The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they know they are being studied,^[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger^[3] when analysing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.^[3][4][5]

History[link]

The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works,^[6] where a series of experiments on factory workers was carried out between 1924 and 1932.

This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination.

Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the present day.^[7][8][9]

Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.^[10] In the lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity.

Relay assembly experiments[link]

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) assembling telephone relays.

Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each worker dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were:

• giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.
• providing food during the breaks
• shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually.

Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo,^{[citation needed]} was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Bank wiring room experiments[link]

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on.^[11] The study was conducted by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.

Interpretation and criticism[link]

H. McIlvaine Parsons (1974) argues that in the studies where subjects received feedback on their work rates, the results should be considered biased by the feedback compared to the manipulation studies. He also argues that the rest periods involved possible learning effects, and the fear that the workers had about the intent of the studies may have biased the results.

Parsons defines the Hawthorne effect as "the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realise 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 is that in the studies where workers dropped their finished goods down chutes, the "girls" had access to the counters of their work rate.

It is possible that the illumination experiments were explained by a longitudinal learning effect. It is notable however that Parsons refuses 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.

But Mayo says it is to do with the fact that the workers felt better in the situation, because of the sympathy and interest of the observers. He does say that this experiment is about testing overall effect, not testing factors separately. He also discusses it not really as an experimenter effect but as a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. A lot to do with feeling free, not feeling supervised but more in control as a group. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel this way: that conditions were really different. The experiment was repeated with similar effects on mica splitting workers.^{[citation needed]}

Richard E. Clark and Brenda M. Sugrue (1991, p. 333) in a review of educational research say that uncontrolled novelty effects cause on average 30% of a standard deviation (SD) rise (i.e. 50%-63% score rise), which decays to small level after 8 weeks. In more detail: 50% of a SD for up to 4 weeks; 30% of SD for 5–8 weeks; and 20% of SD for > 8 weeks, (which is < 1% of the variance).

Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan has described the Hawthorne effect as 'a glorified anecdote,' saying that 'once you have got the anecdote, you can throw away the data.'"^[12]

Harry Braverman points out in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century that the Hawthorne tests were based on industrial psychology and 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 ability and in fact often bore an inverse relation to test scores...". Braverman argues that the studies really showed that the workplace was not "a system of bureaucratic formal organisation on the 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.^[13]

The Hawthorne effect has been well established in the empirical literature beyond the original studies. The output ("dependent") variables were human work, and the educational effects can be expected to be similar (but it is not so obvious that medical effects would be). The experiments stand as a warning about simple experiments on human participants viewed as if they were only material systems. There is less certainty about the nature of the surprise factor, other than it certainly depended on the mental states of the participants: their knowledge, beliefs, etc.

Research on the demand effect also suggests that people might take on pleasing the experimenter as a goal, at least if it does not conflict with any other motive,^[14] but also, improving their performance by improving their skill will be dependent on getting feedback on their performance, and an experiment may give them this for the first time. So you often will not see any Hawthorne effect—only when it turns out that with the attention came either usable feedback or a change in motivation.

Adair (1984) warns of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it. He argues that it should be viewed as a variant of Orne's (1973) experimental demand effect. So for Adair, the issue is that an experimental effect depends on the participants' interpretation of the situation; this is why manipulation checks are important in social sciences experiments. So he thinks it is not awareness per se, nor special attention per se, but participants' interpretation that must be investigated in order to discover if/how the experimental conditions interact with the participants' goals. This can affect whether participants believe something, if they act on it or do not see it as in their interest, etc.

