hawthorne effect experiment summary

Hawthorne Effect: Definition, How It Works, and How to Avoid It

Ayesh Perera

B.A, MTS, Harvard University

Ayesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne effect refers to the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.
• In 1958, Henry A. Landsberger coined the term ‘Hawthorne effect’ while evaluating a series of studies at a plant near Chicago, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works.
• The novelty effect, demand characteristics and feedback on performance may explain what is widely perceived as the Hawthorne effect.
• Although the possible implications of the Hawthorne effect remain relevant in many contexts, recent research findings challenge many of the original conclusions concerning the phenomenon.

The Hawthorne effect refers to a tendency in some individuals to alter their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed (Fox et al., 2007).

This phenomenon implies that when people become aware that they are subjects in an experiment, the attention they receive from the experimenters may cause them to change their conduct.

Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne effect is named after a set of studies conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Plant in Cicero during the 1920s. The Scientists included in this research team were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whilehead (Sociologists), and William Dickson (company representative).

There are 4 separate experiments in Hawthorne Studies:

Illumination Experiments (1924-1927) Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments (1927-1932) Experiments in Interviewing Workers (1928- 1930) Bank Wiring Room Experiments (1931-1932)

The Hawthorne Experiments, conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in the 1920s and 30s, fundamentally influenced management theories.

They highlighted the importance of psychological and social factors in workplace productivity, such as employee attention and group dynamics, leading to a more human-centric approach in management practices.

Illumination Experiment

The first and most influential of these studies is known as the “Illumination Experiment”, conducted between 1924 and 1927 (sponsored by the National Research Council).

The company had sought to ascertain whether there was a relationship between productivity and the work environments (e.g., the level of lighting in a factory).

During the first study, a group of workers who made electrical relays experienced several changes in lighting. Their performance was observed in response to the minutest alterations in illumination.

What the original researchers found was that any change in a variable, such as lighting levels, led to an improvement in productivity. This was true even when the change was negative, such as a return to poor lighting.

However, these gains in productivity disappeared when the attention faded (Roethlisberg & Dickson, 1939). The outcome implied that the increase in productivity was merely the result of a motivational effect on the company’s workers (Cox, 2000).

Their awareness of being observed had apparently led them to increase their output. It seemed that increased attention from supervisors could improve job performance.

Hawthorne Experiment by Elton Mayo

Relay assembly test room experiment.

Spurred by these initial findings, a series of experiments were conducted at the plant over the next eight years. From 1928 to 1932, Elton Mayo (1880–1949) and his colleagues began a series of studies examining changes in work structure (e.g., changes in rest periods, length of the working day, and other physical conditions.) in a group of five women.

The results of the Elton Mayo studies reinforced the initial findings of the illumination experiment. Freedman (1981, p. 49) summarizes the results of the next round of experiments as follows:

“Regardless of the conditions, whether there were more or fewer rest periods, longer or shorter workdays…the women worked harder and more efficiently.”

Analysis of the findings by Landsberger (1958) led to the term the Hawthorne effect , which describes the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.

Bank Wiring Observation Room Study

In a separate study conducted between 1927 and 1932, six women working together to assemble telephone relays were observed (Harvard Business School, Historical Collections).

Following the secret measuring of their output for two weeks, the women were moved to a special experiment room. The experiment room, which they would occupy for the rest of the study, had a supervisor who discussed various changes to their work.

The subsequent alterations the women experienced included breaks varied in length and regularity, the provision (and the non-provision) of food, and changes to the length of the workday.

For the most part, changes to these variables (including returns to the original state) were accompanied by an increase in productivity.

The researchers concluded that the women’s awareness of being monitored, as well as the team spirit engendered by the close environment improved their productivity (Mayo, 1945).

Subsequently, a related study was conducted by W. Lloyd Warner and Elton Mayo, anthropologists from Harvard (Henslin, 2008).

They carried out their experiment on 14 men who assembled telephone switching equipment. The men were placed in a room along with a full-time observer who would record all that transpired. The workers were to be paid for their individual productivity.

However, the surprising outcome was a decrease in productivity. The researchers discovered that the men had become suspicious that an increase in productivity would lead the company to lower their base rate or find grounds to fire some of the workers.

Additional observation unveiled the existence of smaller cliques within the main group. Moreover, these cliques seemed to have their own rules for conduct and distinct means to enforce them.

The results of the study seemed to indicate that workers were likely to be influenced more by the social force of their peer groups than the incentives of their superiors.

This outcome was construed not necessarily as challenging the previous findings but as accounting for the potentially stronger social effect of peer groups.

Hawthorne Effect Examples

Managers in the workplace.

The studies discussed above reveal much about the dynamic relationship between productivity and observation.

On the one hand, letting employees know that they are being observed may engender a sense of accountability. Such accountability may, in turn, improve performance.

However, if employees perceive ulterior motives behind the observation, a different set of outcomes may ensue. If, for instance, employees reason that their increased productivity could harm their fellow workers or adversely impact their earnings eventually, they may not be actuated to improve their performance.

This suggests that while observation in the workplace may yield salutary gains, it must still account for other factors such as the camaraderie among the workers, the existent relationship between the management and the employees, and the compensation system.

A study that investigated the impact of awareness of experimentation on pupil performance (based on direct and indirect cues) revealed that the Hawthorne effect is either nonexistent in children between grades 3 and 9, was not evoked by the intended cues, or was not sufficiently strong to alter the results of the experiment (Bauernfeind & Olson, 1973).

However, if the Hawthorne effect were actually present in other educational contexts, such as in the observation of older students or teachers, it would have important implications.

For instance, if teachers were aware that they were being observed and evaluated via camera or an actual person sitting inside the class, it is not difficult to imagine how they might alter their approach.

Likewise, if older students were informed that their classroom participation would be observed, they might have more incentives to pay diligent attention to the lessons.

Alternative Explanations

Despite the possibility of the Hawthorne effect and its seeming impact on performance, alternative accounts cannot be discounted.

The Novelty Effect

The Novelty Effect denotes the tendency of human performance to show improvements in response to novel stimuli in the environment (Clark & Sugrue, 1988). Such improvements result not from any advances in learning or growth, but from a heightened interest in the new stimuli.

Demand Characteristics

Demand characteristics describe the phenomenon in which the subjects of an experiment would draw conclusions concerning the experiment’s objectives, and either subconsciously or consciously alter their behavior as a result (Orne, 2009). The intentions of the participant—which may range from striving to support the experimenter’s implicit agenda to attempting to utterly undermine the credibility of the study—would play a vital role herein.

Feedback on Performance

It is possible for regular evaluations by the experimenters to function as a scoreboard that enhances productivity. The mere fact that the workers are better acquainted with their performance may actuate them to increase their output.

Despite the seeming implications of the Hawthorne effect in a variety of contexts, recent reviews of the initial studies seem to challenge the original conclusions.

For instance, the data from the first experiment were long thought to have been destroyed. Rice (1982) notes that “the original [illumination] research data somehow disappeared.”

Gale (2004, p. 439) states that “these particular experiments were never written up, the original study reports were lost, and the only contemporary account of them derives from a few paragraphs in a trade journal.”

However, Steven Levitt and John List of the University of Chicago were able to uncover and evaluate these data (Levitt & List, 2011). They found that the supposedly notable patterns were entirely fictional despite the possible manifestations of the Hawthorne effect.

They proposed excess responsiveness to variations induced by the experimenter, relative to variations occurring naturally, as an alternative means to test for the Hawthorne effect.

Another study sought to determine whether the Hawthorne effect actually exists, and if so, under what conditions it does, and how large it could be (McCambridge, Witton & Elbourne, 2014).

Following the systemic review of the available evidence on the Harthorne effect, the researchers concluded that while research participation may indeed impact the behaviors being investigated, discovering more about its operation, its magnitude, and its mechanisms require further investigation.

How to Reduce the Hawthorne Effect

The credibility of experiments is essential to advances in any scientific discipline. However, when the results are significantly influenced by the mere fact that the subjects were observed, testing hypotheses becomes exceedingly difficult.

As such, several strategies may be employed to reduce the Hawthorne Effect.

Discarding the Initial Observations :

• Participants in studies often take time to acclimate themselves to their new environments.
• During this period, the alterations in performance may stem more from a temporary discomfort with the new environment than from an actual variable.
• Greater familiarity with the environment over time, however, would decrease the effect of this transition and reveal the raw effects of the variables whose impact the experimenters are observing.

Using Control Groups:

• When the subjects experiencing the intervention and those in the control group are treated in the same manner in an experiment, the Hawthorne effect would likely influence both groups equivalently.
• Under such circumstances, the impact of the intervention can be more readily identified and analyzed.
• Where ethically permissible, the concealment of information and covert data collection can be used to mitigate the Hawthorne effect.
• Observing the subjects without informing them, or conducting experiments covertly, often yield more reliable outcomes. The famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University, which was conducted initially on 3 to 5-year-old children, is a striking example.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the researchers, who identified the hawthorne effect, see as evidence that employee performance was influenced by something other than the physical work conditions.

The researchers of the Hawthorne Studies noticed that employee productivity increased not only in improved conditions (like better lighting), but also in unchanged or even worsened conditions.

They concluded that the mere fact of being observed and feeling valued (the so-called “Hawthorne Effect”) significantly impacted workers’ performance, independent from physical work conditions.

What is the Hawthorne effect in simple terms?

The Hawthorne Effect is when people change or improve their behavior because they know they’re being watched.

It’s named after a study at the Hawthorne Works factory, where researchers found that workers became more productive when they realized they were being observed, regardless of the actual working conditions.

Bauernfeind, R. H., & Olson, C. J. (1973). Is the Hawthorne effect in educational experiments a chimera ? The Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (4), 271-273.

Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media 1978-88. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 1994. Volume 20. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., PO Box 6633, Englewood, CO 80155-6633.

Cox, E. (2001).  Psychology for A-level . Oxford University Press.

Fox, N. S., Brennan, J. S., & Chasen, S. T. (2008). Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 141 (2), 111-114.

Gale, E.A.M. (2004). The Hawthorne studies – a fable for our times? Quarterly Journal of Medicine, (7) ,439-449.

Henslin, J. M., Possamai, A. M., Possamai-Inesedy, A. L., Marjoribanks, T., & Elder, K. (2015). Sociology: A down to earth approach . Pearson Higher Education AU.

Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited : Management and the Worker, Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry.

Levitt, S. D., & List, J. 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), 224-38.

Mayo, E. (1945). The human problems of an industrial civilization . New York: The Macmillan Company.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (3), 267-277.

McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (1), 1-8.

Rice, B. (1982). The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, 16 (2), 70-74.

Orne, M. T. (2009). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s classic books, 110 , 110-137.

Further Information

• Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The” Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 363-367.
• Levitt, S. D., & List, J. 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), 224-38.
• Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., & Smith, S. (2014). Handling the Hawthorne effect: The challenges surrounding a participant observer. Review of social studies, 1(1), 53-73.
• Bloombaum, M. (1983). The Hawthorne experiments: a critique and reanalysis of the first statistical interpretation by Franke and Kaul. Sociological Perspectives, 26(1), 71-88.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How the Hawthorne Effect Works

Nick David / Getty Images

• Does It Really Exist?

Other Explanations

• How to Avoid It

The Hawthorne effect is a term referring to the tendency of some people to work harder and perform better when they are participants in an experiment.

The term is often used to suggest that individuals may change their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables .

The Hawthorne effect has been widely discussed in psychology textbooks, particularly those devoted to industrial and organizational psychology . However, research suggests that many of the original claims made about the effect may be overstated.

History of the Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect was first described in the 1950s by researcher Henry A. Landsberger during his analysis of experiments conducted during the 1920s and 1930s.

Why Is It Called the Hawthorne Effect?

The phenomenon is named after the location where the experiments took place, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works electric company just outside of Hawthorne, Illinois.

The electric company had commissioned research to determine if there was a relationship between productivity and work environments.

The original purpose of the Hawthorne studies was to examine how different aspects of the work environment, such as lighting, the timing of breaks, and the length of the workday , had on worker productivity.

Increased Productivity

In the most famous of the experiments, the focus of the study was to determine if increasing or decreasing the amount of light that workers received would have an effect on how productive workers were during their shifts. In the original study, employee productivity seemed to increase due to the changes but then decreased once the experiment was over.

What the researchers in the original studies found was that almost any change to the experimental conditions led to increases in productivity. For example, productivity increased when illumination was decreased to the levels of candlelight, when breaks were eliminated entirely, and when the workday was lengthened.

The researchers concluded that workers were responding to the increased attention from supervisors. This suggested that productivity increased due to attention and not because of changes in the experimental variables.

Findings May Not Be Accurate

Landsberger defined the Hawthorne effect as a short-term improvement in performance caused by observing workers. Researchers and managers quickly latched on to these findings. Later studies suggested, however, that these initial conclusions did not reflect what was really happening.

The term Hawthorne effect remains widely in use to describe increases in productivity due to participation in a study, yet additional studies have often offered little support or have even failed to find the effect at all.

