Individual Differences 1: Roshenhan

Question 0

Aim?

Answer 0

To test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.

If ‘normal’ people attempted to be admitted to psychiatric hospitals, would they be detected as insane?

Question 1

Background?

Answer 1

• classifying ‘normal’ behaviour
• 1950s medical approach of diagnosis (psychiatrists)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
• 1960s anti-psychiatry movement

Question 2

IV and DV?

Answer 2

IV= the hospital
DV= behaviour after diagnosis
diagnosis of psuedo patients

Question 3

PPs?

Answer 3

Staff of the hospitals

Question 4

Confederates?

Answer 4

8 pseudo patients, 5M 3F (including R)
•no history of mental illness 
•3 psychologists 
•psychiatrist 
•paediatrician 
•painter 
•housewife

Question 5

Procedure of 1?

Answer 5

• changed names+occupations
• phone for appointment
• claim to hear “hollow” “empty” “thud”= existential crisis (who am I?)
• unfamiliar voice but same sex
• if admitted, acted normally
• aim to convince staff they’re sane
• must write observations secretly but overly if found

Question 6

Procedure of 1.5?

Answer 6

Pseudos ask “when am I likely to be discharged?” But frequently ignored
•R set up control condition= young person approaches staff or doctor at medical centre
•responses noted

Question 7

Procedure of 2?

Answer 7

• setting= large teaching hospital for mentally ill
• staff warned pseudo patients would seek admission in next 3 months
• staff asked to rate new patients from 1 (definitely faker) to 10 (genuinely ill)

Question 8

Results of 1?

Answer 8

• 7 diagnosed with schizophrenia
• 1 with multiple personality disorder
• discharged not as “sane” but “schiz in remission”
• given 2100 pills but not checked if taking any
• Pseudos never met criteria after diagnosis
• length of stay 7-52 days (avg 19)
• 35/118 patients rumbled Pseudos

Question 9

Assumptions made by psychiatrists in procedure 1?

Answer 9

•Pseudo close to mother in childhood, close to father in adolescence
-“ambivalence in close relationships which begins in early childhood”

•Patients queuing up early for food as bored (30 mins before)
-“the oral acquisitive nature of their syndromes”

Question 10

Results of 1.5?

Answer 10

Ignored behaviour
•psychiatrists 71%
•control 0%

Eye contact, no speech
•psychiatrists 23%
•control 0%

Stop to talk
•psychiatrists 6%
•control 100%

Staff gave physical punishments in front of other patients but not doctors

Question 11

Results of 2?

Answer 11

• new patients=193
• staff= 41 Psychiatrist= 23 both= 19
• actually= 0

Question 12

Rosenhan’s conclusions?

Answer 12

• doctors biased towards type 1 errors (false positive) to play it safe
• patients depersonalised+ powerlessness
• psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between sane + insane

Question 13

Pros of exp?

Answer 13

✔️PP observation= experience hospitalisation firsthand
✔️field experiment= fairly Eco valid while controlling extraneous e.g behaviour
✔️range of hospitals= different states, old/new, well/poorly staffed, 1 private

Question 14

Cons of exp?

Answer 14

✖️staff deceived= unethical, yet R kept hospitals anonymous
✖️experience of pseudo patients different to those who are genuine
✖️DSM always changing= results invalid

Question 15

Possible improvements?

Answer 15

• improve external reliability by using more hospitals
• test re-test with new DSM to make more accurate
• repeat exp in different countries- reduce ethnocentrism

Question 16

Examples of qualitative data?

Answer 16

• personal privacy invaded without consent as personal hygiene monitored
• verbal/physical abuse by staff
• on admission, patients observed in a semi-public room
• when spoke to staff, ignored with limited eye contact