Ekvidyarthi Education Hawthorne effect as “the confounding that occurs if ex- perimenters fail to realize how the consequences of sub- jects’ performance affect what subjects do” [i.e. perfor- mance is affected – possibly unconsciously – by possi- ble positive or negative personal consequences not con- sidered by the experimenter],[8] George Elton Mayo de- scribes it in terms of a positive emotional effect due to Aerial view of the Hawthorne Works, ca. 1925. the perception of a sympathetic or interested observer, Clark and Sugrue (1991) say that uncontrolled novelty ef- fects cause on average 30% of a standard deviation (SD) The Hawthorne effect (also referred to as the observer rise (i.e. 50–63% score rise), which decays to small level effect) is a type of reactivity in which individuals improve after eight weeks, Braverman argues that the studies re- an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness [1][2] ally showed that the workplace was not “a system of bu- of being observed. The original “Hawthorne effect” reaucratic formal organisation on the Weberian model, study at the Hawthorne Works suggested that the nov- nor a system of informal group relations, as in the in- elty of being research subjects and the increased attention terpretation of Mayo and his followers but rather a sys- from such could lead to temporary increases in workers’ tem of power, of class antagonisms”,[9] and studies of productivity. the demand effect also suggests that people might take on pleasing the experimenter as a goal.[10] Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the 1 History present day.[11][12][13] The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analyzing earlier experiments from 1924–32 at the 1.1 Relay assembly experiments Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). The Hawthorne Works had commissioned a In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as study to see if their workers would become more pro- test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers ductive in higher or lower levels of light. The work- to join the test group. Together the women worked in a ers’ productivity seemed to improve when changes were separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) made, and slumped when the study ended. It was sug- assembling telephone relays. gested that the productivity gain occurred as a result of Output was measured mechanically by counting how the motivational effect on the workers of the interest be- many finished relays each worker dropped down a chute. ing shown in them. This measuring began in secret two weeks before mov- This effect was observed for minute increases in illumina- ing the women to an experiment room and continued tion. In these lighting studies, light intensity was altered throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had to examine its effect on worker productivity. Most in- a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at dustrial/occupational psychology and organizational be- times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent havior textbooks refer to the illumination studies.[4] Only five years measuring how different variables affected the occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.[5] group’s and individuals’ productivity. Some of the vari- ables were: Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes • such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in them on the best length of time), and then chang- increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term ing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in Productivity increased, but when they received six productivity.[3][6][7] 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output. Interpretations and views vary. Parsons defines the • providing food during the breaks 1 2 2 INTERPRETATION AND CRITICISM • shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); Adair warns of gross factual inaccuracy in most sec- shortening it more (output per hour went up, but ondary publications on Hawthorne effect and that many overall output decreased); returning to the first con- studies failed to find it.[17] He argues that it should dition (where output peaked). be viewed as a variant of Orne's (1973) experimental demand effect. So for Adair, the issue is that an experi- Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even mental effect depends on the participants’ interpretation if the variable was just a change back to the original con- of the situation; this is why manipulation checks are im- dition. However it is said that this is the natural process portant in social sciences experiments. So he thinks it is of the human being to adapt to the environment with- not awareness per se, nor special attention per se, but par- out knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. ticipants’ interpretation that must be investigated in order Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder to discover if/how the experimental conditions interact because they thought that they were being monitored in- with the participants’ goals. This can affect whether par- dividually. ticipants believe something, if they act on it or do not see Researchers hypothesized that choosing one’s own it as in their interest, etc. coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special Possible explanations for the Hawthorne effect include (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and hav- the impact of feedback and motivation towards the exper- ing a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the imenter. Receiving feedback on their performance may productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to improve their skills when an experiment provides this Elton Mayo,[14] was that “the six individuals became a feedback for the first time.[8] Research on the demand ef- team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and sponta- fect also suggests that people may be motivated to please neously to cooperation in the experiment.” (There was a the experimenter, at least if it does not conflict with any second relay assembly test room study whose results were other motive.[10] They may also be suspicious of the pur- not as significant as the first experiment.) pose of the experimenter.[8] Therefore, Hawthorne effect may only occur when there is usable feedback or a change in motivation. 1.2 Bank wiring room experiments Parsons defines the Hawthorne effect as “the confound- The purpose of the next study was to find out how pay- ing that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the ment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising consequences of subjects’ performance affect what sub- result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers jects do” [i.e. learning effects, both permanent skill apparently had become suspicious that their productiv- improvement and feedback-enabled adjustments to suit ity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the current goals]. His key argument is that in the studies workers later on.[15] The study was conducted by Elton where workers dropped their finished goods down chutes, Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 the participants had access to the counters of their work [8] on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone rate. switching equipment. The researchers found that al- Mayo contended that the effect was due to the workers though the workers were paid according to individual pro- reacting to the sympathy and interest of the observers. ductivity, productivity decreased because the men were He does say that this experiment is about testing overall afraid that the company would lower the base rate. De- effect, not testing factors separately. He also discusses it tailed observation of the men revealed the existence of not really as an experimenter effect but as a management informal groups or “cliques” within the formal groups. effect: how management can make workers perform dif- These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as ferently because they feel differently. A lot to do with well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served feeling free, not feeling supervised but more in control as to control group members and to manage bosses; when a group. The experimental manipulations were important bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same re- in convincing the workers to feel this way: that conditions sponses, even if they were untrue. These results show that were really different. The experiment was repeated with workers were more responsive to the social force of their similar effects on mica-splitting workers.[14] peer groups than to the control and incentives of manage- Richard E. Clark and Brenda M. Sugrue (1991, p. 333) ment. in a review of educational research say that uncontrolled novelty effects cause on average 30% of a standard devi- ation (SD) rise (i.e. 50%–63% score rise), which decays 2 Interpretation and criticism 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% Richard Nisbett has described the Hawthorne effect as of SD for > 8 weeks, (which is < 1% of the variance). 'a glorified anecdote', saying that 'once you have got the Harry Braverman points out that the Hawthorne tests anecdote, you can throw away the data.'"[16] Other re- were based on industrial psychology and were investigat- searchers have attempted to explain the effects with var- ing whether workers’ performance could be predicted by ious interpretations. 3 pre-hire testing. The Hawthorne study showed “that the although this is often necessary to prevent confounding, performance of workers had little relation to ability and it also means that trials may tend to work with healthier in fact often bore an inverse relation to test scores...”.[9] patient subpopulations.