Examples of the Hawthorne Effect

The following are real-life examples of the Hawthorne effect in various settings:

• Healthcare : One study found that patients with dementia who were being treated with Ginkgo biloba showed better cognitive functioning when they received more intensive follow-ups with healthcare professionals. Patients who received minimal follow-up had less favorable outcomes.
• School : Research found that hand washing rates at a primary school increased as much as 23 percent when another person was present with the person washing their hands—in this study, being watched led to improved performance.
• Workplace : When a supervisor is watching an employee work, that employee is likely to be on their "best behavior" and work harder than they would without being watched.

Does the Hawthorne Effect Exist?

Later research into the Hawthorne effect suggested that the original results may have been overstated. In 2009, researchers at the University of Chicago reanalyzed the original data and found that other factors also played a role in productivity and that the effect originally described was weak at best.

Researchers also uncovered the original data from the Hawthorne studies and found that many of the later reported claims about the findings are simply not supported by the data. They did find, however, more subtle displays of a possible Hawthorne effect.

While some additional studies failed to find strong evidence of the Hawthorne effect, a 2014 systematic review published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that research participation effects do exist.

After looking at the results of 19 different studies, the researchers concluded that these effects clearly happen, but more research needs to be done in order to determine how they work, the impact they have, and why they occur.

While the Hawthorne effect may have an influence on participant behavior in experiments, there may also be other factors that play a part in these changes. Some factors that may influence improvements in productivity include:

• Demand characteristics : In experiments, researchers sometimes display subtle clues that let participants know what they are hoping to find. As a result, subjects will alter their behavior to help confirm the experimenter’s  hypothesis .
• Novelty effects : The novelty of having experimenters observing behavior might also play a role. This can lead to an initial increase in performance and productivity that may eventually level off as the experiment continues.
• Performance feedback : In situations involving worker productivity, increased attention from experimenters also resulted in increased performance feedback. This increased feedback might actually lead to an improvement in productivity.

While the Hawthorne effect has often been overstated, the term is still useful as a general explanation for psychological factors that can affect how people behave in an experiment.

How to Reduce the Hawthorne Effect

In order for researchers to trust the results of experiments, it is essential to minimize potential problems and sources of bias like the Hawthorne effect.

So what can researchers do to minimize these effects in their experimental studies?

• Conduct experiments in natural settings : One way to help eliminate or minimize demand characteristics and other potential sources of experimental bias is to utilize naturalistic observation techniques. However, this is simply not always possible.
• Make responses completely anonymous : Another way to combat this form of bias is to make the participants' responses in an experiment completely anonymous or confidential. This way, participants may be less likely to alter their behavior as a result of taking part in an experiment.
• Get familiar with the people in the study : People may not alter their behavior as significantly if they are being watched by someone they are familiar with. For instance, an employee is less likely to work harder if the supervisor watching them is always watching.

Many of the original findings of the Hawthorne studies have since been found to be either overstated or erroneous, but the term has become widely used in psychology, economics, business, and other areas.

More recent findings support the idea that these effects do happen, but how much of an impact they actually have on results remains in question. Today, the term is still often used to refer to changes in behavior that can result from taking part in an experiment.

Schwartz D, Fischhoff B, Krishnamurti T, Sowell F. The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness .  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2013;110(38):15242-15246. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301687110

McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects .  J Clin Epidemiol . 2014;67(3):267-277. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015

Letrud K, Hernes S. Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: A three-in-one case study . Bornmann L, ed. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0222213. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222213

McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2007;7:30. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-30

Pickering AJ, Blum AG, Breiman RF, Ram PK, Davis J. Video surveillance captures student hand hygiene behavior, reactivity to observation, and peer influence in Kenyan primary schools . Gupta V, ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e92571. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092571

Understanding Your Users . Elsevier ; 2015. doi:10.1016/c2013-0-13611-2

Levitt S, List, JA. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments . 2009. University of Chicago. NBER Working Paper No. w15016,

Levitt, SD & List, JA. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments . American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2011;3:224-238. doi:10.2307/25760252

McCambridge J, de Bruin M, Witton J.  The effects of demand characteristics on research participant behaviours in non-laboratory settings: A systematic review .  PLoS ONE . 2012;7(6):e39116. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039116

Chwo GSM, Marek MW, Wu WCV. Meta-analysis of MALL research and design . System. 2018;74:62-72. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.02.009

Gnepp J, Klayman J, Williamson IO, Barlas S. The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback .  PLoS One . 2020;15(6):e0234444. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234444

Hawthorne effect . The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n300

Murdoch M, Simon AB, Polusny MA, et al. Impact of different privacy conditions and incentives on survey response rate, participant representativeness, and disclosure of sensitive information: a randomized controlled trial .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2014;14:90. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-90

Landy FJ , Conte JM. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology . New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2010.

McBride DM. The Process of Research in Psychology . London: Sage Publications; 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research bias
• What Is the Hawthorne Effect? | Definition & Examples

What Is the Hawthorne Effect? | Definition & Examples

Published on September 23, 2022 by Kassiani Nikolopoulou . Revised on November 18, 2022.

The Hawthorne effect refers to people’s tendency to behave differently when they become aware that they are being observed. As a result, what is observed may not represent “normal” behavior, threatening the internal and external validity of your research.

The Hawthorne effect is also known as the observer effect and is closely linked with observer bias .

Like other types of research bias , the Hawthorne effect often occurs in observational and experimental study designs in fields like medicine, organizational psychology, and education.

Table of contents

What is the hawthorne effect, example of the hawthorne effect, criticism of the hawthorne effect, other explanations of the hawthorne effect, how to reduce the hawthorne effect, other types of research bias, frequently asked questions about research bias.

The Hawthorne effect occurs when a participant’s behavior changes as a result of being observed, rather than as a result of an intervention.

In other words, when groups or individuals realize they are being observed, they may change their behavior. This change can be positive or negative, depending on the research context. For example, people participating in a nutrition-related experiment may improve their diet solely because they are taking part in the experiment.

It’s important to note that participants must be aware that they are under observation for this effect to occur. Thus, the Hawthorne effect is a subtype of performance bias. 

Initially, results suggested that productivity improved whenever any changes to those variables were made—including negative changes like reduced lighting. However, any change in productivity disappeared when the experiments stopped.

Changes in behavior attributed to Hawthorne effect can seriously distort your conclusions, especially in terms of any assertions made about causal relationships between variables. This affects the internal validity of the study.

Relatedly, a Hawthorne effect can also compromise your ability to make generalizations. This affects the external validity of your study.

In the follow-up visit, the patient appears worse. The doctor has read many published Alzeheimer’s medication trials where patients who were prescribed active medication (i.e., not a placebo ) often appeared better or more stable. Due to this, the doctor concludes that if the patient is worse, then it has to be a treatment failure. The doctor then decides to stop the medication.

However, the doctor hasn’t taken into account the possible impact of a Hawthorne effect on trial results. People participating in clinical trials often appear to do better than those in routine practice solely because of their participation in the study. In reality, the increased attention and interaction with doctors and nurses at regular intervals may be what leads to their better health outcomes.

Recent research into the original studies at Hawthorne Works has shown that the findings were flawed or overstated. In particular, significant differences between control groups and experimental groups led to the introduction of confounding variables that experimenters were unaware of at the time. It is highly likely that other factors also played a role in the original study.

Ultimately, it may be hard to determine exactly how participant awareness impacts study results. However, researchers must keep this in mind when designing studies or interpreting results with human-centered research.

There are a few other factors to keep in mind that can also explain behavioral changes in study participants. These include:

Performance feedback

Demand characteristics, novelty effect.

Participants who receive feedback may also have improved performance. For instance, in the context of employee productivity, increased attention from researchers can result in increased productivity. In other words, employees with regular access to information about their individual daily output or performance may perform differently to those who don’t.

Demand characteristics are subtle cues that can reveal the study’s research objectives to the participants. This awareness may lead them to change their behavior. For example, participants may feel motivated to please the researcher.

A temporary improvement in performance resulting from participation in a research study for the first time is known as a novelty effect. This improvement can also occur when a new element, technology, feature, or process is introduced into an experimental setting.

Because participants are unfamiliar with the new element, increased interest can result in an initial increase in performance or productivity. For example, students often perform better when a learning experience is new. However, the novelty effect wears off with time.

The Hawthorne effect cannot be entirely avoided in research using participant observation or experimental research . However, there are a few things you can do to reduce it:

• Invest in interpersonal relationships at the study site. Sustaining contact with participants over time reduces participant reactivity and improves the quality of data collection .
• Give participants tasks unrelated to the purposes of the study. This can mask the research objectives from the participants. However, be sure to consider whether this is ethical to do.
• Whenever possible, opt for a naturalistic or covert observation. In this way, you can observe people in their natural surroundings without being seen. The downside here is that your ability to draw conclusions about causal relationships or generalize to other contexts is limited. There are also implications for participant privacy and informed consent here.

Cognitive bias

• Confirmation bias
• Baader–Meinhof phenomenon

Selection bias

• Sampling bias
• Ascertainment bias
• Attrition bias
• Self-selection bias
• Survivorship bias
• Nonresponse bias
• Undercoverage bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Observer bias
• Omitted variable bias
• Publication bias
• Pygmalion effect
• Recall bias
• Social desirability bias
• Placebo effect

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.

Performance bias is a general term describing the effects of unequal treatment between study groups. As a result, study participants alter their behavior. There are two subtypes of performance bias—namely, the Hawthorne (or observer) effect and the John Henry effect.

In research, demand characteristics are cues that might indicate the aim of a study to participants. These cues can lead to participants changing their behaviors or responses based on what they think the research is about.

Demand characteristics are common problems in psychology experiments and other social science studies because they can cause a bias in your research findings .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, November 18). What Is the Hawthorne Effect? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/hawthorne-effect/

Is this article helpful?

Kassiani Nikolopoulou

Other students also liked, demand characteristics | definition, examples & control, observer bias | definition, examples, prevention, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier Sponsored Documents

Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects ☆

Jim mccambridge.

a Department of Social & Environmental Health, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK

John Witton

b National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London SE5 8AF, UK

Diana R. Elbourne

c Department of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK

This study aims to (1) elucidate whether the Hawthorne effect exists, (2) explore under what conditions, and (3) estimate the size of any such effect.

Study Design and Setting

This systematic review summarizes and evaluates the strength of available evidence on the Hawthorne effect. An inclusive definition of any form of research artifact on behavior using this label, and without cointerventions, was adopted.

Nineteen purposively designed studies were included, providing quantitative data on the size of the effect in eight randomized controlled trials, five quasiexperimental studies, and six observational evaluations of reporting on one's behavior by answering questions or being directly observed and being aware of being studied. Although all but one study was undertaken within health sciences, study methods, contexts, and findings were highly heterogeneous. Most studies reported some evidence of an effect, although significant biases are judged likely because of the complexity of the evaluation object.

Consequences of research participation for behaviors being investigated do exist, although little can be securely known about the conditions under which they operate, their mechanisms of effects, or their magnitudes. New concepts are needed to guide empirical studies.

1. Introduction

What is new.

• • Most of the 19 purposively designed evaluation studies included in this systematic review provide some evidence of research participation effects.
• • The heterogeneity of these studies means that little can be confidently inferred about the size of these effects, the conditions under which they operate, or their mechanisms.
• • There is a clear need to rectify the limited development of study of the issues represented by the Hawthorne effect as they indicate potential for profound biases.
• • As the Hawthorne effect construct has not successfully led to important research advances in this area over a period of 60 years, new concepts are needed to guide empirical studies.

The Hawthorne effect concerns research participation, the consequent awareness of being studied, and possible impact on behavior [1-5] . It is a widely used research term. The original studies that gave rise to the Hawthorne effect were undertaken at Western Electric telephone manufacturing factory at Hawthorne, near Chicago, between 1924 and 1933 [6-8] . Increases in productivity were observed among a selected group of workers who were supervised intensively by managers under the auspices of a research program. The term was first used in an influential methodology textbook in 1953 [9] . A large literature and repeated controversies have evolved over many decades as to the nature of the Hawthorne effect [5,10] . If there is a Hawthorne effect, studies could be biased in ways that we do not understand well, with profound implications for research [11] .

Empirical data on the Hawthorne effect have not previously been evaluated in a systematic review. Early reviews examined a body of literature on studies of school children and found no evidence of a Hawthorne effect as the term had been used in that literature [12-14] . The contemporary relevance of the Hawthorne effect is clearer within health sciences, in which recent years have seen an upsurge in applications of this construct in relation to a range of methodological phenomena (see examples of studies with nonbehavioral outcomes [15-17] ).

There are two main ways in which the construct of the Hawthorne effect has previously been used in the research literature. First, there are studies that purport to explain some aspect of the findings of the original Hawthorne studies. These studies involve secondary quantitative data analyses [1,18-20] or discussions of the Hawthorne effect, which offer interpretations based on other material [4,10,21,22] . The Hawthorne effect has also been widely used without any necessary connection to the original studies and has usually taken on the meaning of alteration in behavior as a consequence of its observation or other study. In contrast to uses of the term in relation to the original Hawthorne studies, methodological versions of the Hawthorne effect have mutated in meaning over time and across disciplines and been the subject of much controversy [1,2,4,23,24] . This diversity means that certain aspects of the putative Hawthorne effect, for example, novelty [25] are emphasized in some studies and are absent in many others.

