Advertisement
No access
Article

What Happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies.

Science
8 Mar 1974
Vol 183, Issue 4128
pp. 922-932

Abstract

The Hawthorne effect in experimental research is the unwanted effect of the experimental operations themselves. Following the Hawthorne studies, various explanations have been proposed to account for rising rates of production. Although in the Relay Assembly Test Room experiment the experimental operations may have produced other extraneous variables, a reexamination based on new and neglected evidence has yielded a new interpretation. The new variable, made more plausible because research in other contexts has shown it to have similar effects, is a combination of information feedback and financial reward. It is an example of the control of behavior by its consequences. Although several approaches may be taken to explain the effects of response-consequence contingencies, I have favored operant conditioning because it seems to account for progressive increases in response rate—the Hawthorne phenomenon. Generalizing from the particular situation at Hawthorne, I would define the Hawthorne effect as the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do. But the Hawthorne effect need not be viewed solely as a problem in conducting experiments. The phenomenon that created it should be studied in its own right, as Sommer suggested with a different phenomenon in mind. The study of response-consequence contingencies might well be extended to the examination of motivation in industrial workers.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

Annett, J., Feedback and Human Behavior (1969).
ARGYLE, M, OCCUP PSYCHOL 27: 98 (1953).
Bilodeau, I. M., Acquisition of Skill: 255 (1966).
BRAYFIELD, A.H., EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 52: 396 (1955).
BROWN, I.D., AN ASYMMETRICAL TRANSFER EFFECT IN RESEARCH ON KNOWLEDGE OF PERFORMANCE, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 50: 118 (1966).
CAMPBELL, J.P., ANNUAL REV PSYCHOLOG 22 (1971).
CAMPBELL, J.P., MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR (1970).
CHAPANIS, A, KNOWLEDGE OF PERFORMANCE AS AN INCENTIVE IN REPETITIVE, MONOTONOUS TASKS, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 48: 263 (1964).
CHAPANIS, A, RESEARCH TECHNIQUES (1959).
CHASE, S, MEN AT WORK (1945).
CHIPMAN, D.A., PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
CUMMINGS, L.L., PERFORMANCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS AS DETERMINANTS OF GOAL SETTING, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 55: 526 (1971).
DALE, J, MANAGEMENT METHODS 16: 38 (1959).
DEMBER, W.N., GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY M (1970).
DICKSON, W.J., PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
Ferster, C. B., Behavior Principles: 350 (1968).
Ferster, C. B., Schedules of Reinforcement: 89 (1957).
FISHBEIN, M, ANNUAL REV PSYCHOLOG 23 (1972).
GAGNE, R.M., ORG BEHAV HUMAN PERF 3: 156 (1968).
GAGNE, R.M., PSYCHOL B 70: 474 (1968).
GAGNE, R.M., PSYCHOLOGY HUMAN PER (1959).
GEORGOPOULOS, B.S., A PATH-GOAL APPROACH TO PRODUCTIVITY, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 41: 345 (1957).
GIBBS, C. B., MANAGER: 374 (5 1944).
GRAEN, G, J APPL PSYCHOL 2 53 (1969).
HEIMSTRA, N.W., PSYCHOLOGY CONTEMPOR (1973).
HOMANS, G.C., READINGS SOCIAL PSYC (1952).
Keller, F. S., Learning: Reinforcement Theory 2 (1969).
KINTSCH, W, RUNWAY PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF DRIVE STRENGTH AND MAGNITUDE OF REINFORCEMENT, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY 55: 882 (1962).
KLEMMER, E.T., PRODUCTIVITY AND ERRORS IN 2 KEYING TASKS - A FIELD-STUDY, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 46: 401 (1962).
KORMAN, A.K., CONSIDERATION INITIATING STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CRITERIA - REVIEW, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 19: 349 (1966).
Landsberger, H. A., Hawthorne Revisited: "Management and the Worker," Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry (1958).
LAWLER, E.E., JOB ATTITUDES AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION - THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 23: 223 (1970).
LOCKE, E.A., JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB PERFORMANCE - THEORETICAL ANALYSIS, ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 5: 484 (1970).
Logan, F. A., Incentive (1960).
MAIER, NRF, PSYCHOLOGY INDUSTRY (1955).
MARCH, J.G., ORGANIZATIONS (1958).
MARRIOTT, R, OCCUP PSYCHOL 23: 47 (1949).
MAYO, E, CITED INDIRECTLY.
MAYO, E, HUMAN PROBLEMS INDUS (1933).
MILLER, G.A., PLANS STRUCTURE HEHA (1960).
NORD, W.R., BEYOND TEACHING MACHINE - NEGLECTED AREA OF OPERANT CONDITIONING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 4: 375 (1969).
NOTTERMAN, J.M., DYNAMICS RESPONSE (1965).
OPSAHL, R.L., ROLE OF FINANCIAL COMPENSATION IN INDUSTRIAL MOTIVATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 66: 94 (1966).
PARSONS, H.M., THESIS U CALIFORNIA (1963).
PENNOCK, G.A., PERS J 8: 296 (1930).
PETER, L.J., PETER PRESCRIPTION H (1972).
PORTER, L.W., MANAGERIAL ATTITUDES (1968).
QUINN, R.P., ANNUAL REV PSYCHOLOG 18 (1967).
RATH, A.A., THE CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES - MANAGEMENTS MOST POTENT MOTIVATIONAL TOOL, PERSONNEL JOURNAL 39: 172 (1960).
ROETHLISBERGER, F.J., MANAGEMENT WORKER (1939).
ROETHLISBERGER, F.J., PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
ROTHE, H.F., OUTPUT RATES AMONG COIL WINDERS, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 42: 182 (1958).
SALES, S.M., SUPERVISORY STYLE AND PRODUCTIVITY - REVIEW AND THEORY, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 19: 275 (1966).
SCHNEIDER, B, TOWARD SPECIFYING CONCEPT OF WORK CLIMATE - STUDY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN PRIESTS, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 56: 447 (1972).
Seashore, S. E., Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group (1954).
Skinner, B. F., Science and Human Behavior (1953).
Smith, H. C., Psychology of Industrial Behavior 2 (1964).
SNOW, C.E., TECH ENG NEWS: 256 (11 1927).
SOMMER, R, HAWTHORNE DOGMA, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 70: 592 (1968).
VITELES, M.S., MOTIVATION MORALE IN (1953).
VROOM, V.H., WORK MOTIVATION (1964).
Whitehead, T. N., The Industrial Worker 1 (1938).
Whyte, W. F., Money and Motivation: An Analysis of Incentive in Industry (1955).
WHYTE, W.F., PSYCHOLOGY TODAY: 67 (4 1972).
YUKI, G, J APPL PSYCHOL 56: 19 (1972).

(0)eLetters

eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 183 | Issue 4128
8 March 1974

Submission history

Published in print: 8 March 1974

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

H. M. Parsons
Riverside Research Institute, Park Avenue, New York 10028

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage

Altmetrics

Citations

Cite as

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

View Options

Check Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS ID LOGIN

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.

More options

Purchase digital access to this article

Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media