Photo: StutiJohn List and I stumbled onto the original, never-analyzed data from the original illumination experiments done at the Hawthorne Plant. These studies gave rise to what is now known as the Hawthorne Effect.
We find that there actually wasn’t a Hawthorne Effect in the original data, at least not of the sort that you read about in virtually every introductory psychology textbook, where it is claimed that the workers’ output went up every time the lighting was changed, whether the change was to make the lights brighter or dimmer.
The Economist magazine has a nice piece on it.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The Hawthorne Effect must related to Heysenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which states that measuring a quantity affects the quantity you measure. It’s like saying “I used to like going to Hawaii, but now there are too many tourists.” The tourists go to Hawaii for the reasons people went there in the first place; it’s a tropical paradise. But going to experience the tropical paradise changes it.
kenn
Sorry Kenn, that is an often stated but incorrect definition of the Uncertainty Principle. You are thinking of the Observer Effect, which, I agree, may be related to the Hawthorn Effect — to the extent it actually exists.
Love it love it love it.
I’m not sure why you seem to think that you are onto something new here. The Wikipedia article yourself states: “Subsequent study of the results has found that productivity varied due to other factors such as the weekly cycle of work or the seasonal temperature and so the initial conclusions were overstated and the effect was weak or illusory.” And points to prior work.
J.Ja
Interesting read. But intutively, aren’t people expected to just push a bit harder when any experiment / observation is going on?
Actually, Justin James, it points to the same Economist article Levitt linked to.
maybe so, but if Hawthorne was watching, you would have changed your analysis
Don’t you hate how data screws up a good story. . .