“The attractiveness stereotype is a specific instance of a more general psychological principle known as the halo effect, in which individuals ascribe characteristics to others based on the presence of another observable characteristic. Such errors are stunningly prevalent in data derived from ratings of others to such an extent that one scholar described the problem thusly: ‘halo error, like death and taxes, seems inevitable.’” Carl Palmer and Rolfe Peterson, American Politics Research, 44(2):353–382, 2016
Halo effect: “The halo effect is a type of immediate judgement discrepancy, or cognitive bias, where a person making an initial assessment of another person, place, or thing will assume ambiguous information based upon concrete information. A simplified example of the halo effect is when an individual noticing that the person in the photograph is attractive, well groomed, and properly attired, assumes, using a mental heuristic, that the person in the photograph is a good person based upon the rules of that individual's social concept.” (presumably, ‘judgement discrepancy’ means a demonstrable deviation of personal belief from objective truth)
In their paper, Halo Effects and the Attractiveness Premium in Perceptions of Political Expertise, Palmer and Peterson observe that “halo errors are thought to be a reflection of a rater’s inability to differentiate between characteristics being evaluated, although in many circumstances, these errors occur automatically, below the level of conscious information processing.”
To some extent, inputs such as a speaker’s personal attractiveness are unconsciously translated into a belief that the speaker is more knowledgeable, competent and/or trustworthy than might be warranted by other inputs such as the content of the speech.
In their study, Palmer and Peterson conducted surveys to assess the halo effect, which earlier studies had reported. They found that as previously observed, subjective assessments attractive people were more knowledgeable and persuasive than for others. They also found that attractive people, even if uninformed, were more likely to report attempting to persuade others. In addition, people surveyed “were more willing to turn to more attractive individuals as potential sources for political information.” Those results were observed even after controlling for possibly confounding factors such as partisanship and gender.
The authors pointed out that vision of attractiveness seems to be consistent in cultural groups, and this may be a universal human cognitive trait that is relatively stable over time. They also point out that attractiveness counts in elections: “Beyond competence, there is also a clear preference for more attractive candidates, with those rated as more attractive enjoying greater electoral success . . . . . Under conditions of limited information, citizens appear to vote with their eyes, rather than their minds. It is important to note that these attractiveness biases in expressed preferences not only emerge automatically but also appear to persist in light of additional information about the candidates.”
The latter statement refers to the well-known stickiness of at least some kinds of misinformation, e.g., climate change is a hoax.
The authors speculate about the fundamental basis of democracy: “It stands to reason that we should expect these biases to creep into political discussions as well, influencing individuals’ political perceptions, orientations, and, most importantly, with whom they choose to discuss politics. This tendency to engage in biased information processing raises questions not only about the ability of citizens to make suitable evaluations of the quality of candidates but also the expertise of political discussants.”
Social science has raised similar concerns before this. Evidence of a collapse in respect for expertise seems to be solid and stable, if not increasing. Given the complexity of most political issues and the rise of relentless propaganda and disrespect for both fact and logic, there is legitimate cause for concern.
The researchers asked where political influence was coming from. They observed: “But who is trying to influence whom? Is it simply the uninformed, attractive respondents who are influencing their social contacts, or are the politically active attractive individuals well informed, as well as politically active? Given our findings from Table 1, we believe it is the former, rather than the latter. . . . . The end result is that the less informed have their perceptions of the political world shaped and their voting decisions influenced by those they perceive to be credible others. If those perceptions of expertise are mistaken beliefs influenced by an individuals’ physical appearance, many poorly informed individuals might simply be being led astray as they seek to upgrade their political knowledge. The body of evidence we present would seem to confirm these normative concerns.”
B&B orig: 8/19/18
No comments:
Post a Comment