Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Hawthorne effect
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Interpretation and criticism == [[Richard Nisbett]] has described the Hawthorne effect as "a glorified anecdote", saying that "once you have got the anecdote, you can throw away the data."<ref>{{cite news |last=Kolata |first=G. |title=Scientific Myths That Are Too Good to Die |newspaper=[[New York Times]] |date=December 6, 1998 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/06/weekinreview/scientific-myths-that-are-too-good-to-die.html }}</ref> Other researchers have attempted to explain the effects with various interpretations. J. G. Adair warned of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on the Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it.<ref name="Adair">{{cite journal |last=Adair |first=J.G. |title=The Hawthorne Effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact |journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] |volume=69 |issue=2 |year=1984 |pages=334β345 |url=http://www.psicologia.unimib.it/getFile.php/23195/Adair%20Hawthorne.pdf |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334 |s2cid=145083600 |access-date=2013-12-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131215070615/http://www.psicologia.unimib.it/getFile.php/23195/Adair%20Hawthorne.pdf |archive-date=2013-12-15 |url-status=dead }}</ref> He argued that it should be viewed as a variant of [[Martin Theodore Orne|Orne]]'s (1973) experimental [[demand effect]]. For Adair, the Hawthorne effect depended on the participants' interpretation of the situation. An implication is that [[manipulation checks]] are important in social sciences experiments. He advanced the view that awareness of being observed was not the source of the effect, but participants' interpretation of the situation is critical. How did the participants' interpretation of the situation interact with the participants' goals? Possible explanations for the Hawthorne effect include the impact of feedback and motivation towards the experimenter. Receiving feedback on their performance may improve their skills when an experiment provides this feedback for the first time.<ref name="Parsons">{{cite journal |first=H. M. |last=Parsons |year=1974 |title=What happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies |journal=Science |volume=183 |issue=4128 |pages=922β932 |doi=10.1126/science.183.4128.922 |pmid=17756742 |s2cid=38816592 }}</ref> Research on the [[demand effect]] also suggests that people may be motivated to please the experimenter, at least if it does not conflict with any other motive.<ref name="SteeleJohnson2000">{{cite journal |last1=Steele-Johnson |first1=D. |year=2000 |title=Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance |journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=724β738 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.724 |first2=Russell S. |last3=Hoover |first3=Paul B. |last4=Schmidt |first4=Aaron M. |pmid=11055145 |last2=Beauregard }}</ref> They may also be suspicious of the purpose of the experimenter.<ref name=Parsons /> Therefore, Hawthorne effect may only occur when there is usable feedback or a change in motivation. Parsons defined the Hawthorne effect as "the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do" [i.e. learning effects, both permanent skill improvement and feedback-enabled adjustments to suit current goals]. His key argument was that in the studies where workers dropped their finished goods down chutes, the participants had access to the counters of their work rate.<ref name=Parsons /> Mayo contended that the effect was due to the workers reacting to the sympathy and interest of the observers. He discussed the study as demonstrating an [[experimenter effect]] as a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. He suggested that much of the Hawthorne effect concerned the workers feeling free and in control as a group rather than as being supervised. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel that conditions in the special five-person work group were actually different from the conditions on the shop floor. The study was repeated with similar effects on [[mica]]-splitting workers.<ref name=Mayo /> Clark and Sugrue in a review of [[educational research]] reported that uncontrolled [[novelty effect]]s cause on average 30% of a [[standard deviation]] (SD) rise (i.e. 50β63% score rise), with the rise decaying to a much smaller effect after 8 weeks. In more detail: 50% of a SD for up to 4 weeks; 30% of SD for 5β8 weeks; and 20% of SD for > 8 weeks, (which is < 1% of the variance).<ref name=ClarkSugrue1991>{{cite book|last1=Clark |first1=Richard E. |last2=Sugrue |first2=Brenda M. |year=1991 |chapter=30. Research on instructional media, 1978β1988 |editor=G.J.Anglin |title=Instructional technology: past, present, and future |pages=327β343 |publisher=Libraries Unlimited |location=Englewood, Colorado}}</ref>{{rp|333}} [[Harry Braverman]] pointed out that the Hawthorne tests were based on industrial psychology and the researchers involved were investigating whether workers' performance could be predicted by pre-hire testing. The Hawthorne study showed "that the performance of workers had little relation to their ability and in fact often bore an inverse relation to test scores ...".<ref name=b1>{{cite book |last=Braverman |first=Harry |title=Labor and Monopoly Capital |year=1974 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/labormonopolycap00harr/page/144 144β145] |isbn=978-0853453406 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/labormonopolycap00harr/page/144 }}</ref> Braverman argued that the studies really showed that the workplace was not "a system of bureaucratic formal organisation on the [[Max Weber|Weberian model]], nor a system of informal group relations, as in the interpretation of Mayo and his followers but rather a system of power, of class antagonisms". This discovery was a blow to those hoping to apply the behavioral sciences to manipulate workers in the interest of management.