There is a widespread social psychological explanation of the possible mechanism for the Hawthorne effect as follows. Awareness of being observed or having behavior assessed engenders beliefs about researcher expectations. Conformity and social desirability considerations then lead behavior to change in line with these expectations. Chiesa and Hobbs [5] point out that just as there are different meanings given to the purported Hawthorne effect, there are also many suggested mechanisms producing the effect, some of which are contradictory. In all likelihood, the most common use of the Hawthorne effect term is as a post hoc interpretation of unexpected study findings, particularly where they are disappointing, for example, when there are null findings in trials.

The aims of this systematic review were to elucidate whether the Hawthorne effect exists, explore under what conditions, and estimate the size of any such effect, by summarizing and evaluating the strength of evidence available in all scientific disciplines. Meeting these study aims contributes to an overarching orientation to better understand whether research participation itself influences behavior. This inclusive orientation eschews restrictions on participants, study designs, and precise definitions of the content of Hawthorne effect manipulations.

The Hawthorne effect under investigation is any form of artifact or consequence of research participation on behavior.

Studies were included if they were based on empirical research comprising either primary or secondary data analyses; were published in English language peer-reviewed journals; were purposively designed to determine the presence of, or measure the size of, the Hawthorne effect, as stated in the introduction or methods sections of the article or before the presentation of findings if the report is not organized in this way; and reported quantitative data on the Hawthorne effect on a behavioral outcome either in observational designs comparing measures taken before and after a dedicated research manipulation or between groups in randomized or nonrandomized experimental studies. Behavioral outcomes incorporate direct measures of behavior and also the consequences of specific behaviors. Studies that described their aims in other ways and also referred to the Hawthorne effect as an alternative conceptualization of the object of evaluation were included as were studies that have other primary aims such as the evaluation of an intervention in a trial in which assessment of the Hawthorne effect is clearly stated as a secondary aim of the study, for example, with the incorporation of control groups with and without Hawthorne effect characteristics. Studies were excluded if: unpublished or in grey literature on the grounds that it is not possible to systematically assess these literature in an unbiased manner; discussion articles and commentaries were not considered to constitute empirical research; they referenced or used the term Hawthorne effect incidentally or described it as a design feature or as part of the study context, or invoked it as an explanation for study findings. Studies of the Hawthorne effect that incorporate nonresearch components, including cointerventions such as feedback, hamper evaluation and are also excluded, as were reanalyses of the original Hawthorne factory data set by virtue of nonresearch cointerventions such as managerial changes (see Ref. [8] for a detailed history of the studies).

Studies were primarily identified in electronic databases. In addition, included studies and key excluded references were backward searched for additional references and forward searched to identify reports that cited these articles. Experts identified in included studies and elsewhere were contacted. The most recent database searches took place on January 3, 2012 for the following databases: Web of Science (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-), BIOSIS Previews (1969-), PsycInfo (1806-), CINAHL Plus with full text (1937-), ERIC (1966-), PubMed (1950-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1947-), Embase (1947-), Sociological Abstracts (1952-), National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts (NCJRS; 1970-), Social Services Abstracts (1979-), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA; 1973-), the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (1951-), APPI Journals (1844-), British Nursing Index (1992-), ADOLEC (1980-), Social Policy and Practice (1890-), British Humanities Index (1962-), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstract (1987-), Inspec (1969-), and PsycARTICLES (1988-).

The term "Hawthorne effect" was searched for as a phrase as widely as possible. If the database permitted, the term was searched for in all fields as was the case for Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and others. In the Web of Knowledge search, which uses Web of Science, MEDLINE, and BIOSIS Previews databases, "Hawthorne effect" was entered into the "topic" field. The term was also searched for in "keyword" fields for databases such as NCJRS, LLBA, APPI, and others. The use of this term as the core object of evaluation negated the need for a more complex search strategy.

Hits from the database searches were downloaded into EndNote software (Thomson Reuters), removing duplicates there. Screening of titles and abstracts was undertaken by the second author or a research assistant. After a further brief screen of full-text articles, potential inclusions were independently assessed before being included. Data extracted are summarized in the tables presented here, which also contain information on risk of bias in individual studies. Binary outcomes were meta-analyzed in Stata, version 12 (Statacorp), with outcomes pooled in random-effects models using the method by DerSimonian and Laird. The Q and I 2 statistics [26] were used to evaluate the extent and effects of heterogeneity, and outcomes are stratified by study design. Formal methods were not used to assess risk of bias within and across studies, and narrative consideration is given to both. We did not publish a protocol for this review.

Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in this review [27-45] . The PRISMA flowchart summarizing the data collection process is presented in Fig. 1 . The design characteristics of included studies, along with brief summaries of outcome data and observations on most likely sources of bias, are presented separately for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasiexperimental studies, and observational studies in Tables 1-3 , respectively. All included studies apart from one [27] have been undertaken within health sciences. All observational studies were studies of the Hawthorne effect on health-care practitioners, as were two of the quasiexperimental studies [37,39] . Although none of the randomized trials evaluate possible effects on health-care practitioners, the study by Van Rooyen et al. [28] was undertaken with health researchers. The quasiexperimental studies tend to have been conducted before both the RCTs and observational studies, for which the clear majority of both types of studies have been reported within the past decade. The oldest included study was published approximately 25 years ago [35] . Four of the 5 quasiexperimental studies used some form of quasirandomized methods in constructing control groups (except Ref. [36] ). Heterogeneity in operationalization of the Hawthorne effect for dedicated evaluations, in study populations, settings, and in other ways, is readily apparent in Tables 1-3 .

PRISMA flowchart.

Study characteristics and findings of randomized controlled trials evaluating the Hawthorne effect

Abbreviation : HE, Hawthorne effect.

Study characteristics and findings of quasiexperimental evaluations of the Hawthorne effect

Study characteristics and findings of observational study evaluations of the Hawthorne effect

Abbreviations : HE, Hawthorne effect; EFW, estimate of fetal weight; AHR, antiseptic hand rub; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Fourteen of the 19 included studies report evaluations of effects on binary outcome measures. These data are presented in Fig. 2 . The first six studies presented in Fig. 2 comprise six of the seven (not including Ref. [32] ) evaluations of the effects of reporting on one's behavior by answering questions either in interviews or by completing questionnaires. All other studies evaluate being directly observed and/or the awareness of being studied in various ways, apart from one study that combines both types of Hawthorne effect manipulation [33] .

Binary outcome data. RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.

As a result of heterogeneity in definitions of the Hawthorne effect (reflecting the inclusion criteria), findings from meta-analytic syntheses should be treated with caution. Explorations of the extent and effects of heterogeneity are presented in Table 4 . Pronounced effects of statistical heterogeneity are reflected in the I 2 statistics for two of the three study designs (RCTs and observational studies) and also when attention is restricted to the eight studies of being observed or studied and to the subset of six studies of answering questions, and overall. When the one interview study (of preelection interview effects on voter turnout [27] ) is removed, however, to leave five studies of the effects of self-completing questionnaires on health behaviors, statistical heterogeneity is markedly attenuated.

Extent and effects of heterogeneity in 14 studies of the Hawthorne effect with binary outcomes a

Bearing these explorations of heterogeneity in mind, effect estimates provide a confidence interval (CI) including unity for the five trials alone [odds ratio (OR), 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.14], and for the six studies of answering questions (OR, 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.15). They reach statistical significance in relation to the five studies of self-completing health questionnaires (OR, 1.11; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.23). The pooled estimate for the five quasiexperimental studies is similar to that for the five trials and is not statistically significant (OR, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.17), whereas that for the four observational studies (OR, 1.29; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.30) and the eight studies of being observed (OR, 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.41) are larger and statistically significant. The overall odds ratio, without any weighting for study design, was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.30).

Quantitative outcome data were presented in three of the other five studies; two identifying between-group differences [29,32] and one not [28] . The large effect in the study by Feil et al. [29] is noteworthy. In the remaining two studies, continuous measures of effect were not reported in the form of mean differences and were complex to interpret, although both reported statistically significant Hawthorne effect findings [40,43] . Continuous outcomes were also evaluated for two studies included in Fig. 1 , with both finding evidence of statistically significant effects [33,35] .

Of the 19 studies, therefore, 12 provided at least some evidence of the existence of a Hawthorne effect, however this was defined, to a statistically significant degree. Small sample sizes appeared to preclude between-group differences reaching statistical significance in two studies [31,36] . In five studies, it was judged clear that there were no between-group differences that could represent a possible Hawthorne effect [28,37-39,45] .

4. Discussion

The Hawthorne effect has been operationalized for study as the effects of reporting on one's behavior by answering questions, being directly observed, or otherwise made aware of being studied. There is evidence of effects across these studies, and inconsistencies in this evidence. We explore heterogeneity in targets for, and methods of, study as well as in findings. We will begin by examining the evidence base for each of the study designs, before considering the limitations, interpretation, and implications of this study.

The RCTs tend to provide evidence of small statistically significant effects. There are also studies that showed no effects, and two studies that provided evidence of large effects [29,34] . The study by Feil et al. [29] used a strong manipulation, incorporating a placebo effect, which is not usually considered to be a Hawthorne effect component, in addition to research- and trial-specific participation effects. In both this study and the one undertaken by Evans et al. [34] also finding a large effect, small numbers of participants are involved. The diversity in the content of the manipulations in these studies is emphasized. When one considers the RCT data from the five studies contributing to the meta-analysis [27,30,31,33,34] alongside the three studies that did not, two of which produce statistically significant effects on continuous outcomes [29,32] , it seems that overall, there is evidence of between-group differences in the RCTs. These between-group differences cannot, however, be interpreted to provide consistent or coherent evidence of a single effect.

The same could be said of the diversity of the contents of the manipulations in the quasiexperimental studies, and the picture is made more complex by greater variability in study design features, particularly in relation to allocation methods. Overall, they produce mixed evidence, with a between-group difference in one study [35] , a noteworthy difference in a small underpowered study [36] , and no evidence of between-group differences in the other three studies [37-39] . It is difficult to draw any conclusion from included studies with quasiexperimental designs.

Although their design precludes strong conclusions because of the likelihood of unknown and uncontrolled biases, the heterogeneity of findings in the observational studies is interesting. Two studies produce identical point estimates of effects [41,42] , whereas the other two estimates are similarly different [44,45] . These data suggest that the size of any effects of health-care practitioners being observed or being aware of being studied probably very much depends on what exactly they are doing. Perhaps, this is not at all surprising, although it does undermine further the idea that there is a single effect, which can be called the Hawthorne effect. Rather, the effect, if it exists, is highly contingent on task and context. It is noteworthy that the three other studies with health professionals, all using control groups, show no effects [28,37,39] .

This is an "apples and oranges" review. This approach was judged appropriate, given the current level of understanding of the phenomena under investigation. This design decision does, however, entail limitations in the forms of important differences between studies, including operationalization of the Hawthorne effect, and exposure to varying forms of bias. The observed effects are short term when a follow-up study is involved, with only the studies by Murray et al. [35] and Kypri et al. [32] demonstrating effects beyond 6 months. Both these studies involved repeated prior assessments, and both provide self-reported outcome data. Self-reported outcomes do not appear obviously more likely than objectively ascertained outcomes to show effects. The forms of blinding used are often tailored to the nature of the study, making performance bias prevention difficult to evaluate across the studies as a whole.

By design, we have excluded studies that defined the object of evaluation to incorporate nonresearch elements as occurred in the original studies at Hawthorne [8] . We may have missed studies that should have been identified, although this is unlikely if use of the Hawthorne effect term was in any way prominent. Studies that have been missed may be more likely to be older and from nonhealth literature. An alternative design for this study might have eschewed this label and sought instead to synthesize findings on studies of research participation and/or awareness of being studied. Although potentially attractive, this course of action would have involved considerable difficulties in identifying relevant material and would risk losing the main focus on the Hawthorne effect. Similarly, we might have also included studies with cognitive and/or emotional outcomes in which effects might be greater [46] , rather than focusing on behavioral outcomes. This possibility may be appropriate for evaluation in the future. Although we have sought to make our explorations of the heterogeneity of included studies as informative as possible, our analyses might be seen as excessive data fishing. These are, however, clearly presented as post hoc analyses after examination of high levels of heterogeneity, and the study by Granberg and Holmberg [27] is distinct from the other four questionnaire studies in a range of ways including the behavior being investigated.

