Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments¶
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), 224-238.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Measurement and Disturbance
- The art of social-science measurement is not to eliminate the disturbance (impossible) but to design studies that acknowledge it, as Levitt and List (2011) reaffirm even after their reanalysis of the original Hawthorne illumination data exposed exaggerations in the canonical narrative.
This sourceModern reanalysis of the original Hawthorne illumination data; exposes overstatements in canonical accounts while confirming that measurement-apparatus coupling produces real, if more subtle, behavioral disturbance in study participants.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract confirms the reanalysis found the canonical illumination narrative fictional and only subtle possible Hawthorne effects, but states no principle about designing studies that acknowledge disturbance.
“Existing descriptions of supposedly remarkable data patterns prove to be entirely fictional. We do find more subtle manifestations of possible Hawthorne effects.”
- The art of social-science measurement is not to eliminate the disturbance (impossible) but to design studies that acknowledge it, as Levitt and List (2011) reaffirm even after their reanalysis of the original Hawthorne illumination data exposed exaggerations in the canonical narrative.
Mechanisms¶
- Split-Sample Observer Exposure
- It needs enough independent units and genuinely random assignment; the original studies that named this phenomenon are cautionary
This sourceReanalyzes the original illumination data and finds that the celebrated pattern was not borne out and the design did not yield cleanly controlled treatment effects.
- It needs enough independent units and genuinely random assignment; the original studies that named this phenomenon are cautionary
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:e1f676957aee · see in the full table