Comment on Halo Effects in Rating and Evaluation Research

By Thomas Hugh Feeley. 2002

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Literature and Literary Theory, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e73f0ec6b2a7dbc64f1c5955f7ea6cdf9b4d1149

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Literature and Literary Theory

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach (2014, background): “Although an individual’s or collective’s stance toward particularly salient facets may exert a positive or negative “halo” (e.g., Feeley 2002) over other facets, it remains that the individual or collective is unlikely to have a common stance toward every facet, partly because positive and negative…”
Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations (2013, background): “If there is indeed a negative “halo” (Feeley, 2002) surrounding disidentification, ambivalent identification, and neutral identification, future research should explore the phenomenology of each state to better understand how they actually differ.”
The Relationships of Student End-of-Class Motivation with Teacher Communication Behaviors and Instructional Outcomes (2006, background): “This commonly occurs when individual respondents complete multiple measures involving similar (but even very distinct) constructs (Feeley, 2002a, 2002b).”
The Effects of Message Framing and Visual Image on Persuasion (2013, background): “Similarly, the within-subjects design might have caused covariance error or halo effect (Feeley, 2002; Hoyt, 2000).”
Generalizability and Dependability of Behavior Assessment Methods to Estimate Academic Engagement: A Comparison of Systematic Direct Observation and Direct Behavior Rating (2010, background): “Suggestions for minimizing halo error include ensuring that ratings occur temporally as close as possible to the observed behavior (Feeley, 2002) and limiting the number of ratings required so that raters do not become overwhelmed or fatigued (Myford, 2003).”