Heterogeneity in operationalization of the Hawthorne effect make the data in this review challenging to interpret, yet it does appear that research participation can and does influence behavior, at least in some circumstances. The content and strength of the Hawthorne effect manipulations vary in these primary studies, and so to do the effects, although it would not be possible to discern any form of dose-response relationship. The manipulation by Evans et al. [34] may appear in some respects weak, for example, being an online questionnaire, and in others as potentially strong, examining decision making in relation to uptake of a cancer test, which was the study outcome. Although weak uses of the Hawthorne effect term in the wider literature mean that it is not very informative for interpreting the data from this study, outcomes may be considered in relation to the prevailing ideas about the core mechanism of the Hawthorne effect that conformity to perceived norms or researcher expectations drives change. Many, but not all, of the studies with positive findings appear broadly consistent with this account, although so too do many of the studies with negative findings and it is not clear why this is so. The study by Murray et al. [35] examined adolescent smoking at a time when the prevalences of both nonsmoking and regular smoking were approximately one-quarter in this sample, so it is unclear what norms or perceptions of researcher expectations many have been. This study exemplifies the literature as a whole in being principally concerned with the possible existence of a Hawthorne effect and not being designed to test the hypothesized mechanism.

There are other possible mechanisms of effect that have also not been evaluated. For example, regardless of perceptions of norms or researcher expectations, the content of the questions asked may themselves stimulate new thinking. In the studies by Evans et al. [34] and O'Sullivan et al. [30] , patients may well not have previously considered what was being enquired about, and this may have been an independent source of change. Concerns about biases being introduced by having research participants complete questionnaires have existed for more than 100 years, before the Hawthorne factory studies took place and approximately 50 years before the Hawthorne effect term was introduced to the literature (see Ref. [47] for an early history of these issues). Given how long the Hawthorne effect construct has been the predominant conceptualization of these phenomena [48] , it appears that this construct is an inadequate vehicle for advancing understanding of these issues. Alternative long-standing conceptualizations of these problems such as demand characteristics within psychology have also yielded disappointingly underdeveloped research literatures [49-51] . This state of affairs points toward an obvious need for further study of whether, when, how, how much, and for whom research participation may impact on behavior or other study outcomes.

Further studies will be assisted by the development of a conceptual framework that elaborates possible mechanisms of effects and thus targets for study. The Hawthorne effect label has probably stuck for so long simply because we have not advanced our understanding of the issues it represents. We suggest that unqualified use of the term should be abandoned. Specification of the research issues being investigated or described is paramount, regardless of whether the Hawthorne label is seen to be useful or to apply or not in any particular research context. Perhaps, use of the label should be restricted to evaluations in which conformity and social desirability considerations are involved, although it is striking how hostile social psychology has been to this construct [2] . So, what can be said about priority targets for further study on the basis of this systematic review and what concepts are available to guide further study?

Decisions to take part in research studies may also be implicated in efforts to address behavior in other ways so that research participation interacts with other forces influencing behavior. It is also possible, if not likely, that these relatively well-studied types of data collection (completing questionnaires and being observed) are part of a series of events that occur for participants in research studies that have potential to shape their behavior, from recruitment onwards. Giving attention to precisely what we invite research participants to do in any given study seems a logical precursor to examination of whether any aspect of taking part may influence them. Phenomenological studies, which ask participants about their experiences, would seem to be useful for developing new concepts. If individual study contexts are indeed important, we should expect to see effects that vary in size and across populations and research contexts, and perhaps also with multiple mechanisms of effects. The underdeveloped nature of these types of research questions means that it may be unwise to articulate advanced conceptual frameworks to guide empirical study. We propose "research participation effects" as a starting point for this type of thinking. Although descriptive, it also invites investigation of other aspects of the research process beyond data collection, which may simply be where research artifacts emanating from both social norms and other sources are most obvious.

We conclude that there is no single Hawthorne effect. Consequences of research participation for behaviors being investigated have been found to exist in most studies included within this review, although little can be securely known about the conditions under which they operate, their mechanisms of effects, or their magnitudes. Further research on this subject should be a priority for the health sciences, in which we might expect change induced by research participation to be in the direction of better health and thus likely to be confounded with the outcomes being studied. It is also important for other domains of research on human behavior to rectify the limited development of understanding of the issues represented by the Hawthorne effect as they suggest the possibility of profound biases.

Acknowledgments

This study was undertaken under the auspices of a Wellcome Trust Research Career Development award in Basic Biomedical Science to the first author (WT086516MA). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors are grateful to Serena Luchenski for research assistance in connection with this study.

Ethics statement: Ethical approval was not required for this study.

Competing interests: No authors have any competing interests.

Authors' contributions: J.M. had the idea for the study, led on study design, data collection, and data analyses, and wrote the first draft of the report. J.W. assisted with data collection and analyses. All three authors participated in discussions about the design of this study, contributed to revisions of the report, and approved the submission of the final report.

☆ This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ).

Module 6: Motivation in the Workplace

The hawthorne effect, learning outcome.

• Explain the role of the Hawthorne effect in management

During the 1920s, a series of studies that marked a change in the direction of motivational and managerial theory was conducted by Elton Mayo on workers at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Illinois. Previous studies, in particular Frederick Taylor’s work, took a “man as machine” view and focused on ways of improving individual performance. Hawthorne, however, set the individual in a social context, arguing that employees’ performance is influenced by work surroundings and coworkers as much as by employee ability and skill. The Hawthorne studies are credited with focusing managerial strategy on the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations.

The following video from the AT&T archives contains interviews with individuals who participated in these studies. It provides insight into the way the studies were conducted and how they changed employers’ views on worker motivation.

The studies originally looked into the effects of physical conditions on productivity and whether workers were more responsive and worked more efficiently under certain environmental conditions, such as improved lighting. The results were surprising: Mayo found that workers were more responsive to social factors—such as their manager and coworkers—than the factors (lighting, etc.) the researchers set out to investigate. In fact, worker productivity improved when the lights were dimmed again and when everything had been returned to the way it was before the experiment began, productivity at the factory was at its highest level and absenteeism had plummeted.

What happened was Mayo discovered that workers were highly responsive to additional attention from their managers and the feeling that their managers actually cared about and were interested in their work. The studies also found that although financial incentives are important drivers of worker productivity, social factors are equally important.

Practice Question

There were a number of other experiments conducted in the Hawthorne studies, including one in which two women were chosen as test subjects and were then asked to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together, the women worked assembling telephone relays in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932). Their output was measured during this time—at first, in secret. It started two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they were assigned to a supervisor who discussed changes with them and, at times, used the women’s suggestions. The researchers then spent five years measuring how different variables affected both the group’s and the individuals’ productivity. Some of the variables included giving two five-minute breaks (after a discussion with the group on the best length of time), and then changing to two ten-minute breaks (not the preference of the group).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. Researchers concluded that the employees worked harder because they thought 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.

The Hawthorne studies showed that people’s work performance is dependent on social issues and job satisfaction. The studies concluded that tangible motivators such as monetary incentives and good working conditions are generally less important in improving employee productivity than intangible motivators such as meeting individuals’ desire to belong to a group and be included in decision making and work.

• Boundless Management. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Linda Williams and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Tidewater Community College. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introductiontobusiness/chapter/introduction-to-the-hawthorne-effect/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• AT&T Archives: The Year They Discovered People. Provided by : AT&T Tech Channel. Located at : https://youtu.be/D3pDWt7GntI . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Hawthorne Works. Provided by : Western Electric Company. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawthorne_Works_aerial_view_ca_1920_pg_2.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Hawthorne Effect

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Renee L. Allen 3 &
• Andrew S. Davis 4  

1340 Accesses

3 Citations

A widely accepted definition of the Hawthorne Effect refers to the effects of subjects’ awareness of their evaluation as participants of a research study [ 4 ]. Other definitions include the importance of changes in the work environment (e.g., lighting, rest breaks) while some focus on the resilience of the change in performance. Common variables that can be found in the Hawthorne effect definitions include participants’ interpretation of workplace changes being implemented for their benefit, reference to the response of subjects to change, and the presence of reduced worker boredom [ 2 ]. Researchers who support the phenomenon that is known as the Hawthorne Effect have been criticized for failing to differentiate this concept from subject reactivity to experimental conditions or from the issue of confounding variables in experimental research. Indeed, the original research itself has been deemed methodologically flawed and insufficient to suggest such an effect by some [ 5 ].

Description...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Brannigan, A., & Zwerman, W. (2001). The real “Hawthorne Effect”. Society, 38 , 55–60.

Google Scholar  

Chiesa, M., & Hobbs, S. (2008). Making sense of social research: How useful is the Hawthorne Effect? European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 , 67–74.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization . New York: MacMillan.

Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educational Psychology, 26 , 143–146.

Olson, R., Verley, J., Santos, L., & Salas, C. (2004). What we teach students about the Hawthorne studies: A review of content within a sample of introductory I-O and OB textbooks. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41 , 23–39.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Further Readings

Gillespie, R. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holden, J. D. (2001). Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7 , 65–70.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Renee L. Allen

Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Teachers College Room 515, Muncie, IN, 47306, USA

Andrew S. Davis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Allen, R.L., Davis, A.S. (2011). Hawthorne Effect. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1324

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1324

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

The field of organizational behavior is built on a foundation of research and studies that aim to understand the complexities of human behavior within the workplace. One of the most influential studies in this field is the Hawthorne Studies, conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Led by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School , these studies revolutionized the understanding of human behavior in a work setting and continue to shape organizational behavior research today.

The Hawthorne Effect, named after the studies that uncovered it, refers to the phenomenon where individuals modify their behavior simply because they are being observed.

• 1 The Context of the Hawthorne Studies
• 2 The Initial Experiments and Findings
• 3 The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies
• 4 The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior
• 5.1.1 Benefits and Impact
• 5.1.2 Limitations

The Context of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies were conducted by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School, including Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and William J. Dickson. Elton Mayo , considered the father of the Hawthorne Studies, played a crucial role in shaping the research and interpreting the findings.

The Hawthorne Studies were originally initiated to examine the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers believed that by increasing lighting levels, they could improve worker efficiency.

However, the results of the initial experiments surprised them. Not only did productivity increase when lighting was increased, but it also increased when lighting was decreased. This unexpected finding prompted further investigations into the psychological and social factors that influence worker motivation and performance.

The Initial Experiments and Findings

The initial experiments of the Hawthorne Studies focused on the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers divided the workers into two groups and manipulated the lighting conditions for each group. Surprisingly, both groups showed increased productivity regardless of whether the lighting was increased or decreased. This phenomenon became known as the “Hawthorne Effect” and led the researchers to delve deeper into the factors that influence worker behavior.

Further experiments were conducted to explore factors such as rest breaks, incentives, and supervisory styles. The researchers found that regardless of the specific changes made, productivity tended to increase. This led to the realization that it was not the specific changes themselves that influenced productivity, but rather the attention given to the workers and the social interactions within the workplace.

The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies challenged traditional management theories that focused solely on the technical aspects of work. They demonstrated that the human element within organizations plays a crucial role in productivity and job satisfaction.

The studies highlighted the importance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing employee performance. This shift in perspective paved the way for a greater emphasis on creating supportive and collaborative work environments that prioritize employee well-being and engagement.

The findings of the Hawthorne Studies also led to the development of new management practices. The researchers advocated for a more participative management style that encouraged open communication, employee involvement in decision-making, and a focus on developing positive relationships between managers and workers. These practices aimed to create a sense of belonging and foster a positive work culture, ultimately leading to improved performance and job satisfaction.

The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior

The Hawthorne Studies have left a lasting legacy in the field of organizational behavior. They shifted the focus from a purely technical approach to a more holistic understanding of employee behavior.

The studies highlighted the importance of considering the human element within organizations and recognizing the impact of social interactions and group dynamics on productivity and job satisfaction.

The Hawthorne Studies also paved the way for further research in the field, inspiring subsequent studies that explored topics such as leadership styles, employee motivation, and organizational culture .

Criticisms of the Hawthorne Studies

One criticism is that the studies were c onducted in a specific context – the Hawthorne Works factory – which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries or settings.

Some argue that the Hawthorne Effect itself may have influenced the results , as the workers may have changed their behavior due to the awareness of being observed.

Another criticism is that the studies did not take into account external factors that could have influenced productivity, such as changes in technology or market conditions.

And critics argue that the studies focused too heavily on the social and psychological aspects of work , neglecting other important factors that contribute to productivity.

Quick Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

Human Relations Approach : Emphasized the importance of social relations and employee attitudes in the workplace.

Effect of Observation on Behavior : Known as the “Hawthorne Effect,” it suggests that workers modify their behavior in response to being observed.

Increased Productivity : Found that changes in physical work conditions (like lighting) temporarily increased productivity.

Social Factors in Work : Identified the significant role of social groups and norms in the workplace.

Employee Motivation : Highlighted non-economic factors like camaraderie and attention as motivators for workers.

Management Practices : Suggested that more attention to workers’ needs could improve worker satisfaction and productivity.

Benefits and Impact

Humanizes the Workplace : Shifted focus from strict task orientation to considering workers’ social needs and well-being.

Foundation for Modern HR Practices : Influenced the development of employee-centered management and human resource practices.

Importance of Social Dynamics : Emphasized the role of group dynamics, leadership, and communication in work efficiency.

Broader Understanding of Motivation : Contributed to understanding that motivation is not solely driven by pay or working conditions.

Limitations

Methodological Flaws : Critics point out flaws in experimental design, lack of proper controls, and subjective interpretations.

