The Transformative Power of the Hawthorne Effect
The Hawthorne Effect is the observed tendency for participants in an experiment or study to alter their behavior simply because they are being watched, not necessarily due to any changes in the experimental parameters. This phenomenon was first noted by researchers in the 1920s and remains a subject of debate.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawthorne Effect occurs when people modify their behavior due to the awareness of being observed.
- The term originated from experiments conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works factory in Chicago during the late 1920s and early 1930s.
- The phenomenon is considered inherent and unavoidable in research involving human subjects.
- The validity of the Hawthorne Effect is controversial, with ongoing debates regarding the accuracy of the original studies.
How the Hawthorne Effect Works
The Hawthorne Effect illustrates that individuals may enhance their performance or change their behavior simply because they realize they are part of a study. Named after the experiments at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, early research in the 1920s and 1930s aimed to study how different lighting levels impacted worker productivity. Interestingly, productivity surged not just with improved lighting but also with changes in other environmental aspects, such as reduced lighting or altered work hours. This led researchers to infer that the workers’ heightened productivity stemmed more from the awareness of observation than from environmental changes. However, flaws in the original study were later identified, including overstatements and poor research design.
The Hawthorne Effect and Modern Research
In contemporary research involving human subjects, the Hawthorne Effect poses a notable challenge—participants’ awareness of being studied may inadvertently distort results. Researchers must remain cognizant of this bias and design their studies to minimize its impact as much as possible, though achieving this remains complex and subtle.
Illustrating the Hawthorne Effect in Medical Practice
An insightful example of the Hawthorne Effect can be found in a 1978 study that investigated the efficacy of cerebellar neurostimulators for young cerebral palsy patients. Despite patients reporting perceived improvements in motor function and overall engagement with the treatment, objective data revealed insignificant changes. The increased interaction with healthcare providers likely boosted the patients’ morale, leading to a perception of improved physical condition—a clear instance of the Hawthorne Effect influencing study results.
Is the Hawthorne Effect Real?
The concept of the Hawthorne Effect continues to be a subject of scrutiny. Though it is a staple in academic teachings, recent analyses question its validity. For instance, out of the initial studies, only one showed any productive improvements. Skeptics argue that poor sample sizes, data handling issues, and observer biases originally clouded the findings, compounding the doubts surrounding the phenomenon. Despite these debates, about seven out of 40 modern attempts to replicate the effect found supporting evidence, making it a contentious yet intriguing topic in behavioral research.
Why Is It Called the Hawthorne Effect?
The term Hawthorne Effect derives its name from the Hawthorne Works factory where the pioneering studies occurred.
Were There Flaws in the Original Hawthorne Study?
Critics of the initial Hawthorne studies highlight several issues: a small sample size of just five workers, changes in the participant pool, non-blinded researchers, and misinterpretation of the collected data. These factors significantly question the integrity and accuracy of the original findings.
Related Terms: Experimental Bias, Observer Effect, Placebo Effect, Behavioral Science, Organizational Behavior.
References
- 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”.
