Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment

Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

The "Hawthorne effect" — what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?
Author(s): Gustav Wickström and Tom Bendix
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Vol. 26, No. 4 (August 2000), pp.
363-367
Published by: the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health , the Finnish Institute
of Occupational Health , the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment ,
and the Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967074
Accessed: 22-10-2015 23:07 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967074?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Norwegian National Institute of Occupational
Health, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Commentaries
Scand J WorkEnvironHealth2000;26(4):363-367

The"Hawthorne - whatdidtheoriginal
effect" Hawthorne
studiesactually
show?
byGustav
Wickström, MD2
MD,1TomBendix,

Wickström T.The"Hawthorne
G,Bendix - what
effect" didtheoriginal
Hawthorne
studies show?Scand
actually
JWork
Environ
Health 367.
2000;26(4):363-
The"Hawthorne effect"
is oftenmentionedas a possibleexplanation
forpositive inintervention
results studies.
It
is usedtocovermanyphenomena, notonlyunwitting confoundingofvariables understudy bythestudy but
itself,
alsobehavioralchangeduetoan awareness ofbeingobserved, activecompliance withthesupposedwishesof
researchersbecauseofspecialattention
received,orpositiveresponsetothestimulus beingintroduced.Attimes,
thetermseemsto be usedas a socialequivalent to "placeboeffect".In socialresearch,thereis muchcritical
literature that,ingeneral,
indicating theterm"Hawthorne effect"shouldbe avoided.Insteadofreferring tothe
ambiguous anddisputableHawthorne effect
whenevaluating intervention researchers
effectiveness, shouldintro-
ducespecificpsychological andsocialvariablesthatmayhaveaffected theoutcomeunderstudybutwerenot
monitored duringtheproject,alongwiththepossibleeffectontheobserved results.

Keytermscontext,
evaluation, intervention,
interpretation, worklife.
paradigm,

When various typesof intervention studiescarriedout TheHawthorne

in industryare evaluated,the "Hawthorneeffect"is of-
tenmentionedas a possible explanationfortheobserved
changes.The termis mostlyused to referto thebehav-
ior-modifying effectsof being the subject of social in-
vestigation, regardlessof thecontextof theinvestigation
(1). In occupationalhealthliterature it is referred
to as a
nonspecificeffectcaused by participationin a studyas
such ratherthanby the specificintervention measures
taken(2, 3). It is oftencomparedwiththe "placebo ef-
fect",introducedby researchersin pharmacology.Very
few authorsdisclose any knowledgeof thestudiesfrom
whichtheHawthorneeffectderivesits name. Editorsof
distinguished journalsin bothclinical medicineand epi-
demiologycitemisleadingdictionarieswhenreferring to
it (4, 5). Even well-knownhandbookson theprinciples
of evaluationresearchattribute theHawthorneeffectto
theresultsof an unpublishedpilotstudyon illumination
and compareit withthe"placebo effect"(6).
This paper aims to clarifyhow farthe generalcon-
ceptionof the"Hawthorneeffect"agreeswiththeresults
of theHawthornestudiesand how usefulit is when re-
sultsobtainedin occupationalhealthintervention are be-
ing evaluated.
studies
Influencedby the"principlesof scientificmanagement",
introducedby FrederickTaylor (7) in 1911, the Haw-
thornestudieswereinitiatedin 1924 by themanagement
of theHawthorneplantof theWesternElectricCompa-
ny in Chicago, Illinois,in theUnitedStates.They start-
ed withan inquiryintotherelationshipbetweenillumi-
nationand productivity, whilethemainstudies,conduct-
ed between1927 and 1933 in cooperationwiththeMas-
sachusettsInstituteof Technology (MIT) and Harvard
University,were concernedwiththe effectsof changes
in restpauses and workhourson productivity(8). The
charismaticfigurebehindthe scenes of the studieswas
EltonMayo (1933), who encouragedmanagementat the
Hawthorneplantto develop further theirinquiryintothe
factorsaffectingproductivity.Inspiredby the work of
Durkheim,he espoused a conflict-free groupconscious-
ness thatchallengedtheconceptof class conflict.
In the initialphase of the studies,the effectof illu-
minationon productivity was examined.This experiment
was brieflydescribedin theprincipalaccountoftheHaw-
thornestudies(8). The illuminationwas decreased step
by stepfortheexperimentalsubjects,while thecontrols