Exaggerated Effects : Some argue that the studies overemphasized the impact of social and psychological factors on productivity.

Overgeneralization : Critics believe that conclusions drawn from the studies were too broad and not universally applicable.

Potential Bias : The presence of researchers may have influenced worker behavior, questioning the validity of the results.

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne Studies have had a profound impact on our understanding of human behavior in the workplace.
• These studies revolutionized management theories by highlighting the significance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing productivity and job satisfaction.
• The findings of the studies continue to shape modern-day organizations, emphasizing the value of employee engagement, teamwork, and creating a positive work culture for optimal performance.

What is the Hawthorne Effect?

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals change or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.

How was the Hawthorne Effect identified?

It was identified during the Hawthorne Studies conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works, where changes in work environment led to increased productivity, believed to be due to the workers’ awareness of being observed.

What were the Hawthorne Studies?

The Hawthorne Studies were a series of experiments on worker productivity conducted at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Why is the Hawthorne Effect important in research?

In research, the Hawthorne Effect is important because it highlights the need to consider how the presence of researchers or the awareness of being studied can influence participants’ behavior.

Can the Hawthorne Effect affect the outcome of an experiment?

Yes, the Hawthorne Effect can significantly affect the outcome of an experiment as participants might alter their natural behavior due to the awareness of being observed or studied.

Is the Hawthorne Effect only observed in workplace settings?

No, the Hawthorne Effect can occur in various settings, including clinical trials, educational research, and workplace studies, essentially anywhere subjects are aware they are being observed.

How can researchers minimize the Hawthorne Effect?

Researchers can minimize the Hawthorne Effect by using control groups, ensuring anonymity, employing blind or double-blind study designs, and minimizing the intrusion of observation.

Does the Hawthorne Effect have implications for management?

Yes, in management, it suggests that giving attention to employees and making them feel valued can improve productivity and job satisfaction.

What criticisms have been made about the Hawthorne Effect?

Critics argue that the original studies had methodological flaws, and some suggest the effect might be overestimated or not as universal as once thought.

How is the Hawthorne Effect relevant in today’s workplace?

In modern workplaces, understanding the Hawthorne Effect is relevant for designing work environments and management practices that acknowledge the impact of observation and attention on employee behavior and productivity.

About The Author

Geoff Fripp

Related posts, theories of multiple intelligences.

The theory of Multiple Intelligences, introduced by Howard Gardner in 1983, challenges the traditional view of intelligence as a single, general ability.

Find out more...

Goal-setting Theory: Motivation

Motivation Definition: The reason or reasons to act in a particular way. It is what makes us do things and carry out tasks for the organisation.…

Fundamental Attribution Error

The Fundamental Attribution Error often means there are false reason why something happened, we have to look into why something happened, but look at it…

Personality in Organisations

Personality Definition: A personality is a mixture of a person’s characteristics, beliefs and qualities which make them who they are. What is the Definition of Personality?…

Hawthorne Effect (Observer Effect): Definition & History

Design of Experiments > The Hawthorne Effect

Contents (click to skip to that section):

• Hawthorne Effect Definition.
• History of the Hawthorne Effect.

Is the Hawthorne Effect Real?

• Placebos, Pygmalion, and Other Self Fulfilling Prophecies.

Hawthorne Effect Definition

The Hawthorne Effect, also called the Observer Effect, is where people in studies change their behavior because they are watched . A series of studies in the 1920s first shone light on the phenomenon after researchers investigated how several conditions (i.e. lighting and breaks) affected worker’s output. Output went up up during the studies; It returned to normal after the research team left. This led to a whole era of research that attempted to control for the effect an observer can have on an experiment.

Some people say the “Hawthorne Effect” wasn’t real and output didn’t rise to any real level. There haven’t been any experiments since then that have duplicated the findings. However, the term “Hawthorne Effect” persists–even in textbooks. It is now used to describe any situation where there is a short-term increase in output. Back to Top

History of the Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect is named after a series of experiments that took place at the Western Electric factory in Hawthorne , a suburb of Chicago. The Western Electric Company was the sole supplier of telephone equipment to AT&T at the time and the Hawthorne plant was a state-of-the art plant that employed about 35,000 people. The experiments were intended to study the effects lighting levels had on output. The hypothesis evolved and groups of workers were studied to see if different lighting levels, levels of cleanliness or different placement of workstations affected output.

The major finding was that no matter what change the workers were exposed to, output improved. But, production went back to normal at the end of the study. This suggested watched employees worked harder.

Who Came Up With The Term?

Although the experiments took place in 1924-1932, the term Hawthorne Effect wasn’t used until much later. There is debate about who actually came up with the term. Some people think it was first used in the 1950s by Henry A. Landsberger during his analysis of the Western Electric experiments. See here and here . Others think that it was possibly coined by John French in 1953. See here and here .* Back to Top

Details About The Experiments

List of Changes

These experiments were conducted on entire departments (from Roethlisberger & Dickson):

• 1a: experimental groups from three departments showed output increases. These continued even when lighting levels were decreased.
• 1b: one experimental group worked with increasing lighting levels. One control group worked with constant lighting levels. Both groups’ output showed a small, but significant, increase.
• 1c: Similar to 1b, except the experimental group worked under decreasing lighting levels. Output increased for both groups until the lighting levels in the experimental group went too low (1.4 foot candles) to see properly.
• 1d: only involved two women. The researcher told the women that bright lighting was better and pretended to replace bulbs with better ones. The women stated they preferred the “better” light. The women’s belief about “good” lighting levels affected them more than what the actual lighting levels were.

According to Blalock and Blalock (1982, p. 72), to the surprise of the researchers:

“…each time a change was made, worker productivity increased…..As a final check, the experimenters returned to the original unfavorable conditions of poor lighting….Seemingly perversely, productivity continued to rise.”

End of The First Experiment

The National Academy called off the experiment as it proved nothing. However, Western Electric decided to undertake further studies. Harvard University then became connected with the new studies. Sociologist Elton Mayo supervised most of them.

Experiment, Part 2

In a second part of the experiment, five experienced workers were studied over a five year period. Two of the workers were replaced during the study due to them being too slow. This affected group morale, as when overall output dropped, pay dropped as well. This part of the experiment is usually referred to as The Mica Splitting Test . The workers split, measured and trimmed mica chips for insulation. The women (unlike their coworkers) received extra ten-minute breaks mid-morning and mid-afternoon. While they received the breaks, their output showed a small increase. Once the women returned to normal scheduling without breaks, output dropped back down. One positive outcome to the experiment was that the breaks (which increased output) became a company wide policy due to the experiment.

In another Hawthorn study, 14 telephone assemblers took part. After they were moved to a test room to work, there was no increase in output (i.e. there was no Hawthorne effect). However, the researchers did note that the people in the study kept up with group expectations of what they thought was good output for the day. Team members were labeled “speed kings” or “slaves.” If output was too high in the morning they tended to slow down to meet expectations.

The Great Depression

The experiments continued until 1932, when the workers in the experiment were laid off during the Great Depression. a report was actually never published, despite the notoriety of the Lighting experiment. The data from the experiment was considered “lost” until recently. Steven Levitt and John List from the National Bureau of Economic Research found the data in two library archives.

An interesting (bit probably irrelevant) note : Theresa Zajac was one of the original experiment participants. She still worked at the same plant when Western Electric held their 50th anniversary celebration. Back to Top

Henry McIlvaine “Mac” Parsons was one of the first people to uncover some real problems with the Hawthorne experiment’s results. In 1970 he studied second-hand and first-hand accounts of the research, finding some serious problems. These included factors that were completely ignored:

• The test room was much smaller and quieter than the main floor. The room also had better air flow and lighting.
• Supervisors were friendly and tolerant when the researchers were around. This may have affected performance.
• The testing room had a friendlier atmosphere than the main floor. Workers talked between themselves more.
• Two women were replaced mid-way through the experiment for being too slow. One of the replacements was so enthusiastic, she became the group leader.

Perhaps the two most important factors that weren’t accounted for were also ignored by the researchers. When the workers were on the main floor, they earned a base rate plus a bonus; The whole department’s performance determined the bonus. Five workers output in the test room determined how much extra those workers received, so one person’s output could have a major effect on the team’s paycheck. This meant that team members would be more motivated to ramp-up output. This motivational effect is well-known in behavioral science today, but back in the 1920s/1930s it had not been developed yet.

The Myth Continues

Parsons made his findings well-known, but many authors of current textbooks continue to include the Hawthorne Effect without question . When asked why he thought people persisted in spreading the myth despite his well-publicized findings, Parson’s replied, “They’re lazy.”

In a NY Times article from 1998, psychology professor Dr. Richard Nisbette from the University of Michigan called the Hawthorne effect “a glorified anecdote,” partly due to the tiny sample of workers studied. The New York Times article itself was titled “Scientific Myths That Are Too Good to Die.”

A Closer Look

A closer look by a group of University of Chicago researchers suggests that there may never have been a “Hawthorne Effect” in the first place. After analyzing the original data, Levitt and List came to the following conclusion:

” Our analysis of the newly found data reveals little evidence to support the existence of a Hawthorne effect as commonly described; i.e., there is no systematic evidence that productivity jumped whenever changes in lighting occurred.”

The output seen in the original study could have been due to factors other than observation . Recent analysis of the tests highlight the simple fact that the Great Depression loomed. That alone may have had an effect on workers. The general opinion seems to be that if the Hawthorne effect exists, it exists in ways that aren’t really understood. This may have a huge impact on future studies.

The research that came out of the study influenced a generation of researchers. The field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology grew out of the Hawthorne studies.

“In the history of science, certain contributions stand out as signal events in the sense that they influence a great deal of what follows. The Hawthorne Experiments exemplify this phenomenon in the field of industrial work and have been the subject of serious subsequent commentary and reanalysis.” (Bloombaum, 1983)

Back to Top

Self Fulfilling Prophecies

The Hawthorne Effect remains as a way to describe the increase in output seen in similar studies. These changes are sometimes called Self-Fulfilling Prophecies . When a researcher sets up an experiment, they are hoping that their hypothesis is correct. Otherwise, the experiment would fail. These hoped-for changes mean it is more likely a researcher will accept, rather than reject, their hypothesis statement.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

In the placebo effect , any medical intervention results in a positive outcome. That’s even if a patient receives a sugar pill instead of a “real” pill. Modern research is showing links between changes in brain chemistry and placebos. The placebo effect is even seen in patients told that they are taking placebos. The placebo effect has even been shown to lower cholesterol, as this study shows.

The Pygmalion effect is where higher expectations lead to better results. With this self-fulfilling prophecy, people internalize positive labels. Those people with positive labels succeed. The opposite of the Pygmalion effect is the Golem effect. People internalize negative labels and fail. Studies in controlled settings have been hard to come by.

2. If you have 30 minutes, I highly recommend this BBC Radio program . It dissects the Hawthorne Effect and explores the history. It also features several experts in the field such as:

• The Hawthorne Museum in Cicero.
• The Baker Library archive.
• Professor Michel Anteby at Harvard Business School.
• Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale Business School. He met the original participants in the study back in the 1970s.
• Mecca Chiesa of the University of Kent.

References:

Blalock, A. & Blalock Jr., H.M. (1982). Intro to social research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall. Bloombaum, M. (1983). The Hawthorne experiments. A critique and reanalysis. Sociological Perspectives. January, 26(1), 71-88. Landsberger, Henry A. Hawthorne Revisited, Ithaca, 1958. Levvit, S & List, J. Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect?. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3 (1): 224–238. Retrieved 12-20-2015 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15016.pdf. Mayo, Elton. Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company. Routledge, 1949. McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P; Warner; Iliffe; Van Haselen; Griffin; Fisher (2007). “The Hawthorne Effect”. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 30. Rice, Berkeley. The Hawthorne Effect: Persistance of a Flawed Theory. Retrieved 12/20/2015 from https://www.cs.unc.edu/~stotts/204/nohawth.html. Roethlisberger,F.J. & Dickson,W.J. (1939) Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• HBS Home HBS Index Contact Us
• A New Vision An Essay by Professors Michel Anteby and Rakesh Khurana
• Next Introduction

The Human Relations Movement:

Harvard business school and the hawthorne experiments (1924-1933).

In the 1920s Elton Mayo, a professor of Industrial Management at Harvard Business School, and his protégé Fritz J. Roethlisberger led a landmark study of worker behavior at Western Electric, the manufacturing arm of AT&T. Unprecedented in scale and scope, the nine-year study took place at the massive Hawthorne Works plant outside of Chicago and generated a mountain of documents, from hourly performance charts to interviews with thousands of employees. Harvard Business School’s role in the experiments represented a milestone in the dawn of the human relations movement and a shift in the study of management from a scientific to a multi-disciplinary approach. Baker Library’s exhaustive archival record of the experiments reveals the art and science of this seminal behavioral study—and the questions and theories it generated about the relationship of productivity to the needs and motivations of the industrial worker.