<ref name="b1" /> The economists [[Steven Levitt]] and [[John A. List]] long pursued without success a search for the base data of the original illumination experiments (they were not true [[experiment]]s but some authors labeled them experiments), before finding it in a microfilm at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee in 2011.<ref>BBC Radio 4 programme ''More Or Less'', "[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01j5xb1 The Hawthorne Effect]", broadcast 12 October 2013, presented by Tim Harford with contributions by John List</ref> Re-analysing it, they found slight evidence for the Hawthorne effect over the long-run, but in no way as drastic as suggested initially.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levitt |first1=Steven D. |last2=List |first2=John A. |year=2011 |title=Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments |journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=224β238 |doi=10.1257/app.3.1.224 |s2cid=16678444 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w15016.pdf }}</ref> This finding supported the analysis of an article by S. R. G. Jones in 1992 examining the relay experiments.<ref>{{Cite magazine|magazine=The Economist|url=http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788427|title=Light work|date=June 6, 2009|page=80}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Jones |first=Stephen R. G. |title=Was there a Hawthorne effect? |journal=[[American Journal of Sociology]] |volume=98 |issue=3 |year=1992 |pages=451β468 |jstor=2781455 |doi=10.1086/230046 |s2cid=145357472 |url=http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/91-01.pdf }}</ref> Despite the absence of evidence for the Hawthorne effect in the original study, List has said that he remains confident that the effect is genuine.<ref>[http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20131012-0600a.mp3 Podcast, ''More or Less'' 12 October 2013, from 6m 15 sec in]</ref> Gustav WickstrΓΆm and Tom Bendix (2000) argue that the supposed "Hawthorne effect" is actually ambiguous and disputable, and instead recommend that to evaluate intervention effectiveness, researchers should introduce specific psychological and social variables that may have affected the outcome.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=WickstrΓΆm | first1=Gustav | last2=Bendix | first2=Tom | title=The "Hawthorne effect" β what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? | journal=Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health | publisher=Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health | volume=26 | issue=4 | year=2000 | doi=10.5271/sjweh.555 | doi-access=free | pages=363β367 | url=https://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=555}}</ref> It is also possible that the illumination experiments can be explained by a longitudinal learning effect. Parsons has declined to analyse the illumination experiments, on the grounds that they have not been properly published and so he cannot get at details, whereas he had extensive personal communication with Roethlisberger and Dickson.<ref name=Parsons /> Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the present day.<ref name="pmid19199530">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kohli E, Ptak J, Smith R, Taylor E, Talbot EA, Kirkland KB|title=Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units |journal=Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=222β225 |year=2009 |pmid=19199530 |doi=10.1086/595692|s2cid=19058173 }}</ref><ref name="pmid18654082">{{cite journal |author=Cocco G |title=Erectile dysfunction after therapy with metoprolol: the hawthorne effect |journal=Cardiology |volume=112 |issue=3 |pages=174β177 |year=2009 |pmid=18654082 |doi=10.1159/000147951 |s2cid=41426273 }}</ref><ref name="pmid18192043">{{cite journal |author=Leonard KL |title=Is patient satisfaction sensitive to changes in the quality of care? An exploitation of the Hawthorne effect |journal=J Health Econ |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=444β459 |year=2008 |pmid=18192043 |doi=10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.004}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://mbalearner.com/hawthorne-effect/|title=What is Hawthorne Effect?|date=2018-02-22|work=MBA Learner|access-date=2018-02-25|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226040637/https://mbalearner.com/hawthorne-effect/|archive-date=2018-02-26|url-status=dead}}</ref> Despite the criticisms, however, the phenomenon is often taken into account when designing studies and their conclusions.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Research Design, Volume 2|last=Salkind|first=Neil|publisher=Sage Publications, Inc.|year=2010|isbn=978-1412961271|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|pages=561}}</ref> Some have also developed ways to avoid it. For instance, there is the case of holding the observation when conducting a field study from a distance, from behind a barrier such as a two-way mirror or using an unobtrusive measure.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Sociology in Perspective|last1=Kirby|first1=Mark|last2=Kidd|first2=Warren|last3=Koubel|first3=Francine|last4=Barter|first4=John|last5=Hope|first5=Tanya|last6=Kirton|first6=Alison|last7=Madry|first7=Nick|last8=Manning|first8=Paul|last9=Triggs|first9=Karen|date=2000|publisher=Heinemann|isbn=978-0435331603|location=Oxford|pages=G-359}}</ref> Greenwood, Bolton, and Greenwood (1983) interviewed some of the participants in the experiments and found that the participants were paid significantly better.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Greenwood | first1=Ronald G. | last2=Bolton | first2=Alfred A. | last3=Greenwood | first3=Regina A. | title=Hawthorne a Half Century Later: Relay Assembly Participants Remember | journal=Journal of Management | volume=9 | issue=2 | year=1983 | doi=10.1177/014920638300900213 | pages=217β231| s2cid=145767422 }}</ref> [https://archives.lib.wvu.edu/repositories/2/resources/2174 Bolton's archives] relevant to his work on the Hawthorne Effect are held at West Virginia University.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)