The Hawthorne studies are a common topic in research methods and organisational psychology courses. However, textbook material on this topic is often misleading and sometimes historically inaccurate (Olson, Verley, Santos and Salas, 2004). Three common Hawthorne myths are reviewed and countered with factual highlights in order to help instructors correct mythical drift in our professional knowledge-base. Interested readers are also directed to several scholarly resources on the topic. In our view, Hawthorne mythology obfuscates important methodological lessons and encourages simplistic thinking about the causes of human behaviour. However, what really happened at Hawthorne provides excellent material for teaching critical thinking and research design skills and the truism that both human and environmental variables drive behaviour at work.
References
1.
AlveroA. M.BucklinB. R.AustinJ. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 3–29.
2.
AdairJ. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 413–432.
3.
BlumenthalA. L. (1975). A reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt. American Psychologist, 30, 1081–1088.
4.
BramelD.FriendR. (1981). Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 867–878.
5.
CareyA. (1967). The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32, 403–416.
6.
EllenbergerH. F. (1972, July). The story of “Anna O”: A critical review with new data. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 8, 267–279.
7.
FrankeR. H.KaulJ. D. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. American Sociological Review, 43, 623–643.
8.
GibsonJ.ShullmanA. H.GreenwoodR. G. (1991, August). The Hawthorne studies: What are we teaching? What should we be teaching? Paper presented at the 51st Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami Beach, FL.
9.
GillespieR. (1988). The Hawthorne experiments and the politics of experimentation. In MorawskiJ. G. (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 114–137). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
GillespieR. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
GreenwoodR. G.BoltonA. A.GreenwoodB. A. (1983). Hawthorne a half century later: Relay assembly participants remember. Journal of Management, 9, 217–231.
12.
HarrisB. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert?American Psychologist, 34, 151–160.
13.
JewellL. N. (1998). Contemporary industrial/organisational psychology (3rd edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
14.
JexS. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
JohnstonJ. M.PennypackerH. S. (1993). Strategies and tactics of behavioural research (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
16.
JonesS. R. G. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne effect?American Journal of Sociology, 98, 451–68.
17.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
LeaheyT. H. (1981). The mistaken mirror: On Wundt's and Titchener's psychologies. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 17, 272–282.
MayoE. (1933). The human problems of industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan.
21.
MuchinskyP. M. (2003). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organisational psychology (7th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22.
OlsonR.VerleyJ.SantosL.SalasC. (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-Organisational Psychologist, 41, 23–39.
23.
ParsonsH. M. (1974, March 8). What happened at Hawthorne? New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies. Science, 183, 922–932.
24.
RiceB. (1982). The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, 16, 70–74.
25.
RoethlisbergerF. J.DicknsonW. J. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. Oxford, UK: Basic Books.
27.
SnowC. E. (1927, November). Research on industrial illumination: A discussion of the relation of illumination intensity to productive efficiency. The Tech Engineering News, pp. 257, 272, 274, 282.
28.
SpectorP. E. (2000). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
29.
TaylorF. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
30.
TurnerC. E. (1933, June). Test room studies in employee effectiveness. The American Journal of Public Health, p. 584.
WhiteheadT. N. (1938). The industrial worker: A statistical study of human relations in a group of manual workers (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
ZehrD. (2000). Portrayals of Wundt and Titchener in introductory psychology texts. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 122–126.