• The Hawthorne Plant
• Employee Welfare
• Illumination Studies and Relay Assembly Test Room
• Enter Elton Mayo
• Human Relations and Harvard Business School
• Women in the Relay Assembly Test Room
• The Interview Process
• Spreading the Word
• The "Hawthorne Effect"
• Research Links
• Baker Library | Historical Collections | Site Credits | Digital Accessibility
• Contact Email: [email protected]

© President and Fellows of Harvard College

• Engineering
• Write For Us
• Privacy Policy

What is Hawthorne Experiment? Theory by Elton Mayo, 4 Phases

Hawthorne experiments were designed to study how different aspects of the work environment, such as lighting, the timing of breaks, and the length of the workday, had an on worker productivity. Here in this article, we have explained what is Hawthorne Experiment.

► What is Hawthorne Experiment?

The Hawthorne experiments were first developed in November 1924 at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant in Chicago in Manufactured equipment for the bell telephone system and employed nearly 30,000 workers at the time of experiments.

Although, in all material aspects, this was the most progressive company with pension and sickness benefit schemes along with various recreational and other facilities discontent and dissatisfaction prevailed among the employees.

The initial tests were sponsored by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1927, a research team from Harvard Business School was invited to join the studies after the illumination test drew unanticipated results.

A team of researchers led by George Elton Mayo from the Harvard Business School carried out the studies (General Electric originally contributed funding, but they withdrew after the first trial was completed).

Experiments of Hawthorne effects work were conducted from 1924 to 1932. These studies mark the starting point of the field of Organizational Behaviour.

Initiated as an attempt to investigate how characteristics of the work setting affect employee fatigue and performance. (i.e., lighting) Found that productivity increased regardless of whether illumination was raised or lowered.

◉ Hawthorne Experiments were given by Elton Mayo

In 1927, a gathering of scientists driven by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger of the Harvard Business School were welcome to participate in the investigations at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The usefulness of representatives relies vigorously on the fulfillment of the representatives in their work circumstances.

Mayo’s thought was that legitimate elements were less significant than passionate variables in deciding usefulness effectiveness. Besides, of the relative multitude of human variables impacting representative conduct, the most remarkable were those exuding from the specialist’s investment in gatherings. Accordingly, Mayo inferred that work courses of action as well as meeting the true necessities of creation must simultaneously fulfill the worker’s emotional prerequisite of social fulfillment at his workplace.

The Hawthorne experiment can be divided into 4 significant parts:

• Experiments on Illumination.
• Relay Assembly Experiment.
• Mass Interviewing Program
• Bank Wiring Observation Room.

✔ 1. Illumination Experiment

The examinations in Illumination were an immediate augmentation of Elton Mayo’s previous light analyses done in the material business in 1923 and 1924. This trial started in 1924.

It comprised of a progression of investigations of test bunches in which the degrees of brightening shifted yet the circumstances were held steady. The reason behind it was to look at the connection of the quality and amount of light to the proficiency of laborers.

It was observed that the efficiency expanded to practically a similar rate in both test and control bunches chosen for the examinations. In the last investigation, it was found that result diminished with the diminished brightening level, i.e., moonlight power.

As the analysts didn’t observe a positive and straight connection between brightening and effectiveness of laborers, they inferred that the outcomes were ‘suspicious’ without even a trace of straightforward and direct circumstances and logical results relationship.

One of the critical realities revealed by the review was that individuals act diversely when they are being considered than they could somehow or another act. It is from this the term Hawthorne Effect was authored.

✔ 2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment

This stage pointed toward knowing the effect of brightening on creation as well as different variables like the length of the functioning day, rest hours, and other states of being.

In this trial, a little homogeneous work-gathering of six young ladies was established. These young ladies were amicable to one another and were approached to work in an extremely casual environment under the management of a scientist.

Efficiency and resolve expanded significantly during the time of the examination. Usefulness continued expanding and settled at an undeniable level in any event, when every one of the upgrades was removed and the pre-test conditions were once again introduced.

The analysts reasoned that socio-mental factors, for example, the sensation of being significant, acknowledgment, consideration, investment, durable work-bunch, and non-order oversight held the key to higher efficiency.

✔ 3. Mass Interview Program in Hawthorne Experiment

The goal of this program was to make an orderly investigation of the representative’s mentalities which would uncover the significance that their “working circumstance” has for them.

The specialists talked with countless laborers as to their viewpoints on work, working circumstances, and management.

At first, an immediate methodology was utilized by which meetings posed inquiries considered significant by supervisors and scientists.

The analysts say that the answers of the workers were monitored. Consequently, this approach was supplanted by a roundabout method, where the questioner essentially paid attention to what the workers needed to say.

The discoveries affirmed the significance of social elements at work in the absolute workplace.

✔ 4. Bank Wiring Room Study

The last Hawthorne analysis, called the bank wiring room study, was directed to notice and dissect the elements of a working bunch when impetus was presented. With the end goal of tests, a gathering of 14 laborers was utilized on bank wiring.

The work was conveyed between nine wiremen, three weld men, and two reviewers. In the bank wiring room study, the work bunch framed a standard that the gathering would play out a specific pre-chosen amount of work in a day.

The whole work bunch complied with this standard paying little mind to pay, which suggests that gathering rules were more significant for the individuals.

Subsequently, it was recommended to bring the administration and laborer’s goals in line to pursue the shared objectives to improve the association.

Must Read : 14 Principles of Management

► Features of Hawthorne Experiment

The highlight Features of the Hawthorne Experiment are:

1.  A business association is fundamentally a social framework. It isn’t simply a techno-financial framework.

2. The business can be inspired by mental and social needs since its conduct is additionally affected by sentiments, feelings, and perspectives. Consequently, monetary impetuses are by all accounts not the only strategy to propel individuals.

3. The executives should figure out how to foster co-employable mentalities and not depend just on order.

Support turns into a significant instrument in human relations development. To accomplish interest, a successful two-way correspondence network is fundamental.

4. Usefulness is connected with representative fulfillment in any business association. In this way, the board should check out worker fulfillment. Bunch brain research assumes a significant part in any business association.

5. The neo-old style hypothesis stresses that man is a living machine and he is undeniably more significant than the lifeless machine. Subsequently, the way to higher efficiency lies in worker spirit. High confidence brings about higher results.

Related Articles More From Author

Factors influencing consumer behaviour, what is consumer behaviour, what is market segmentation.

Hawthorne Effect (Definition + Examples)

Interested in learning about the Hawthorne Effect for your psychology class, or just because you're curious? You've come to the right place!

What Is The Hawthorne Effect? 

The Hawthorne Effect, also known as the observer-expectancy effect, is the idea that people change or modify their behaviors when they are being observed. Researchers theorize that researchers may skew the results or interpret it incorrectly due to the Hawthorne Effect. The Hawthorne Effect doesn’t just affect participants.

Observation may become a variable of its own that researchers have to account for when setting up or conducting a study.

How was the Hawthorne Effect Discovered?

Say you’re working in a factory. Do you think that increased light throughout the factory would make you more productive? What about decreased light throughout the factory? 

Do you think you would be more productive with  more  working hours in a day? Or would you be more productive with fewer working hours? 

Do you think that longer breaks would make you more productive? Or would shorter breaks make you more productive? 

These are some of the questions that researchers asked themselves in the 1920s. They conducted a study to see whether or not workers in an electric factory would be more productive under certain conditions. And the answers were surprising. No matter how they altered the conditions of the workplace, the workers were more productive. 

This phenomenon became known as the Hawthorne Effect, named after the Hawthorne Works electric factory where the studies were conducted. 

Causes of Hawthorne Effect 

Why does this happen? The answers may vary based on the context of the study. Take productivity studies. During the Hawthorne studies, it’s possible that the workers received feedback on their productivity as part of the study. That extra observation and feedback could play into increased productivity. 

Demand Effect

Another explanation is that the demand effect comes into play. The participants may have wanted to please the experimenters by giving them the results they wanted to see. This means working harder, even when variables like working hours or lighting is changed in ways that might contradict the original hypothesis. 

Yet another explanation may lie in the participants’ explanation for the study in the first place. Throughout the Hawthorne studies, participants started to grow wary of the researchers’ motives. They worried that the study may result in layoffs. This fear could have serious effects on motivation . 

The Clever Hans Effect

One last cause of the Hawthorne Effect involves a study that involves humans and a horse. If the experiments or observers are aware of the desired effect of the study, they might unintentionally skew the results. In the early 1900s, Wilhelm von Osten claimed that his horse, Clever Hans, could answer arithmetic questions. A German psychologist went to study this horse and see if the owner was actually a fraud. While fraud was not involved, the psychologist observed something interesting. If the owner was present or knew the answers to the arithmetic questions, the horse was able to answer correctly 89% of the time. If the owner was not present or didn’t know the answer, the horse only answered correctly 6% of the time. 

Further studies on the Clever Hans effect show that drug-sniffing dogs and humans are likely to produce a certain result if the experimenters, owners, or observers in the room know what result is desired. 

Real-Life Examples of the Hawthorne Effect

There have been many replication studies aimed at proving or disproving the presence of the Hawthorne Effect. Not all of them have confirmed the existence of the Hawthorne Effect, especially to the degree that was described in the original Hawthorne studies. But some studies do give some validity to the Hawthorne Effect and how it may change the results of different research studies. 

Example 1: Studies on Rheumatoid Arthritis

A study from the  American College of Rheumatology showed that the Hawthorne Effect may have played a role in the results of a study on rheumatoid arthritis. Researchers measured the subjects’ conditions before, during, and after the trial. No matter what variables were brought into the study, the conditions of the patients improved. Once the study was over, the conditions worsened. 

This goes to show that while the Hawthorne Effect has been a part of productivity and human behavior studies, it could also affect the results of studies in the medical world. 

Example 2: Cerebral Palsy Patients 

Contradicting data can show the Hawthorne Effect in action. In the 1970s, a study aimed to see whether or not a treatment would reduce motor dysfunction in patients with cerebral palsy. The researchers recorded testimony from the patients about the result of the treatment and quantitative data based on different tests. As it turned out, the qualitative and quantitative data contradicted each other. The patients said that the treatment worked for them, but the results from the tests showed otherwise. This could support the idea that motives, the demand effect, and the compliance bias could all play into the results of a study. 

Example 3: Clinical Trials 

When subjects are recruited for a clinical trial, they may be forbidden from leaving the hospital or research facility where the test is taking place. Some researchers believe that not only does the Hawthorne Effect take place here, but also an effect called the trial effect. In addition to the modifications in behavior caused by the observers, subjects may also be affected by the level of care in the facility. In addition, they may be more likely to comply with the researchers, and that compliance could affect results. 

Example 4: The Hawthorne Effect in League of Legends

On Reddit, u/redditmademeregister shared how they feel the Hawthorne Effect appears in League of Legends: 

"Ten internet meme points to Gryffindor to whomever guessed that someone from Riot was in our game. Just the simple of act of being there and observing the game in all phases eliminated all toxicity that was in abundant and dare I say common in every other game. This reminiscent of how drivers are suddenly on their best behavior when driving around a police office. Changing one's behavior if they are known to be observed is The Hawthorne Effect."

You can read the whole post here .

Why It’s Important to Know About the Hawthorne Effect

In order to study human behavior, researchers often need human subjects. The Hawthorne Effect is a reminder that humans can be complicated to work with. How can researchers prevent subjects from just giving the answers that researchers might want to hear? How can researchers set up a study to best reflect a “normal” environment, including living or working conditions? And how can this all be done ethically?

These are important questions, and there isn’t one definite answer. But the more that you study psychology and understand setting up studies, the easier it will be to question results and search for the truth.

Related posts:

• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
• Concrete Operational Stage (3rd Cognitive Development)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Principles » Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to Management

Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to Management

The term “Hawthorne” is a term used within several behavioral management theories and is originally derived from the western electric company’s large factory complex named Hawthorne works. Starting in 1905 and operating until 1983, Hawthorne works had 45,000 employees and it produced a wide variety of consumer products, including telephone equipment, refrigerators and electric fans. As a result, Hawthorne works is well-known for its enormous output of telephone equipment and most importantly for its industrial experiments and studies carried out.

Hawthorne Experiment by Elton Mayo

In 1927, a group of researchers led by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger of the Harvard Business School were invited to join in the studies at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The experiment lasted up to 1932. The Hawthorne Experiment brought out that the productivity of the employees is not the function of only physical conditions of work and money wages paid to them. Productivity of employees depends heavily upon the satisfaction of the employees in their work situation. Mayo’s idea was that logical factors were far less important than emotional factors in determining productivity efficiency. Furthermore, of all the human factors influencing employee behavior , the most powerful were those emanating from the worker’s participation in social groups. Thus, Mayo concluded that work arrangements in addition to meeting the objective requirements of production must at the same time satisfy the employee’s subjective requirement of social satisfaction at his work place.

The Hawthorne experiment consists of four parts . These parts are briefly described below:-

• Illumination Experiment.
• Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment.
• Interviewing Programme.
• Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment.

