Psychology
Self-Care
Relationships
Psychology » Famous Experiments
Hawthorne Effect: Definition, How It
Works, And How To Avoid It
By Ayesh Perera
Updated on September 7, 2023
Reviewed by Saul Mcleod, PhD & Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
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.
Table of Contents
1. Hawthorne Studies
2. Illumination Experiment
3. Elton Mayo's Experiment
4. Bank Wiring Observation Room Study
5. Examples
6. Alternative Explanations
7. Criticism
8. How To Reduce
9. FAQs
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).
Search
SUBSCRIBE
There are 4 separate experiments in Hawthorne Studies:
1. Illumination Experiments (1924-1927)
2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments (1927-1932)
3. Experiments in Interviewing Workers (1928- 1930)
4. 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.
Education
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.
Criticism
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.
Secrecy:
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.
References
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.
PRINT
Reviewer
Author
Saul Mcleod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Educator, Researcher
Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher
education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and
educational sectors.
Search
CONTACT
CATEGORIES
OUR STAFF
We are committed to engaging with you and taking action
based on your suggestions, complaints, and other feedback.
Theories & Famous Studies
Saul Mcleod
Olivia Guy-Evans
Self-Care
Florence Yeung
Julia Simkus
Research Methodology
Ioanna Stavraki
Anna Drescher
Simply Scholar Ltd. 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
contact@simplypsychology.org
Student Resources
PINTEREST
LINKEDIN
T WIT T ER
EDITORIAL POLICY
CONTACT U S
© 2023 Simply Scholar, Ltd. — All rights reserved
ABOU T U S
PRIVACY POLICY