* TurkuRegionalInstitute
ofOccupationalHealth,Turku,Finland.
2 Institute
forSportScienceandClinicalBiomechanics, ofSouthern
Denmark,Odense,Denmark.
University
Reprintrequeststo:Professor
GustavWickström,
TurkuRegionalInstitute
ofOccupational
Health,Hämeenkatu
10,FIN-20500
Turku,Finland.[E-mail:Gustav.
Wickstrom®occuphealth.fi]

Scand J WorkEnvironHealth 2000, vol 26, no 4 363

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Commentary:the "Hawthorneeffect"

receivedconstantillumination. Both sets of subjects considerableinterestandspecialattention showntowards

but
slowly steadily increased their performance of in- each of theworkers participating in theexperiment, as
specting parts,assembling or
relays winding coils.Itwas wellas thespecialprivileges allowedthem, wereproba-
notuntilillumination in theexperimental roomwas re- blyofgreatsignificance fortheobserved increaseinpro-
ducedtoa levelcorresponding tomoonlight thattheex- ductivity.The reason for these changeswas to provide
perimental subjectsstarted to complain theycould
that fora controlledexperiment in which onlythefactors ex-
hardly see what they were doingandproductivity finally intervened
plicitly upon(ie,pauses and workhours) var-
startedtodecline(10). Theexperiment showedthatlight- ied. However,at theendofthestudy,theinvestigators
ingdidnotsignificantly affect productivity as longas it wereforcedtoconcludethatitmaywellhavebeenthese
was keptat a reasonablelevel.Instead,it was evident unintentionalmanipulations whichcausedthesubjects to
thatsomeotherfactor(s)was(were)muchmoreimpor- improve theiroverall productivity and thus gave birthto
tant.Thisobservation provided theimpetus forthelater whatis calledtheHawthorne effect (10). The termwas
studies. apparentlyintroduced in 1953byFrench(11), whostat-
Thestudywascontinued toevaluatetheinfluence of ed: "Froma methodological pointofview,themostin-
othervariablesthought tobe ofimportance forproduc- terestingfindingwas what one maycall theHawthorne
tivity.The further investigations were 1stdirectedto- effect- a marked increaseinproduction relatedonlyto
wardsphysical factorscausingfatigue andmonotony and specialsocialposition and social treatment" [p 101].
thencontinued by means of 4 extensive experiments (first Overtheyears,theHawthorne studieshaveacquired
relayassembly, secondrelayassembly, micasplitting and thestatusofa creation myth insocialpsychology andin
bankwiring). To allowforgoodcontrol ofthevariables thesubdisciplinesofindustrial andorganizational psy-
understudy,namely,restpausesandworkhours, these chology, management theory, industrialsociology, indus-
experiments includedonly small groups of workers. Af- trialpsychiatryand theanthropology of work(12). In
tera longseriesofexperiments inthe"first relayassem- severalarticles,therehave been speculationsabout
blytest",theinvestigators once morehad to conclude whether theunidentified cause(s) of increasedproduc-
