CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 618Management Theory and PracticeBehavioral and Psychological StudiesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Parsons, H. M.·1974·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.183.4128.922
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.183.4128.922

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. ARGYLE, M, OCCUP PSYCHOL 27: 98 (1953).
  2. DALE, J, MANAGEMENT METHODS 16: 38 (1959).
  3. Ferster, C. B., Behavior Principles: 350 (1968).
  4. Ferster, C. B., Schedules of Reinforcement: 89 (1957).
  5. GAGNE, R.M., ORG BEHAV HUMAN PERF 3: 156 (1968).
  6. GIBBS, C. B., MANAGER: 374 (5 1944).
  7. MARRIOTT, R, OCCUP PSYCHOL 23: 47 (1949).
  8. PARSONS H.M. THESIS U CALIFORNIA (1963).
  9. PENNOCK, G.A., PERS J 8: 296 (1930).
  10. RATH, A.A., THE CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES - MANAGEMENTS MOST POTENT MOTIVATIONAL TOOL, PERSONNEL JOURNAL 39: 172 (1960).
  11. SNOW, C.E., TECH ENG NEWS: 256 (11 1927).
  12. WHYTE, W.F., PSYCHOLOGY TODAY: 67 (4 1972).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 618

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Parsons, H. M.
Affiliations
Riverside Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Parsons, H. M.
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
1974-03-08
Volume
183
Issue
4128
Pages
922-932
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.183.4128.922
OpenAlex
W1987677291
Cited by
615
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 29
FWCI
10.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
Hawthorne effect, Hawthorne studies, information feedback, monetary rewards, operant conditioning, confounding variables, employee motivation, industrial workers, production rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review