1. Illumination Experiment:

This experiment was conducted to establish relationship between output and illumination. When the intensity of light was increased, the output also increased. The output showed an upward trend even when the illumination was gradually brought down to the normal level. Therefore, it was concluded that there is no consistent relationship between output of workers and illumination in the factory. There must be some other factor which affected productivity.

2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment:

This phase aimed at knowing not only the impact of illumination on production but also other factors like length of the working day, rest hours, and other physical conditions. In this experiment, a small homogeneous work-group of six girls was constituted. These girls were friendly to each other and were asked to work in a very informal atmosphere under the supervision of a researcher. Productivity and morale increased considerably during the period of the experiment. Productivity went on increasing and stabilized at a high level even when all the improvements were taken away and the pre-test conditions were reintroduced. The researchers concluded that socio-psychological factors such as feeling of being important, recognition, attention, participation, cohesive work-group, and non-directive supervision held the key for higher productivity.

3. Mass Interview Programme:

The objective of this programme was to make a systematic study of the employees attitudes which would reveal the meaning which their “working situation” has for them. The researchers interviewed a large number of workers with regard to their opinions on work, working conditions and supervision. Initially, a direct approach was used whereby interviews asked questions considered important by managers and researchers. The researchers observed that the replies of the workmen were guarded. Therefore, this approach was replaced by an indirect technique, where the interviewer simply listened to what the workmen had to say. The findings confirmed the importance of social factors at work in the total work environment.

4. Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment:

This experiment was conducted by Roethlisberger and Dickson with a view to develop a new method of observation and obtaining more exact information about social groups within a company and also finding out the causes which restrict output. The experiment was conducted to study a group of workers under conditions which were as close as possible to normal. This group comprised of 14 workers. After the experiment, the production records of this group were compared with their earlier production records. It was observed that the group evolved its own production norms for each individual worker, which was made lower than those set by the management. Because of this, workers would produce only that much, thereby defeating the incentive system. Those workers who tried to produce more than the group norms were isolated, harassed or punished by the group. The findings of the study are:-

• Each individual was restricting output.
• The group had its own “unofficial” standards of performance.
• Individual output remained fairly constant over a period of time.
• Informal groups play an important role in the working of an organization.

Effect of Monotony and Fatigue on Productivity

Using a study group other experiments were conducted to examine what effect of monotony and fatigue on productivity and how to control those using variables such as rest breaks, work hours and incentives.

At normal conditions the work week was of 48 hours, including Saturdays, with no rest pauses. On the first experiment workers were put on piece-work salary where they were paid on each part they produced, as a result the output increased. On the second experiment the workers were given 2 rest pauses of 5 minutes each for 5 weeks and again output went up. The third experiment further increased the pauses to 10 min and the output went up sharply. For the fourth experiments a 6, 5 min breaks were given and output fell slightly as the workers complained that the work rhythm was broken. On the fifth experiments conditions for experiment three were repeated but this time a free hot meal was given by the company and output wen up again.at the sixth experiment, workers were dismissed at 4.30p.m. Instead of 5.00p.m were an output increase was recorded.

The seventh experiment had the same results as experiments six even though the workers were dismissed at 4.00 p.m. on the eighth and final experiment, all improvements were taken away and workers returned to their original working conditions. Surprisingly, results concluded that output was the highest ever recorded!

Contributions of the Hawthorne Experiment to Management

Elton Mayo and his associates conducted their studies in the Hawthorne plant of the western electrical company, U.S.A., between 1927 and 1930. According to them, behavioral science methods have many areas of application in management. The important features of the Hawthorne Experiment are:

• A business organization is basically a social system . It is not just a techno-economic system.
• The employer can be motivated by psychological and social wants because his behavior is also influenced by feelings, emotions and attitudes. Thus economic incentives are not the only method to motivate people.
• Management must learn to develop co-operative attitudes and not rely merely on command.
• Participation becomes an important instrument in human relations movement. In order to achieve participation , effective two-way communication network is essential.
• Productivity is linked with employee satisfaction in any business organization. Therefore management must take greater interest in employee satisfaction.
• Group psychology plays an important role in any business organization. We must therefore rely more on informal group effort.
• The neo-classical theory emphasizes that man is a living machine and he is far more important than the inanimate machine. Hence, the key to higher productivity lies in employee morale . High morale results in higher output.

A new milestone in organisational behavior was set and Elton Mayo and his team found a way to improve productivity by creating a healthy team spirit environment between workers and supervisors labeling it as The Hawthorne Effect .

The Hawthorne effect is a physiological phenomenon that produces an improvement in human behavior or performance as a result of increased attention of superiors and colleagues. As a combined effort, the effect can enhance results by creating sense of teamwork and a common purpose. As in many ways the Hawthorne effect is interpreted, it generates new ideas concerning importance of work groups and leadership , communication, motivation and job design , which brought forward emphasis on personnel management and human relations.

Although the Hawthorne effect tends to be an ideal contributor to organizational management, it contains a few flaws which such a study is criticized upon. Having the experiments being conducted in controlled environments, lack of validity may exist as the workers knew they were observed hence produced better performances. The human aspect in the Hawthorne experiments was given too much importance were it alone cannot improve production as other factors are a must. Group decision making might also evolve in a flaw as on occasions individual decision making is vital as it might be the way to prevent failures within a system. Another flaw contributes to the freedom given to the workers by the Hawthorne effect. The important constructive role of supervisors may be lost with excess informality within the groups and in fact such a flaw may result in lowering the performance and productivity.

The Hawthorne experiments marked a significant step forward in human behavior and are regarded as one of the most important social science investigations and said to be the foundations of relations approach to management and the development of organizational behavior. Managers are to be aware of the criticism evolved through years on such a study before adopting it. In my opinion, the Hawthorne effect is a validated theory and could be applied within the organisation, though care is to be taken and a limit is to be set. The use of team groups is acceptable as it creates a caring factor between workers and competitively amongst other teams. Supervisors are to keep their role and limit socializing with staff on the shop floor to always keep their role and hence standards are always kept to the maximum. Team meeting are to be held which allows the worker to give out his opinion and feel important by contributing his ideas to the organisation.

Whichever management structure an organisation is to adopt, regular reviews are to be carried out in order to keep a stable output and good standard in quality. Such a strategy will ensure continuous evolution of the organizational management and a successful organization producing maximum efficiency in its produce.

External Links about Hawthorne Experiment:

• A New Vision  (Harvard Business School)
• Elton Mayo  (British Library)

Related posts:

• 4 Phases of Hawthorne Experiment – Explained
• The Hawthorne Studies
• Case Study: Henry Ford’s Contributions to Organizational Behavior and Leadership
• Contingency Approach to Management
• Scientific Management Theory – Directions and Characteristics
• Steps in Management by Objectives (MBO) Process
• Comparison of Classical and Behavioral Approaches to Management
• Criticism of Scientific Management Theory (Taylorism)
• The Cultural Web – Johnson and Scholes’s Model of Organizational Culture
• Span of Management -Meaning and Factors Determining

15 thoughts on “ Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to Management ”

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory

“Like other hallowed but unproven concepts in psychology, the so-called Hawthorne effect has a life of its own.”

By Berkeley Rice

Most students of social psych are familiar with, or had better be if they want to pass. For decades, countless textbooks, Ph.D. theses, journal articles, and learned panels have cited it as a possible explanation for everything from why juvenile criminals in experimental program decide to go straight to why insomniacs sleep better in the laboratory. Whenever psychologists gather, one I apt to hear mention of the Hawthorne effect-even though, as it happens, the effect was never actually demonstrated by the original study.

Proponents of the Hawthorne effect say that people who are singled out for a study of any kind may improve their performance or behavior not because of any specific condition being tested, but simply because of all the attention they receive.

Those who mention the effect usually want to cast doubt on whether a given social innovation, instructional method, or therapy is really responsible for the change in behavior.

Though the Hawthorne effect has been generalized to every kind of psychological study, it grew out of a pioneering series of experiments that tested the impact of improved working conditions on productivity. In typical accounts of the findings, current textbooks report:

“To the surprise of the researchers, every innovation had the effect of increasing productivity.” (Lawrence Wrightsman, Social Psychology, 3 rd ed., Brooks/Cole.)

“Almost no matter what experimental conditions were imposed, increases in output occurred….The investigators had obviously influenced the subjects’ behavior merely by studying that behavior, and this phenomenon has become known as the Hawthorne effect.” (Kelly Shaver, Principles of Social Psychology, 2 nd ed., Winthrop, 1981

The research at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant, near Chicago, from 1924 to 1932, helped to launch a whole new approach to human relations in industry, an approach that underlies current attempts by American industry to motivate workers and increase productivity by redesigning job conditions.

Recent re-evaluations have raised serious doubt about the productivity increases achieved in the Hawthorne studies, and also about what caused them. The longstanding impression that the employees at Hawthorne were happy about the changes in their jobs, and enthusiastically cooperated with the company’s experiments, have also come under sharp attack. A controversial article in American Psychologist last August, written by two radical social psychologists, charges that the Hawthorne effect is simply the result of “capitalist bias” among modern industrial psychologists.”

Like a number of other once widely held but faulty theories in psychology, such as the belief in a racial basis for intelligence, the Hawthorne effect has a life of its own that seems to defy attempts to correct the record. The story of this myth’s growth and its recent debunking contains a moral of caution for behavioral researchers and those who uncritically accept their pronouncements.

The Hawthorne experiments were carried out by a team of production engineers at the plant, where Western Electric manufactured telephone equipment (and still does). Most accounts of the research concentrated on a single study involving a small group of telephone relay assembly workers. In fact, there were several other productivity studies at Hawthorne during that period, the results of which have been pretty much misinterpreted or ignored for 50 years. Those results conflict with, or at least fail to support, the notion of the Hawthorne effect.

The first three experiments at the Hawthorne plant tested the effects of different degrees of illumination on the work of groups of women who inspected parts, assembled relays, or wound coils of wire. According to later accounts, the women in each of these experiments worked progressively faster, regardless of increases or decreases in lighting. The only account of these experiments published at the time, however, was a brief summary in an engineering newsletter. No detailed or documented report ever came out, and the original research data somehow disappeared.

In another experiment, the “Mica Splitting Test,” the researchers first monitored the output of five experienced women at their regular department workstations, where they split, measured, and trimmed mica chips used for insulation. Then they moved the women to a special test room where, unlike their cohorts, they received 10-minute rest breaks at 9:30 a.m., and 2:30 p.m.   After a brief decline in performance following the move, the women’s output increased by an average of .15 percent and remained at that level for the duration of the experiment. When they returned to their department, losing the rest periods, their output dropped back to the original rate. Since no other conditions had changed, the researchers attributed the increase in output to the beneficial effects of rest periods, not to the effect of the experiment itself.

In still another study, the researchers observed the performance of a team of 14 men who assembled telephone terminals in the “bank wiring” department.   They then moved these men to a special test room, without introducing any other changes in work or pay conditions. Despite the move to a separate experimental setting, the men’s output did not increase, as it would have if the Hawthorne effect had occurred. Throughout the one-year experiment, the group maintained a steady rate of two terminals per day. By means of an informal understanding, individual members adjusted their work rates to keep up with or wait for the rest of the group. Group disapproval slowed down those whom the team members branded as “slaves” or “speed kings.” If the team got ahead of its normal rate, during the morning, the members tended to ease up during the afternoon. Thus, there was no increase in output to be explained by any Hawthorne effect.

In their popular accounts of the Hawthorne studies, published during the 1930s, Elton Mayo and his protégé Frist Roethlisberger, industrial psychologists at Harvard, and William Dickson, A Western Electric engineer, tended to ignore or discount the results of these other experiments. So did most subsequent authors—who based their work on May, Roethlisberger, and Dickson, rather than re-examine the original data.

Nearly everyone concentrated on the longest experiment at Hawthorne (April 1927-June 1932), involving only five telephone relay assemblers. In their regular department workstations, these young women assembled the relays from about 35 separate small parts, a process requiring modest skills of memory, dexterity, and hand-eye coordination. After monitoring their performance for two weeks without their knowledge, the researchers moved the five women to a separate relay-assembly test room in order to measure the effect of two variables: rest periods and the length of the workday.

As summarized in a currently popular textbook, this is what supposed to have happened: “Regardless of the conditions, whether there were more or fewer rest periods, longer or shorter workdays…the women worked harder and more efficiently. Although this effect was probably due to several reasons, the most important was that the women felt they were something special…that they were expected to perform exceptionally. The were happy, a lot of attention was paid to them, and they complied with what they thought the experimenter (their boss) wanted.” (Jonathan Freedman, et al, Social Psychology , 4 th ed., Prentice Hall, 1981).

Enter H. McIlvaine Parsons, a distinguished industrial psychologist, past president of the Society of Engineering Psychologists and of the Human Factors Society. Like most of his colleagues, Parsons had accepted and often cited the Hawthorne effect without questioning the evidence. (Indeed, he says that it’s not even clear who first identified the supposed effect.) Prompted by a student’s query, however, his curiosity led him in the early 1970s to a lengthy re-examination of second- and then first-hand accounts of the research.

