halo effect. This effect illustrates the predisposition for a single attributed perception of an individual to influence other perceptions about that individual.

Psychology research has in most cases supported the marvel that attractive people are believed to have a wide diversity of good qualities. The good quality in this case could include the level of intelligence and how likeable an individual is. Physical attractiveness is in most cases not investigated as aforebear of predilection—even though anunfussy observation would point out that individuals would have varied reactions of comparing the attractive women to those that are less attractive.

PROCEDURE 1. The subjects brought to the designated rooms and introduction on the experiment as a study of accuracy in person perception was done. 2. The subjects were briefed on the in attendance study. (This is the study aimed at comparing individualobservation accuracy of inexperienced college students. For the purposes of comparison, it was done withother groups of people that had received training on the interpersonal observation techniques.) 3. Every individual was given three envelopes.

In each envelope was a photograph of a person whose age was close to that of the individual given the photograph.(The three photographs were those of a physically attractive individual, the individual of average attractiveness and the less attractive individual’s photo.) NB:Half of the persons received threepictures of girls, while the rest received pictures of boys. 4. Determination of the physical attractiveness then took place.Rating of each of thephotograph took place at the preliminary study. 5. Twelve different sets of three photographs each were then prepared.

Each individual received one photograph that he was required to rate.The envelopes in this case were given randomly. 6. The subjects were requestedto record their judgments of the photographs they had in their envelopes in different booklets.(In the booklets, there was a warning to the people recording their findings that the study that was being carried out was an investigation of how accurate their observations were. This study being carried was not in any way interested in the persons judgment, politeness, or other factors usually considered as importantin social situations.

It was emphasized that it was importantfor the subject to rate the stimulus personsforthrightly). 7. The opening of the envelopes was done in an orderly manner. The first envelope was opened and the rating was done considering twenty seven different personality characteristics.These ratings were made on scale of six point. The ends were then labeled by polar opposites. After the rating took place, the second and the third envelopes were opened in that order and rated also in that order. Findings in each were recorded. 8. The subjects were then given a task to evaluate the stimulus persons on five addedindividual characteristics.

This case, the ratings were made on aslightly different scale. The subjects were asked todirect which stimulus person obsessed the "most"and "least" of a firm trait. The stimulus personbelieved to finest represent the bestcharacteristic was assigneda score of 3; the stimulus person thought topossess an in-between amount of the trait wasassigned a score of 2; and the stimulus personthought to least represent the trait was assigned ascore of 1. 9. The subjects were asked how philanthropic, conservative,aggressive, exciting, stable, sensitive, dependent,safe, stimulating, genuine, sensitive ,outgoing,sexually permissive, sincere, warm, sociable, competitive, obvious, kind, modest, strong, serious,sexually warm, simple, poised, bold, and sophisticatedeach stimulus person was. 10.

Read More