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1992) ch.11 also reviews and discusses the Hawthorne effect.^[15]

In a 2011 paper, economists Steven Levitt and John A. List claim that in the illumination experiments the variance in productivity is partly accounted for by other factors such as the weekly cycle of work or the seasonal temperature, and so the original conclusions were overstated.^[16] If so, this confirms the analysis of SRG Jones's 1992 article examining the relay experiments.^[17][18]

See also[link]

• Reactivity (psychology)
• Self-determination theory
• Motivation
• Experimenter effect
• John Henry effect
• Observer-expectancy effect
• Reflexivity (social theory)
• Pygmalion effect
• Placebo effect
• Novelty effect

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Adair, G. (1984). "The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact". Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (2): 334–345. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334.  [Reviews references to Hawthorne in the psychology methodology literature.]
• Bramel, D. & Friend, R. (1981). "Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology". American Psychologist 36 (8): 867–878. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.36.8.867. 
• Clark, R. E. & Sugrue, B. M. (1991). Anglin, G. J.. ed. Instructional technology: past, present, and future. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries unlimited. pp. 327–343. ISBN 0-87287-820-1. 
• Gillespie, Richard (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: a history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40358-8. 
• Jastrow (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 
• Jones, Stephen R. G. (1992). "Was there a Hawthorne effect?". American Journal of Sociology 98 (3): 451–468. JSTOR 2781455. 
• Landsberger, Henry A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca. 
• Lovett, R. (20 March 2004). "Running on empty". New Scientist 181 (2439): 42–45. 
• Leonard, K. L. & Masatu, M. C. (2006). "Outpatient process quality evaluation and the Hawthorne effect". Social Science and Medicine 69 (9): 2330–2340. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.003. 
• Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A. (2011). "Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3 (1): 224–238. DOI:10.1257/app.3.1.224. 
• Marsh, H. W. (1987). "Student's evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research". International Journal of Educational Research 11 (3): 253–388. DOI:10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2. 
• Mayo, Elton (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilisation. New York: MacMillan. 
• Mayo, Elton (1949). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation. Routledge. 
• Mayo, Gael Elton (1984). The Mad Mosaic: A Life Story. London: Quartet. ISBN 0-7043-2360-5. 
• Orne, M. T. (1973). "Communication by the total experimental situation: Why is it important, how it is evaluated, and its significance for the ecological validity of findings". In Pliner, P.; Krames, L.; Alloway, T.. Communication and affect. New York: Academic Press. pp. 157–191. ISBN 0-12-053050-3. 
• Parsons, H. M. (1974). "What happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies". Science 183 (4128): 922–932. DOI:10.1126/science.183.4128.922. PMID 17756742.  [A very detailed description, in a more accessible source, of some of the experiments; used to argue that the effect was due to feedback-promoted learning.]
• Roethlisberger, Fritz J.; Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
• Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton. 
• Rhem, J. (1999). "Pygmalion in the classroom". The national teaching and learning forum 8 (2): 1–4. 
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. ISBN 0-85117-231-8. 
• Shayer, M. (1992). "Problems and issues in intervention studies". In Demetriou, A.; Shayer, M.; Efklides, A.. Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: implications and applications for education. Eastern

London: Routledge. pp. 107–121. ISBN 0-415-05471-0. 

• Trahair, Richard C. S. & Zaleznik, Abraham (2005). Elton Mayo: The Humanist Temper. London: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-4128-0524-4. 
• Wall, P. D. (1999). Pain: the science of suffering and lack of skills. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-84255-2. 
• Zdep, S. M. & Irvine, S. H. (1970). "A reverse Hawthorne effect in educational evaluation". Journal of School Psychology 8 (2): 89–95. DOI:10.1016/0022-4405(70)90025-7. 

External links[link]

• The Hawthorne, Pygmalion, placebo and other expectancy effects: some notes, by Stephen W. Draper, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow.
• BBC Radio 4: Mind Changers: The Hawthorne Effect
• Harvard Business School and the Hawthorne Experiments (1924-1933), Harvard Business School.

George Elton Mayo (26 December 1880, Adelaide - 7 September 1949, Guildford, Surrey) was an Australian psychologist, sociologist and organization theorist.