thatthechangesin thesevariablesdid notexplainthe tivitycould have been morale,attitude, supervision,
continuous increaseinproductivity observedduring the teamwork, cohesiveness, informal organization, interper-
test.Againsomeothervariable(s), thanthosecoveredby sonalrelationships,socialunity, awarenessofbeingin
thestudy,seemedto be responsible formostoftheob- an experiment, acquiringskill,or continuous feedback
servedchange.Roethlisberger & Dickson(8), whocom- whileworkingat piece-ratein a smallergroup.With
piledthemainreportof thestudies,suggested thatthe time,ithasbecomeincreasingly common toattribute any
mostimportant factorbehindthecontinuous increasein unexpected resultoccurring in an experiment withhu-
outputwas theimprovedpersonalrelationsbetween mansubjectstotheHawthorne effect (13).
workers andmanagement. Thisconclusion wasbasedon
theannotations oftheinformally expressedopinionsof
Criticism
oftheHawthorne
studies
theworkers participatingin theexperiment, as well as
TheHawthorne studieswere,inmanyrespects, thorough-
onthegeneralimpressions oftheinvestigators. Thissug-
lyandcarefully conducted. However, theyalsohadvery
gestionevolvedintoa "conclusion" andbecametheba- important weaknesses. Forthemostpart,theconfusing
sis of the "humanrelationsschool" of management, resultsofthestudieswereduetothestudiesthemselves.
whichsoontookovertheleadingrolefromthe"scien- Theycontainedso manyuncontrolled variablesthatit
tificmanagement school"inAmerican industry. becamevirtually impossible toidentifyanycausalrela-
tionships.The humanrelations, whichafterwards were
Birthoftheterm "Hawthorne effect" considered tobe ofdecisiveimportance, werenotmoni-
Theoriginalinvestigatorsconcluded thattheincreasein toredfromthebeginning ofthestudy.
outputwas partlycausedbytheexperimental set-upas The attempt to settheproperconditions fortheex-
suchandbytheexperimenters themselves.In theillumi- periment seemstohavecauseda changeinhumanrela-
nationexperiments,someworkers weredefensive orsus- tions,whichcametobe ofgreatsignificance inthenext
piciousandcurbedtheiroutput, whileothers,overlyanx- stageof theexperiment (15) him-
(14). Roethlisberger
iousto cooperate,increasedtheiroutputby"spurting". selfremarked, alreadyin 1941: "Ifa humanbeingis be-
Whenplanning thelatertests,theinvestigators wished ingexperimented upon,he is likelyto knowit.There-
toachievea relationship
withtheparticipants thatwould fore,hisattitudes towardtheexperiment andtowardthe
insuretheirworking "at a naturalpace" (8). As thein- experimenters becomeveryimportant factorsin deter-
fearedthattheworkers
vestigators participating in the mininghisresponsesto thesituation" [p 54]. Thusthe
experiment mightbecomeuncooperative or resistant experiment thattheinvestigators thoughttheywerecon-
whentakenfromtheirregularworkto workin a test ductingat theHawthorne plantmayhavebornlittlere-
room, the supervisionwas greatlymodified.The lationto theexperiment whichwas actuallyperformed,

