Jump to content

Hawthorne effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DRosenbach (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 17 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The central idea behind the Hawthorne effect, a term used as early as 1950 by Elton Mayo, is that changes in participants' behavior during the course of a study may be "related only to the special social situation and social treatment they received." [1] [2] [3] French applied the term in reference to a set of studies begun in 1924 at the former Hawthorne (Cicero, Illinois) Works of the Western Electric Company, the manufacturing arm of AT&T.

History

The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works,[4] 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.[5][6][7]

Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.[8] In the lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity.

Relay assembly experiments

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

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.[9] 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

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.'"[10]

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.[11]

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,[12] 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.[13]

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.[14] If so, this confirms the analysis of SRG Jones's 1992 article examining the relay experiments.[15][16]

See also

References

  1. ^ French, John R. P., "Field Experiments: Changing Group Productivity," in James G. Miller (Ed.), Experiments in Social Process: A Symposium on Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, 1950, p. 82.
  2. ^ French, John R. P., "Experiments in Field Settings," in Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz(Eds.), Research Methods in the Behavorial Sciences, Dryden Press, 1953, p. 101.
  3. ^ Wrege, Charles D. (2008). ". . . thumbs down for the Hawthorne Effect". The Psychologist. 21 (11): 990. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "The Hawthorne Works" from Assembly Magazine
  5. ^ Kohli E, Ptak J, Smith R, Taylor E, Talbot EA, Kirkland KB (2009). "Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units". Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 30 (3): 222–5. doi:10.1086/595692?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. PMID 19199530. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Cocco G (2009). "Erectile dysfunction after therapy with metoprolol: the hawthorne effect". Cardiology. 112 (3): 174–7. doi:10.1159/000147951. PMID 18654082.
  7. ^ Leonard KL (2008). "Is patient satisfaction sensitive to changes in the quality of care? An exploitation of the Hawthorne effect". J Health Econ. 27 (2): 444–59. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.004. PMID 18192043. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ What We Teach Students About the Hawthorne Studies: A Review of Content Within a Sample of Introductory I-O and OB Textbooks
  9. ^ Henslin, James M. (2008). Sociology: a down to earth approach (9th ed.). Pearson Education. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-205-57023-2.
  10. ^ Kolata, G. (December 6, 1998). "Scientific Myths That Are Too Good to Die". New York Times.
  11. ^ Braverman, Harry (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press. pp. 144–145.
  12. ^ Steele-Johnson, D. (2000). "Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (5): 724–738. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.724.
  13. ^ Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968, 1992) Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. Irvington publishers: New York.
  14. ^ 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ "Light work" (Document). The Economist. June 6th 2009. p. 80. {{cite document}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  16. ^ Jones, Stephen R. G. (1992). "Was there a Hawthorne effect?". American Journal of Sociology. 98 (3): 451–468. doi:10.1086/230046. JSTOR 2781455.

Further reading

  • 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • 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. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • 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. doi:10.1086/230046. JSTOR 2781455.
  • Landsberger, Henry A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • 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. (eds.). 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. (eds.). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: implications and applications for education. Eastern

London: Routledge. pp. 107–121. ISBN 0-415-05471-0. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |location= at position 9 (help)

  • Trahair, Richard C. S.; Zaleznik, Abraham (2005). Elton Mayo: The Humanist Temper. London: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-4128-0524-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • 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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=507763255"