Individual Differences Flashcards
What was the aim of study 2 in Rosenhan?
To see if hospitals who had been told they were to be approached by pseudo-patients would be able to tell sane from insane
What was the aim of study 3 in Rosenhan?
To investigate patient-staff contact
Describe the participants used in Rosenhans study
It was an opportunity sample
S1- hospital staff&patients
- 8 pseudo patients (various occupations e.g painter, housewife)
S2 - Hospital staff
S3 - staff from 4 of the 12 hospitals used in study 1
-staff at a college campus
What method was used in Rosenhans study?
Field experiment
S1&s3
S2 also collected data using participant observation
What ethical issues may occur in Rosenhans study?
Hospitals/staff deceived
Protection- may undermine confidence in doctors
However
Pseudo patients gave fully informed consent/volunteered
What quantitative data was collected in Rosenhans study?
S1- num of participants admitted/discharged
S2- num of faulty diagnosis
S3 - num of social interactions
What qualitative data was collected in Rosenhans study?
S1-pseudo patient observation
•feeling powerless, depersonalised
S3-
What was the aim of study 1 in Rosenhan?
To see if people could get themselves admitted to a psychiatric hospital
What practical applications can be made from Rosenhans study?
•reduce abuse of power in mental institutions
•change num of professionals used to diagnose disorders
-cant rely in one individual
•reduce stickiness of labels
•assess criteria used to diagnose mental illness
Assess the ecological validity of Rosenhans study
High-field exp, natural behaviour
Covert- few demand characteristics in s1&3
What controls were used in s1 for Rosenhans study?
All pseudo patients behaved normally besides showing the same symptoms of hearing voices
What controls were used in s2 for Rosenhans study?
None
What controls were used in s3 for Rosenhans study?
Young female asked staff on a uni campus various questions
E.g im looking for a psychiatrist
Describe the IV and DV in Rosenhans study 1
Iv- patients pretence to get into hospitals
Dv- psychiatrist admission of patient and the strength of diagnostic label
Describe the IV and DV in Rosenhans study 2
Iv-false info given to hospital
Dv-number of patients which staff suspected as being pseudo
Describe the IV and DV in Rosenhans study 3
Iv-patient or visitor
Dv-level of contact between staff and subject
What 2 changed could be made to Rosenhans study?
1) make it a self report questionnaire instead of a field experiment
2) make it cross cultural to identify cultural sim/diff
Additional evaluation to Rosenhans study(strengths)
Pros
•sample- range of occupations/states/hospitals/age/gender
So can infer cause and effect (results due to product of flaws in psychiatric profession not other factors)
•methodology- field experiment
Allowed pseudo patients to experience ward from patients perspective
Additional evaluation points to Rosenhans study (weaknesses)
Cons:
•observer bias
Pseudo patients aware of aim so may pay particular attention/emphasise mistreatment (rosenhan his own pps)
•unreliable
Interactions after admission not controlled
Diff to record data accurately whilst participating
Was Rosenhans study longitudinal or snapshot?
LONGITUDINAL
S1- 52 days
S2- 3 months
Long enough to show change over time
What can you conclude from rosenhans experiment?
P-We cant distinguish sane from insane all of the time, once labelled there is an expectation of the individuals behaviour to be due to this
E-7/8 patients in study 1 were admitted &diagnosed as schizophrenic
C-may be better to treat mentally ill patients in community healthcare schemes with behavioural diagnosis rather than institutions with sticky labels
Define depersonalisation
Where people aren’t treated as individuals, lack of respect
When is powerlessness and depersonalisation show in Rosenhans study ?
Study 3 lack of eye contact 10/1283 nurses Supported by qual data •observed inhumane treatment •toilets no doors(privacy) •medical records available to any staff
What is the difference between a type 1 and type 2 error (Rosenhan)
Type 1- researcher diagnosis sick person as healthy (false neg)
Type 1- diagnose healthy person as sick (false positive)
Describe the individual differences approach
Examines how individuals differ in their thinking, feeling and behaviour
Describe 3 key criteria used to define abnormality
Deviates from norm
Doesn’t conform to social demand
Painful to individual
Explain 2 issues with defining abnormality
All 3 criteria sometimes appear in ‘normal’ people
Normality is culturally defined
What is meant by a diagnostic label
Social sigma
Misunderstanding of ‘mental illness’
Fear of it
Discrimination eg employment
What are the key features of schizophrenia
Pos symptoms- additional to norm eg hallucinations
Neg symptoms- reduction in norm eg lack of motivation
What is meant by the medical model of abnormality?