364 Scand J WorkEnvironHealth 2000, vol 26, no 4

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 & Bendix
Wickström

becauseof theadditional variablesintroduced through smallgroupinthetestroomrather thanthemuchbigger

lackofexperimental rigor. Indeed, it was probably the staffofthewholedepartment mayalso haveincreased
lackofexperimental rigor which led to the various ex- productivitytosomedegree.According toFranke& Kaul
planations givenfortheHawthorne effect (16). (19), however, theeffectsof incentives in therelayas-
In theopinionofKahn(17), thefindings wereprob- sembly room test
seemed tobe minor incomparison with
ablyprimarily related to participation - not to themi- thoseof supervision, fearof losingone's job, andrest
noramusement of takingpartin a briefexperiment or pauses.
theimplausible response to mere managerial attention, One factorthathas notreceivedtheattention itde-
buttoplayingan important partin decisionsthatreally servesis thebackground ofthestudy.In hisautobiogra-
affected one'slife.His opinionis basedonrecords show- phyTheElusivePhenomena(20), written afterhis re-
ing that the young women in the relayassembly room test tirement and publishedafterhis death,Roethlisberger
increasingly took the opportunity toaltertheir workroles. revealshisdeepdisgustwithTaylor'sprinciples ofman-
It was a genuine transfer of power, to a significant de- agement."My two years at M.I.T. from 1920 to 1922
greeandforno trivialperiod of time. From the begin- werea steadydisillusionment frombeginning to end.
ningofthetesttherewas a substantial reduction in su- CourseXV was reallya coursein 'scientific manage-
pervision. In planning thestudies, no definite arrange- ment'and 'Frederick Taylorism'.It hada profound ef-
mentsforsupervision hadbeenmade.Thegirlshadpre- fectuponme. The extensionof technology intosocial
viouslybeen underthedirectsupervision of a group space was repugnant. WhenI was to meetunscientific
chief,whointurnreported toa sectionchief.In as much scientificmanagement inthefleshlateron,I wasloaded
as thetestroomobserver couldassumeresponsibility for forbear"[p 22]. lightofhisautobiography,
In itis sur-
mostoftheday-to-day supervision, itwas unnecessary prisingthatRoethlisberger made no reference whatsoev-
totransfer thegroupchieftothetestroom.Thetestroom er to Taylororhis principles of management in there-
observer was,however, mainlyconcerned withcreating porton theHawthorne studies,whichhe wrotetogether
a friendly relationship thatwouldinsuretheworkers' withDickson,evenifitseemsindisputable thathebadly
cooperation (8). Theworkers wereconsulted, forexam- wantedto shootdownTaylor'sideas.He succeededin
ple,as totherestperiodsinthenextstepsofthetestbe- thismissionwithout everreferring toTaylor!The swift
forefinaldecisionsweremadeonhowtocontinue (17). acceptance oftheHawthorne report wasprobably dueto
Kahn's view is in agreement withthefindings of thefactthatitprovidedan alternative "scientificbasis"
Greenwood et al (18), who,50 yearslater,interviewed withwhichtorallyaroundandapplaudforthegrowing
someoftheemployees participating inthefirst relayas- numbers whowerecriticalofTaylor'smechanistic view
sembly test.The interviewers concluded that the main ofworkers as humanmachines.
reasonforworking so hardinthetestroomhadevident-
backto theordinary manufac- Wasthere
really effect?
a Hawthorne
lybeento avoidtransfer
turing where
department, supervision was considered to tobasetheconceptoftheHawthorne
Itis difficult effect
be veryharsh. on thepreliminary studiesof theeffects of changesin
In a multiple regression analysisof theoriginalre- illumination,as theresultsof thesestudieswerenever
sultscarried outbyFranke& Kaul(19), managerial dis- reported Ofthesubsequent
(13). 4 studiesitis onlythe
cipline, the economic adversity of the depression, the
and relayassembly testroom experiment thatproducedre-
timesetasideforrestwerefoundtoexplainmostofthe sultswhichhavebeenattributed totheHawthorne effect.
variation inquantity ofoutput. Priortothe8thperiodof Therelayassemblytestwas designedtoexplorethe
theexperiment, 2 ofthe5 youngwomenwerereplaced, optimalcycleofworkandrestperiods.Theproductivity
themainreasonbeingthattheypersisted in talkingtoo oftheexperimental groupincreased witheachnewwork
much.Oneofthereplacements turned outtobe thenew schedule.Whentheworkers werereturned to theordi-
group'squickest, mostambitious andmostresponsible nary schedule of theplant,with fullworkdays andfull
member. This replacement of 2 of the5 experimental workweeks, andwithout breaksorlunches,theproduc-
subjects inthemiddleoftherelayassembly testmaywell tivity, didnotdropbacktotheoriginal
surprisingly, lev-
havebeenofconsiderable importance for the continuous el. Obviouslytheworkers'behaviorwas influenced by
riseinproductivity. someothervariable(s)thanthosewhichtheinvestiga-
Another factor thatprobably affected theresultswas torshad intentionally manipulated (21). Althoughthe
theeconomic depression, beginning in October 1929.The management institutedrestbreaks similar tothosetried
threat oflosingone'sjob maypartly explain increase
the outinthetestroom,nosignificant signsof increasedpro-
inproductivity. Reduction ofphysical andmental fatigue ductivity followedthismeasurein themanufacturing
rest
during pausesprobably also contributed to higher departments inquestion(22).
outputratesfor4 ofthe5 workers. In addition, theuse Severalstudieshavebeencarried outtoreproduce the
ofan incentive paysystem based upon outputofthe
the Hawthorneeffect.In industry, Rosen & Sales (23)