Many of those originally involved in the research had long since died, and few of those who had written about it later had actually observed the experiments themselves.   When he heard that Western Electric was planning to celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the experiments at the original red brick plant in 1974, Parsons got himself invited.   There he had the good fortune to meet and interview Donald Chipman, one of the supervisor-observers in the relay test room experiment, and Theresa Zajac, one of the five experimental subjects. Nearly 70, she was still toiling faithfully at the same plant, 50 years later.

From his interviews and his analysis of the original research data, Parsons discovered not only serious gaps and flaws in the published reports of the Hawthorne experiments, but also a number of what he calls “confounding variables” that previous researchers had ignored. For example, unlike the big open floor of the relay-assembly department, the test room was separate, smaller, and quieter, with better lighting and ventilation.   And the supervisors were friendly, tolerant observers, not the usual authoritarian foremen.   Any or all of these factors may have contributed to the improved performance.   The friendlier atmosphere of the test room also led to the most serious flaw in the experiment. After about three months, talking among the workers increased to the point that the experimenters feared that it would jeopardize the research.   According to the observer’s log, four of the women were reprimanded and told that they would be taken back to the regular department unless their performance improved.   After eight months of the experiment, according to Parsons, two of the women “persisted in talking too much while they worked.   Their output rates were dropping, and therefore the group’s rate dropped.”   The other women resented the resulting loss in their pay.   After repeated warnings, the two women were dropped from the study, and replaced by two other, more cooperative relay assemblers.   One of the replacements proved so industrious and enthusiastic that she soon became the group’s unofficial leader, often spurring her cohorts to work faster.

The replacement of two out of five subjects in mid-experiment, particularly for being too slow, seriously contaminates any subsequent findings of increased output by the group.   But even the claims of continuing gains in productivity do not bear up under careful examination of the data. Actually, the group’s hourly output fell off noticeably-as one might have expected—during periods when the rest breaks were withdrawn and when the workday was lengthened. Over the course of the entire study, however, the group’s total output did rise by nearly 30 percent.  

Parsons uncovered several possible reasons for the increases in output, in addition to the replacement of the two slow workers-reasons that seem far more plausible than the mysterious Hawthorne effect.   For example, the researchers never seemed to consider the possibility that over the course of the five years, the women were simply becoming more skillful at their work—and thereby faster. As evidence, Parsons noted that at various times during the experiment, when the supervisor asked them to try to work as fast as they could for short intervals, he found that their rate of output rose considerably, showing the potential for improved performance.   Since the women’s performance was not measured back at their old department, after leaving the test room, there’s no way of to judge whether such improvement occurred.

Parsons detected tow important factors that anyone familiar with the theories of behavior modifications would spot, but that the Hawthorne researchers largely ignored. (Of course, there theories were not yet well known in the 1930s.)

Back in the relay-assembly department, the women had been paid a fixed hourly wage plus a collective piecework rate based on the department’s total output.   In the test room, the collective piecework rate was based on the output of only the five workers, so that individual performance had a much more significant impact on weekly pay.   The monetary reward for increased individual effort thus became much more evident and perhaps more effective than in the department setting.

This motivation effect was undoubtedly multiplied by another “confounding variable,” Parsons pointed out.   Unlike the department shop floor, where rely assemblers had no regular or immediate access to individual production figures, the experimental test room provided plenty of what Parsons calls “performance feedback.”   Separate counters recorded the number of relays assembled by each worker. The counters were accessible to any of the women who wanted to check them, and some did. The supervisor took regular readings from them and posted daily totals on the wall. The observer’s logs contain numerous comments by the women that show they were interested in, and kept close track of, their output.   For example, on the afternoon of April 19, 1929, Theresa Zajac remarked “I’m about 15 relays behind yesterday.” Another woman said, “I made 421 yesterday, and I’m going to make better today.” As the observer commented, the women were “trying to beat their former output records.”

As evidence for the importance of performance feedback, Parsons cites the results of another relay-assembly experiment designed as a control group for the test-room study. Although the five women in the control group also worked under the small group pay rate, they worked at a separate bench on the department floor, and had no regular access to information about their individual daily output.   And while their output also rose (by about 12 percent) after they switched from their regular pay schedule to the small-group rate, it remained at that level until they returned to their old work stations whereupon it dropped to the original level.   There were no progressive increases as in the test-room experiment. In an article in Science (March 8, 1974), Parsons compared the two groups and concluded that “the faster the workers assembled relays, the more money they got, but knowledge of results was essential to make this differential reinforcement effective.”  

Since subsequent research has failed to duplicate the supposed Hawthorne effect in various experimental settings, Parsons believes that it simply shows the effect of variables that experimenters are unaware of, or over which they have no control.   In his writings and lectures, Parsons, now 70, has attempted to correct the mistaken interpretations of the Hawthorne studies, but he recognizes that the theory is so entrenched that it has become part of the accepted wisdom among social scientists.   When asked why the authors of current textbooks continue to include unquestioningly the traditional account of the research, despite his well-publicized critique, Parsons replied, “They’re lazy.”

So much for the factual basis of the Hawthorne myth that productivity increased “regardless of the conditions tested.”   Output, as Parsons showed, had not improved under all circumstances.   As for the other part of the myth-that the workers’ performance improved because they knew they were part of an important experiment and responded enthusiastically to the attention paid to them—that notion has just been skewered by Daria Bramel and Ronald Friend of the Stat University of New York at Stony Brook, in their American Psychologist article.  

Bramel and Friend’s analysis is heavily laden with Marxist ideology and a conspiratorial view of industrial psychologists as unwitting or even willing tools of capitalism, helping to manipulate and exploit the working class for the sake of corporate profits.   Regardless of the accuracy of their view, their article reveals considerably evidence of suspicion reluctance, and resistance among the workers involved in the Hawthorne experiments, which contrasts sharply with the “wholehearted cooperation” reported by Mayo and others.

According to one account cited by Bramel and Friend, the two talkative women in the relay test-room experiment were dropped for “gross insubordination” as well as low output.   In a private letter, Elton Mayo referred to one of them as having “gone Bolshevik.” After interviewing her later, Roethlisberger reported: “She also said that she had heard comments from girls in the regular department to the effect that what the company really was after in the test room was maximum output, and that the test room was not being run, as the investigators said, to determine the best work conditions.”

As the experiment went on, with the introduction and then withdrawal of rest breaks and longer workdays, the women remained “somewhat suspicious and apprehensive,” engaging in frequent skirmishes with the observers and researchers.   “Give me back the rests,” said one of the women, “ and see how my output goes up.” Based on their reading of the original documents, Bramel and Friend interpreted the decreases in output not as an effect of the withdrawal of rest periods, but as a deliberate slowdown by the group designed to force their return.  

Bramel and Friend argue that because of “elitist biases,” the psychologists who wrote about the Hawthorne experiments assumed that the discovery of more productive working conditions would somehow benefit the workers as well as management.   Mayo, for example, referred to output as an “index of well-being” apparently assuming that a work group’s productivity corresponds to and depends on the morale of its members. (Recent research in industrial productivity does not support that assumption.)   To factory owners and managers in the 1930s who followed the results of the Hawthorne studies, anything that promised to increase output without raising pay scales seemed to be worth pursuing.

As the recent attempts to re-evaluate the Hawthorne experiment demonstrate, the studies continue to serve as a kind of Rorschach test for managers and industrial psychologists, enabling them to find evidence to support many different and often conflicting theories of how to motivate the modern industrial worker.   (One recent analysis suggested that the increased output at Hawthorne was really caused by the deepening economic depression at the time, and the women’s resulting need for more money.) This confusion may not be all bad.   For whatever the flaws, in the conduct and subsequent interpretations of the Hawthorne studies, they did spur effort to humanize the workplace, to find more sensitive ways to mobilize workers, rather than regarding them as assembly line robots that could be kept producing by fear and discipline.   The promise was that social engineering, supported by enlightened management and cooperative workers, could usher in a new era of industrial peace and prosperity.   If this hope has since proven somewhat naïve, it was at least well intentioned.

------------------------------Berkeley Rise is a senior editor of Psychology Today

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is the Hawthorne Effect?

• How It Works
• Modern Research
• In Medical Practice
• Hawthorne Effect FAQs

Hawthorne Effect Definition: How It Works and Is It Real

Erika Rasure is globally-recognized as a leading consumer economics subject matter expert, researcher, and educator. She is a financial therapist and transformational coach, with a special interest in helping women learn how to invest.

Investopedia / Ellen Lindner

The Hawthorne Effect is the supposed inclination of people who are the subjects of an experiment or study to change or improve the behavior being evaluated only because it is being studied and not because of changes in the experiment parameters or stimulus. It was first identified by organizational researchers in the 1920s.

More recent research suggests that the Hawthorne Effect may not actually be real and that the original study was flawed.

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne Effect is when subjects of an experimental study attempt to change or improve their behavior simply because it is being evaluated or studied.
• The term was coined during experiments that took place at Western Electric’s factory in the Hawthorne suburb of Chicago in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
• The Hawthorne Effect is thought to be unavoidable in studies and experiments that use humans as subjects.
• Whether or not the Hawthorne Effect is real remains up for debate.

How the Hawthorne Effect Works

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the fact that people will modify their behavior simply because they are being observed. The effect gets its name from one of the most famous industrial history experiments that took place at Western Electric’s factory in the Hawthorne suburb of Chicago in the late 1920s and early 1930s. However, subsequent analyses of the effect have revealed that the original results were likely overstated along with several flaws in the study's design and execution.

The Hawthorne experiments were originally designed by the National Research Council to study the effect of shop-floor lighting on worker productivity at a telephone parts factory in Hawthorne. However, the researchers were perplexed to find that productivity improved, not just when the lighting was improved, but also when the lighting was diminished. Productivity improved whenever changes were made in other variables such as working hours and rest breaks.

The researchers concluded that the workers’ productivity was not being affected by the changes in working conditions, but rather by the fact that someone was concerned enough about their working conditions to conduct an experiment on it.

The Hawthorne Effect and Modern Research

Research often relies on human subjects. In these cases, the Hawthorne Effect is the intrinsic bias that researchers must take into consideration when studying their findings. Although it can be challenging to determine how a subject's awareness of a study might modify their behavior, researchers should nevertheless strive to be mindful of this phenomenon and adapt accordingly.

While there is no universally agreed-upon methodology for achieving this, experience and keen attention to the situation can help researchers prevent this effect from tarnishing their results.

Although it can be challenging to determine how a subject's awareness of a study might modify their behavior, researchers should nevertheless strive to be mindful of this phenomenon and adapt accordingly.

The Hawthorne Effect in Medical Practice

As an example of the Hawthorne Effect, consider a 1978 study conducted to determine if cerebellar neurostimulators could reduce the motor dysfunction of young cerebral palsy sufferers. The objective testing revealed that the patients in the study claimed that their motor dysfunctions decreased and that they embraced the treatment. But this patient feedback countered the quantitative analysis , which demonstrated that there was scant increased motor function.

Indeed, the increased human interaction with doctors, nurses, therapists, and other medical personnel during these trials had a positive psychological impact on patients, which consequently fostered their illusion of physical improvements to their conditions. When analyzing the results, researchers concluded that the Hawthorne Effect negatively impacted the data, as there was no evidence that the cerebellar neurostimulators were measurably effective.

Is the Hawthorne Effect Real?

While the Hawthorne Effect is taught in business schools and sociology courses around the world, recent scholarship has begun to question its validity. According to Scientific American, out of the first three original experiments, only one showed improved productivity, the second found no improved productivity, and in the third productivity actually worsened. What is suspicious is that the sponsors of the study ordered the destruction of all data, including everything that had been sent to MIT, and for no report to be written. When the original data finally did resurface, several scholars were able to debunk the initial findings. Additionally, modern attempts to replicate the Hawthorne Effect have been inconclusive. Only seven out of 40 such studies found any evidence of the effect.

Why Is It Called the Hawthorne Effect?

The name comes from where the original studies took place: in a factory complex known as the Hawthorne Works, outside of Chicago, IL.

What Were Some of the Flaws of the Original Hawthorne Study?

Scholars have identified several flaws in the studies that led to the Hawthorne Effect. For one, the sample size was very small: just five individual workers. Moreover, the members of the sample changed over time. The researchers conducting the study were not blinded and so could have been biased. The data collected, even if it had been sound, has been further criticized as being misinterpreted.

Scientific American. " The Hawthorne effect: An Old Scientists’ Tale Lingering 'in the Gunsmoke of Academic Snipers' ."

Levitt, Steven D., and John A. List. " Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments ." NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research , No 15016, May 2009, pp. 1–19.

Sparrow, Sara, and Edward Zigler. "Evaluation of a Patterning Treatment for Retarded Children."  Pediatrics , Vol . 62, No. 2. 1978, pp. 137-150.

Liptak, Gregory S. "Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cerebral Palsy."  Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2005, pp. 56-163.

Bk, Dr Sujatha, Dr. Mayurnath T. Reddy, and Dr. Pooja Pathak. "Camouflage in Research‐The Hawthorne Effect."  International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2019, pp. 26996-26999.

The New York Times. " Scientific Myths That Are Too Good to Die ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy