🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <413jjl$jhs@sundog.tiac.net>
Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> writes:

> docjoe@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
> >
> >Which is why published studies demonstrate that the user has a 50% higher
> >productivity and 50% higher accuracy using a Mac than a Windows machine.
> >And Mac support costs are thousands less. And so on. Who cares about
> >computer speed when the real issue is how much work you can get done?
> >
> 
> You know, I remember reading about an intersting study in user productivity
> once (the name Tayler comes to mind, but I'm not sure).  The study wanted
> to find out about the effect of lighting upon production on some sort of
> manufacturing floor.  The experimenters increased the light, and -- sure
> enough -- the productivity increased.  So they increased the light again,
> and the productivity increased again.  Hmmm...  They increased it again
> (it was getting rather *bright* in there), and sure enough -- productivity
> increased yet again.  Then they tried decreasing the light, and you know
> what -- the productivity increased.  The experimenters finally figured out
> that the reason productivity kept increasing was because *someone* was
> paying attention.

The Hawthorne effect.  They also noticed that when they increased the
light for the experimental group, the productivity of the controls also
increased.  I assume Joe's favorite productiveity study (Ingram, or the
Navy?) had controls.


Matt Peterson - University of Kansas, Experimental Psychology