Scand J WorkEnvironHealth 2000, vol 26, no 4 365

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Commentary:the "Hawthorneeffect"
assessed productivity levels in a furnituremanufacturing
plantbefore,during,and aftertheentryof behavioralre-
searchers.They foundthatthereactionsto theresearch-
ers were dependenton the attitudesof the worker.Be-
cause theirresearchwas generallyperceivedas support-
ive of management,olderemployees,thosenotactivein
unions,and those witha ruralbackgroundshowed in-
creasedproductivity, whereastheproductivity of young-
er,union-active,and urbanemployeestendedto decline
duringtheresearch.This and otherindustrialstudieshave
re-affirmed theimportanceof themeaningan employee
attachesto changesin his or herworksituation(21).
Referringto a reanalysisof the resultsof the Haw-
thornestudy,Rossi & Freeman(6) doubtedwhetherthe
data actuallydemonstrated any Hawthorneeffectat all.
They stressed that intervention does notconsistonly of
the"treatment" administered, also of everything
but else
done to thetarget(s)as partof theprocess. Everyaspect
of the intervention deliverysystemcan affectthe out-
come of theintervention, and to suchan extentthatmon-
the
itoring delivery of an interventionis almostalways a
to
necessaryadjunct impact assessment.
The originaldatahave also been reexaminedbyJones
(14), who concluded thattheyshow slenderor no evi-
denceof a Hawthorneeffect.He concludesthattheHaw-
thorneeffectis largelya constructionof subsequentin-
terpretersof theHawthorneexperiments and stressesthat
a more fruitful line of inquirywould be to explore the
social and historicalcontextof thereceptionof theHaw-
thorneexperiments.This reflectionis in line with the
conclusiondrawnby Carey (24) alreadyin 1967: "It still
remainsan open questionhow it was possible forcon-
clusions so littlesupportedby evidence to gain such an
influentialand respectedplace withinscientificdisci-
plines and to hold thisplace forso long" [p 403].
Evaluation
oftheresults
from
intervention
studies
In researchon humans,theprinciplesof naturalscience
apply when thehumanbeing is studiedfroma biologi-
cal point of view. In certaincircumstances,it may be
possible to study,forinstance,the effectsof illumina-
tionon productivity accordingto theprinciplesof natu-
ral science, but it is definitelynot possible to examine
the effectsof changes in work supervisionin the same
way. Today, it is generallyaccepted thatall people re-
flectupon theirsituationand reactto it when theycon-
siderthisappropriate.Thereis no need to call thisa spe-
cial "effect".In some investigations,the people under
studyare actively enrolled in carryingout the study,
while in otherstheyare leftto reactas theywish. When
an attemptis made to get people understudyto partici-
pate activelyin the realizationof the study,the reason
for the attemptmay be "pragmatic",tryingto make
the study feasible or more efficient,or it may be
366 Scand J WorkEnvironHealth2000, vol 26, no 4
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"ideological", motivatedby the intentionto empower
some community(25).
In any intervention studyin worklife,therewill be
more factorsaffectingthe resultsthanthose monitored
by theresearchers.When theresultsobtainedare evalu-
ated, it is importantto commentalso upon relevantun-
monitoredfactors,as far as theyhave been identified
duringthecourse of thestudy.Each factorthoughtto be
of importanceshould be specificallyaddressedand ap-
propriatelyconsidered. If referringto the Hawthorne
studies is thoughtto add lightto the discussion,refer-
ence should be done on thebasis of a knowledgeof the
studiesand theirresults.Vaguely referring to "theHaw-
thorneeffect"shouldbe avoided,as it adds moreto con-
fusionthanto clarity.
remarks
Concluding
The "Hawthorneeffect"is commonlyreferredto as an
increasein productivity - or even some otheroutcome
understudy- caused by participationin the studyas
such. It is probablethatparticipationin a studymay in-
creaseproductivity in certaincontexts,forinstance,those
at the Hawthorneworksin Chicago in the early 1930s.
However, the available literaturedoes not supportthe
hypothesisthatthissame phenomenonnecessarilyhap-
pens in othercontexts.Over the years several otherin-
terpretations of theresultsof theHawthornestudiesthan
thosemade by theoriginalreportershave been present-
ed. Accordingly,the observed increase in productivity
maywell have been broughtaboutby one or moreof the
followinglist: (i) relieffromharshsupervision,(ii) re-
ceivingpositiveattention, (iii) learningnew ways of in-
teraction,(iv) possibilitiesto influenceworkprocedures,
(v) restpauses, (vi) higherincome,or (vii) threatof los-
ing one's job. All of thesefactors,as well as anycombi-
nationof them,can be argued foras causes of the ob-
servedincreasein productivity. The so-calledHawthorne
effecthas thusbecome moreand moreambiguousover
time.Therefore,it is questionablewhetherthetermhas
a functionany longerin the evaluationof resultsfrom
intervention researchin industry- not to mentionre-
sultsfromclinical or epidemiologieresearchin general.
References
1. MarshallG. The conciseOxforddictionary of sociology.Ox-
ford:OxfordUniversity Press,1994.
2. ShepardR, Cox M, CoreyP. Fitnessprogramparticipation:
itseffecton workerperformance.JOccupMed 1981;23:359-
63.
3. WegmanD, Fine L. Occupationalhealthin the 1990's. Ann
Rev PublicHealth1990;l 1:89-103.
4. Levine R, Cohen E. The Hawthorneeffect[editorial].Clin
Resl974;22:lll- 2.
5. GruffermanS. Complexityand theHawthorne effectin com-
trials.Epidemiology1999;10:209-10.
munity
approach.Lon-
6. Rossi P, FreemanH. Evaluation:a systematic
don: Sage Publications,1989.

