銆€銆€2010鑰冪爺鑻辫獮瀹屽瀷濉┖鐨勯婧愬垎鏋愬強妯�(bi膩o)婧�(zh菙n)绛旀

銆€銆€鍖椾含鏂版澅鏂瑰(xu茅)鏍�  鍛ㄩ浄

銆€銆€2010骞寸殑鑰冪爺鑻辫獮瀹屽瀷濉┖閮ㄥ垎锛屼娇鐢ㄤ簡2009骞�6鏈�6鏃� Economist 銆婄稉(j墨ng)婵�(j矛)瀛�(xu茅)浜恒€嬮洔蹇椾笂鐨勪竴绡囨枃绔�锛屾枃绔犱富瑕佸収(n猫i)瀹�锛屾槸灏嶇ぞ鏈�(hu矛)瀛�(xu茅)涓婁竴鍊�(g猫)缍�(j墨ng)鍏哥殑鐞嗚珫锛氶湇妗戞晥鎳�(y墨ng)鐨勬壒鍒ゅ拰鍙嶆€濄€傛枃绔犻洠搴﹂仼涓�銆傚懡椤屽皥瀹跺湪鍑洪鐨勬檪(sh铆)鍊欎篃閫�(j矛n)琛屼簡涓€瀹氱▼搴︾殑鏀瑰銆備笅闈㈢祼(ji茅)鍚堝師鏂�锛屾垜渚嗗叕甯冧竴涓嬫(bi膩o)婧�(zh菙n)绛旀銆�

銆€銆€Light work; Questioning the Hawthorne effect

銆€銆€June 6, 2009

銆€銆€WHEN America's National Research Council sent two engineers to supervise a series of industrial experiments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago in 1924, it hoped they would learn how shop-floor lighting affected (绗竴椤岀瓟妗堢偤A)workers' productivity. Instead, the studies ended up (绗簩椤岀瓟妗堢偤B)giving their name to the "Hawthorne effect", the extremely influential idea that the very act (绗笁椤岀瓟妗堢偤C)of being experimented upon changes subjects' behaviour銆�

銆€銆€The idea arose because of the perplexing (绗洓椤岀瓟妗堢偤B)behaviour of the women (who assembled relays and wound coils of wire)(椤岀洰涓铏曞埅闄�) in the Hawthorne plant. According to accounts (绗簲椤岀瓟妗堢偤C)of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was dimmed. It did not matter (绗叚椤岀瓟妗堢偤B)what was done; so long as (绗竷椤岀瓟妗堢偤D)something was changed, productivity rose. An awareness (绗叓椤岀瓟妗堢偤A)that they were being experimented upon seemed to be enough (绗節椤岀瓟妗堢偤C)to alter workers' behaviour by (绗崄椤岀瓟妗堢偤D)itself銆�

銆€銆€鍛介灏堝鏀瑰浜嗕笅闈㈢殑鍙ュ瓙(The data from the illumination experiments had never been rigorously analysed and were believed lost. But Steven Levitt and John List, two economists at the University of Chicago, discovered that the data had survived the decades in two archives in Milwaukee and Boston,) and decided to subject (绗崄涓€椤岀瓟妗堢偤C)them to econometric analysis. The Hawthorne experiments had another surprise in store for them. Contrary to (绗崄浜岄绛旀鐐篈)the descriptions in the literature, they found no systematic evidence (绗崄涓夐绛旀鐐篈)that levels of productivity in the factory rose whenever changes in lighting were implemented銆�

銆€銆€It turns out that idiosyncrasies in the way the experiments were conducted may have led to misleading (绗崄鍥涢绛旀鐐篋)interpretations of what happened. For example(绗崄浜旈绛旀鐐築)锛� lighting was always changed on a Sunday, when the plant was closed. When it reopened on Monday, output duly rose (绗崄鍏绛旀鐐篈)compared with Saturday, the last working day before the change, and continued (绗崄涓冮绛旀鐐篋)to rise for the next couple of days. But (绗崄鍏绛旀)a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went up on Mondays. Workers tended to(绗崄涔濋绛旀) beaver away(椤岀洰涓彌鎴愪簡杓冪啊鍠殑be diligent) for the first few days of the working week in any case, before hitting (绗簩鍗侀绛旀鐐篋)a plateau and then slackening off銆�

銆€銆€浠ヤ笅鍘熸枃鐨勫叐娈垫矑鏈夐伕锛屾垜鍦ㄩ€欓噷鍒楀嚭锛屽儏渚涘ぇ瀹跺弮鑰冿細

銆€銆€Another of the original observations was that output fell when the trials ceased, suggesting that the act of experimentation caused increased productivity. But experimentation stopped in the summer, and it turns out from the records of production after the experiments that output tended to fall in the summer anyway. Perhaps workers were just hot銆�

銆€銆€There is a suggestion in the data that productivity was more responsive to changes in artificial than natural light. This could be interpreted as a subtler version of the Hawthorne effect, if you believe that workers were aware that changes in artificial light were induced by the experimenters, whereas natural light was changing on its own. But even this evidence is weak. For something so influential and intuitively appealing, it turns out that the Hawthorne effect is remarkably hard to pin down銆�

銆€銆€鑰冭│绲�(ji茅)鏉熶箣鍚庢杩庡弮鑸�鏀挎不銆佽嫳瑾�銆�鏁�(sh霉)瀛�(xu茅)瑷庤珫锛岀櫦(f膩)琛ㄤ綘鐨勮榛�(di菐n)鍜屾劅鍙�锛岃垏缍�(w菐ng)鍙嬪皪涓€灏嶇瓟妗堛€備粖骞磋│椤岄洠涓嶉洠锛熸柊娴暀鑲茬壒绱勫浣嶅悕甯湪璜栧閫�(j矛n)琛�24灏忔檪(sh铆)绛旂枒銆傞€佽€冭│绁濈锛岃珛榛�(di菐n)鎿婇€�(j矛n)鍏ヨū鎰垮皥鍗€(q奴)銆傝嚜鎴戞劅瑕鸿€冨緱涓嶅ソ鐨�锛屾杩庨€�(j矛n)渚嗙櫦(f膩)娉勪竴涓�銆傛杩庡弮鑸�2010骞磋€冪爺鎴愮妇闋�(y霉)娓強寰�(f霉)瑭�绶氶爯(y霉)娓紝骞舵煡鐪嬪叾浠栦汉鐨勪及鍒�銆