He lectured at the University of Queensland from 1911 to 1923 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, but spent most of his career at Harvard Business School (1926 - 1947), where he was professor of industrial research. On 18 April 1913 he married Dorothea McConnel in Brisbane, Australia. They had two daughters, Patricia and Gael.

Mayo is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement, and was known for his research including the Hawthorne Studies and his book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933). The research he conducted under the Hawthorne Studies of the 1930s showed the importance of groups in affecting the behavior of individuals at work. Mayo's employees, Roethlisberger and Dickson, conducted the practical experiments. This enabled him to make certain deductions about how managers should behave. He carried out a number of investigations to look at ways of improving productivity, for example changing lighting conditions in the workplace. What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the work group. Where norms of cooperation and higher output were established because of a feeling of importance, physical conditions or financial incentives had little motivational value. People will form work groups and this can be used by management to benefit the organization.

He concluded that people's work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content. He suggested a tension between workers' 'logic of sentiment' and managers' 'logic of cost and efficiency' which could lead to conflict within organizations.

Disagreement regarding his employees' procedure while conducting the studies:

• The members of the groups whose behavior has been studied were allowed to choose themselves.
• Two women have been replaced since they were chatting during their work. They were later identified as members of a leftist movement.
• One Italian member was working above average since she had to care for her family alone. Thus she affected the group's performance in an above average way.

Summary of Mayo's Beliefs:

• Individual workers cannot be treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group.
• Monetary incentives and good working conditions are less important to the individual than the need to belong to a group.
• Informal or unofficial groups formed at work have a strong influence on the behavior of those workers in a group.
• Managers must be aware of these 'social needs' and cater for them to ensure that employees collaborate with the official organization rather than work against it.
• Mayo's simple instructions to industrial interviewers set a template and remain influential to this day i.e. A. The simple rules of interviewing:- 1. Give your full attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so. 2. Listen - don't talk. 3. Never argue; never give advice. 4. Listen to: what he wants to say; what he does not want to say; what he can not say without help. 5. As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern that is being set before you. To test, summarize what has been said and present for comment. Always do this with caution - that is, clarify but don't add or twist. [SOURCE: papers held by Mayo's grand-daughter.]

Criticisms[link]

Mayo's contributions to management theory were criticized by celebrated sociologist Daniel Bell. Writing in 1947, Bell criticized Mayo and other industrial sociologists for "adjusting men to machines," rather than enlarging human capacity or human freedom. More recently, in 2003, James Hoopes criticized Mayo for "substituting therapy for democracy."

Further reading[link]

• The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization by Elton Mayo 978-0-415-43684-7
• The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization by Elton Mayo [1]
• Daniel Bell, "Adjusting Men to Machines: Social Scientists Explore the World of the Factory," Commentary 3 (1947): 79-88.
• Kyle Bruce, "Henry S. Dennison, Elton Mayo, and Human Relations historiography" in: Management & Organizational History, 2006, 1: 177-199
• Elton Mayo, Gael, The Mad Mosaic: A Life Story Quartet, London 1984 [2]
• Richard C. S. Trahair, Elton Mayo: The Humanist Temper, Transaction Publishers, U.S. 2005 ISBN 1-4128-0524-4 [3]
• James Hoopes, "The Therapist: Elton Mayo" in "False Prophets: The Gurus who created modern management...", 2003, pp. 129-159.
• George Elton Mayo: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, Ed. John Cunningham Wood, Michael C. Wood, 2004

978-0-415-32390-1

• Mayo, George Elton, Australian Dictionary of Biography.

Bibliography[link]

• Rose, Nikolas. Governing the Soul the Shaping of the Private Self: the shaping of the private self. 2nd ed. London: Free Assoc. Books, 1999.

Archives[link]

• Catalogue of the Mayo papers at the Archives Division of the London School of Economics.
• The Human Relations Movement: Harvard Business School and the Hawthorne Experiments, 1924-1933, at Harvard Business School, Baker Library Historical Collections [4]