Strengths Of An Experiment: The Hawthorne Effect In Schools

Strengths within the experimental method used in the study were that of replication, control, time, ethics and focus. The experiment was easy to replicate with a standardised procedure. We can be assured that each replication of the experiment with all 20 participants went almost identically to one another, due to the predetermined speech given and replicated setup of the classroom and the positioning of each of the experimenters and participants. There was high internal validity within experiment, meaning high levels of control due to precise control of independent variables (independent relating to the age of participants) The experiment was quick and easy, meaning that full attention was given by participants; they did not get tired or show
lack of attention for they were only in the experiment for a short amount of time - the maximum time being that of 15 minutes. The speed of experiment meant that experimenters also paid complete attention to experiment - and so were likely to record all they needed to, remaining attentive and not missing any vital information that needed to be accounted for. In terms of ethics, the experiment was completely moral and in no way deceptive. Participants were informed of exactly what experiment was for and what was to take place, and were assured of their right to leave at any time. They were told that we were running a modified version of the original Stroop study and what the original Stroop study was. The experiment was in no way psychologically damaging, it did not make participants test their own opinions or beliefs, or conclude or be able to result in severe behavioural reactions such as crying or refusing to continue.

There were also various weaknesses and limitations within the experiment.
The occurrence of the Hawthorne effect is a weakness within the experiment, the Hawthorne effect being the change in one’s behaviour due to the awareness of being observed. It is likely that participants behaviours were altered due to awareness of being studied under deep scrutiny; participants most likely felt higher levels of discomfort and/or stress due to the knowing of being observed, and because of these potential behavioural alterations, reactions times may have slowed and more mistakes could have been made under the pressure of being
watched.

Extraneous variables such as above-average room temperature, overcrowdedness and noise levels within the class also acted as limitations of the experiment as they are factors which interfered with the overall experiment, the noise levels were extremely high, due to the fact that the same experiment was being repeated at least 8 times at simultaneous times. This made it harder for the host to read their speech due to the other hosts reading theirs aloud at the same time, also making it harder for the participant to focus only on what their host was saying, and tuning out the other host’s speeches. The above average temperature within the classroom, artificial light and overcrowded room could have also acted as distractions, all factors potentially making it harder to focus entirely on experiment, due to both participant and experimenters feeling uncomfortable throughout.

Experiment comprehensively lacks in ecological validity, due to the fact that the participants are in an entirely different, unusual situation in comparison to what they are used to in a school setting.
All participants attend school regularly, with a routine that is likely to differ very little throughout the week. Experiment was held at school but was entirely different to the routine participants were used to. This could have significantly affected behaviours from participants. The participants behaviours were likely to alter within the experimental setting due to feeling uncomfortable or uneasy about the change in their ordinary routine and the change in attitude given by the experimenters, who at the time were unemotional, and non-talkative, unlike what the experimenters were usually like outside of the experimental conditions. The setup and atmosphere of class was also altered due to the rearrangement of desks and formality of situation, again likely heightening the participants feeling of discomfort and/or unease. The experiment is not mundane, and does not relate to participants regular lives in any way, so respectively we can not assume that results are completely accurate based on the knowledge that reaction times may have changed due to alteration of behaviours and participants potentially not acting as their regular
selves.

Demand characteristics are another limitation within experiment, relating to ecological validity, being that subjects again were likely to modify their behaviour in order to conform to the experimenters expectations, meaning that we can not completely rely on results to be exactly what participants would have produced elsewhere. For example, had they repeated the same experiment in their home or in an environment they felt comfortable in, their behaviours would have been more accurate to their natural, authentic selves, as they would not feel the need to conform in any way to what is seemingly expected from them by experimenters.

Another valid limitation within the experiment is the sample size. We were only able to run experiment on twenty students within Rangiora High School, due to the short time frame and lack of resources such as the size of the classroom. We were also unable to find any teachers willing to volunteer, and so results only represent a very small section of our school; subsequently we can not base results of 20 school students on wider society as it is simply not enough to accurately assume what wider results would produce.