7. TaylorF. The principlesofscientificmanagement. New York
(NY): Harper& Brothers Pubi, 1911.
8. Roethlisberger FJ,DicksonW. Managementand theworker.
Cambridge(MA): HarvardUniversity Press,1939.
9. Mayo E. The humanproblemsof an industrialcivilization.
New York(NY): The MacmillanCompany,1933.
10. AdairJ.The Hawthorne effect:a reconsideration ofthemeth-
odologicalartifact.
JAppiPsychol1984:69:334-45.
11. FrenchJ.Experiments in fieldsettings.In: FestingerL, Katz
D, editors.Researchmethodsin behavioralsciences. New
York(NY): Holt,Rinehart and Wilson,1953:98-135.
12. GillespieR. Manufacturing knowledge:historyof theHaw-
thorneexperiments. New York (NY): CambridgeUniversity
Press,1993.
13. ParsonsHM. Whatcaused theHawthorneeffect?a scientific
detectivestory.AdmSoc 1978;10:259- 83.
14. JonesS. Was therea Hawthorneeffect?Am J Sociol 1992;
98:451-68.
15. RoethlisbergerFJ. Managementand morale. Cambridge
(MA): HarvardUniversity Press,1941.
16. DiaperG. The Hawthorne effect:a freshexamination. Educat
Stud 1990;16:261- 7.
17. Kahn R. In search of the Hawthorneeffect.In: Cass EL,
ZimmerFG, editors.Man and workin society.New York
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wickström
& Bendix
(NY): Van NostrandReinhold,1975:49-63.
18. GreenwoodR, Bolton A, GreenwoodR. Hawthornea half
centurylater:relayassemblyparticipantsremember. JMan-
age 1983;9:217- 31.
19. FrankeRH, Kaul JD.The Hawthorne experiments:firststatis-
ticalinterpretation.
Am Sociol Rev 1978;43:623^3.
20. RoethlisbergerF. The elusivephenomena.Boston(MA): Har-
vardUniversity Press,1977.
21. Adair J, Sharpe D, HuynhC-L. Placebo, Hawthorne,and
otherartifact
controls:researchers'opinionsand practices.J
Exp Educ 1989;54:341- 55.
22. SonnenfeldJ. Sheddinglighton the Hawthornestudies.J
Occup Behav 1985;6:111-30.
23. Rosen NA, Sales SM. Behaviorin a nonexperiment: theef-
fectsofbehavioralfieldresearchon theworkperformance of
factoryemployees.JAppi Psychol1966;50:165-71.
24. Carey A. The Hawthornestudies:a radical criticism.Am
Sociol Rev 1967;32:403- 16.
25. LoewensonR, LaurellC, HogstedtC. Participatingapproach-
es in occupationalhealth.Stockholm:Swedish Instituteof
OccupationalHealth,1994. Arbeteoch hälsa,no 38.
Receivedforpublication:24 January
2000
Scand J WorkEnvironHealth 2000, vol 26, no 4 367