Introduction
Susan is a student enrolled at an online university with aspirations of becoming a professional psychologist. She met Dr. Frank to work with him, but she started reflecting on this decision due to his impression of her (Capella University). In addition, Susan assumed he was a successful and intelligent practicing psychologist, which is why he inspired her to continue her college education and become a practicing specialist like Dr. Frank (Capella University). However, later she started thinking that her goals were too ambitious because she presumed becoming successful is easy for people like Dr. Frank and probably not for her. The halo effect might explain Susan’s actions and line of thought, which will be further discussed in this paper.
The halo effect is a cognitive dysfunction that makes people biased about others depending on one positive or negative characteristic. The halo effect suggests that because people have one desirable trait (attractiveness), they also possess many other desirable traits (intelligence) (Baumeister & Bushman, 2021). A common example of the halo effect is attractiveness and the tendency to attribute positive qualities to an attractive person. For example, people see a physically handsome person and assume that he is generous, intelligent, or trustworthy. Therefore, the halo effect is the theory using which the case will be analyzed.
Research Support
Research Summary
One of the recent studies most relevant to this case study of attractiveness and the halo effect is the research conducted by Bradley, Roberts, and Bradley, which addressed the issue of perceived likability. Researchers aimed to find experimental evidence of how social media influences one’s perception of self and later significantly impacts human relationships (Bradley, Roberts & Bradley, 2019). The method they used is called conjoint analysis, which is often used in psychology and marketing experiments. Researchers suggested that participants evaluate profiles of social media users with different parameters and later assess their perceived likability (Bradley, Roberts & Bradley, 2019).
All gathered data was analyzed after careful categorization per gender, geographic location, and other factors. Researchers used the HLM model to obtain the evidence, and the results showed a positive correlation between likability and the number of followers and likes on social media (Bradley, Roberts & Bradley, 2019). After additional analysis, all hypotheses received supportive evidence in the research.
Another relevant research in the field was conducted by Beijing Normal University faculty and students on the topic of reducing the halo effect by stimulating analytic thinking. Researchers held three studies to execute the research, each with a different hypothesis (Wen et al., 2020). The first one aims to identify the validity of their theory, which states that applying analytic thinking will reduce the halo effect. The second and third studies use two methods – Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test and a writing task – to identify if the theory can be supported by experimental evidence (Wen et al., 2020).
In the first study, participants – university students – evaluated the attractiveness and personality of a college teacher according to the Likert scale (Wen et al., 2020). All studies showed positive results by approving the research hypotheses. The first study showed that the halo effect appears when an individual bases the judgment on one central trait (Wen et al., 2020). Studies two and three showed that the effect could be significantly reduced after activating analytic thinking.
Research Interpretation
The research conducted by Wen et al. uses the definition of the halo effect, which is an unconscious cognitive distortion where irrelevant central traits bias our evaluation (Wen et al., 2020). This study shows a positive correlation between attractiveness and social networks, which affects a person’s perception of himself, and human relationships. The research by Bradley, Roberts, and Bradley also identified that perceived likability in social media depends on one or two significant variables that result in a general judgment of the profile – followers and likes. One of the results shows that the halo effect manifests itself when people base their judgments on one central feature. Consequently, both research articles and textbooks agree that the halo effect is an actual cognitive bias that is always based on one central positive or negative trait that clouds an individual’s judgment.
Ethical Reasoning Application
Ethical Concept
Conformity bias is an ethical concept that will be used in this study. The concept is “the pressure when people tend to take their cues for proper behavior in most social contexts from the actions of others” (Prentice, 2020). Conformity bias might affect an individual’s thinking and behavior by imposing pressure on what is socially and morally acceptable. Consequently, conformity bias might negatively influence the creativity and personal liberty of every person. Challenging everyday ethics might also cost someone a job; for example, the person at KPMG who questioned the tax shelters found himself at a crossroads. After his unusual behavior in the company, he received an email saying he was either part of the team or off the team. (Prentice, 2020). The case represents that the pressure of conformity bias causes all people to act according to social norms.
Supportive Evidence
The ethical issue in Susan’s case study is her inability to build a critique of Dr. Frank going against the social rule of having reasonable opinions about attractive people. Susan has a good opinion of Dr. Frank because she judges under the halo effect, but she cannot challenge that opinion due to conformity bias. If everyone around her has a positive impression of Dr. Frank and she does not, Susan might experience societal pressure, with a possibility of bullying. Therefore, the case study’s subject has an ethical issue of choosing whether to build judgment like everybody else or apply analytic thinking.
Critical Thinking Application
Critical Thinking Issue
Point of view is a critical thinking element that explains how people see things, ideas, the world, and others. It has three significant frames using which people have to look at the world: frame of reference, perspectives, and orientations (Point of View, 2015). The frame of reference forces us to look at the world since everyone sees it differently. A frame of perspective forces one to think about one’s opinion about things, his or her community’s opinion about things, et cetera (Point of View, 2015). The frame of orientation requires analysis of the background, such as where the person lives, where he or she comes from, and others. These frames together form an individual’s slant, or point of view, on something and everything.
Conclusion
Susan’s point of view lacks analysis using the frame of orientation which became an issue in her case. She does not know about Dr. Frank’s background, where he is from, where he is heading, and others. There is a possibility that Dr. Frank did not want to become a psychologist like Susan does, and thus from his perspective, Susan might be more successful because she is fulfilling her own dreams. The case study issue must be addressed in that Susan gathers additional data about Dr. Frank before building her judgment using all frames of point-of-view elements in critical thinking.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2021). Social psychology and human nature (5th ed.). Cengage.
Bradley, S. W., Roberts, J. A., & Bradley, P. W. (2019). Experimental evidence of observed social media status cues on perceived likability. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(1), 41–51. Web.
Capella University. (n.d.). Riverbend City: Good, bad, and loving case studies. Web.
Prentice, R. (2020). Conformity bias. In Behavioral Ethics in Practice (pp. 44-50). Routledge.
Point of view. The Elements of Thought. (2015). Web.
Wen, W., Li, J., Georgiou, G. K., Huang, C., & Wang, L. (2020). Reducing the halo effect by stimulating analytic thinking. Social Psychology, 51(5), 334. Web.