See mental disorders as an illness with psychological causes treated with medication
What is meant by the anti-psychiatric movement?
Mental illness doesn’t have a physical cause, don’t fit society therefore treated with institutionalisation not medication
Thigpen and Cleckly is…
A case of multiple personality
What is the aim of T&C?
To document the treatment of a 25 year old women with a history of severe headaches and blackouts that was later diagnosed with a MPD (multiple personality disorder)
What method was used for T&C?
It was a LONGITUDINAL case study
•14 Months
Practical applications from T&C
- development to understanding the function of personality
* therapy options for those suffering from MPD
What is MPD?
Multiple Personality Disorder
What ethical issues occurred in T&Cs study?
- not aware therapy sessions recored
- no consent to book
- privacy/consent/deception/withdrawal
Ecological Validity T&C
Low- interviewed in an office, not within daily routine
•experimenter effect, may encourage certain behaviours from eve.
What data was collected in T&C?
Quan=EEG, Psychometric test (IQ memory)
Qual= observations
•projective personality test
Describe the sample used in T&C
25 y/o
Married women
Referred due to severe headaches and blackouts that had no physical cause
•therapy revealed ordinary emotional problems
•dr thought treatment working until receiving a letter, last para diff writing
•when asking Eve she became agitated
•posture/demeanour changed-eve black appeared
Define personality
A pattern of collective behavioural/emotional/temperamental traits and character of a person
Define MPD
Occurrence of 2+ personalities within the same individual each able to take control
What is dissociation
Perceived deception of the mind from the body or emotional state
(May feel dreamlike)
What changed could be made to T&C
1) observe in own home \+increase eco validity -ethics Leads to increased validity 2) use independent researchers \+reduce experimenter bias -decrease validity (if eve uncomfortable may give invalid response) Leads to increased inter-rater reliability
Procedure T&C
- 14 months
- therapeutic sessions
- self report
- interviews with friends/family
- EEG
- IQ memory func (psychometric test)
- handwriting
- projective ink block test
Describe Eve BLACK
Mischievous Provocatively dressed Rowdy Unaffected by human emotion Party girl Egocentric
Describe Eve WHITE
Saintly Sweet yet sad Sensible Demure Loved daughter deeply Serious Stooped posture
EEG results T&C
Ew: 11 cycles per sec = normal
Eb: 12.5 cycles = slightly fast (associated with psychopath)
Jane:11 = normal
Psychometric test results T&C
IQ: Ew=110 superior
Eb=104 inferior
Projective test:
Ew=repression, anxiety as her role as a mother, hostility to her mother
Eb=regression, desire to return to earlier life before marriage
Hand writing results T&C
Varied between personality yet written by same individual
Interpretation of EW and EB (T&C)
EW= maintains nice EB= embodies anger
•one individual but personality at diff stages of life
Who is jane? (T&C)
Compromise between EW & EB
•hypnosis used to bring jane out as main personality
What happened in procedure 1? (Rosenhan)
- 12 psych hospitals phoned for urgent app
- pseudo complain of hearing voice (same sex, unclear, saying thud hollow empty)
- pps gave false name/address/occupation everything else true
- no pps had abnormal past
- once admitted pps acted normally/showed no symptoms and took part in ward activities
- all noted observations/experience whilst inside
Outline the procedure in s2 (rosenhan)
Hospital made aware of findings from s1
•informed over next 3 months 1+ pseudo pps would try to be admitted
•staff rated the likelihood (1-10) as to whether they believe patient was pseudo
Outline procedure s3 Rosenhan
- in 4/12 hospitals pseudo patients approached staff and asked staff •’pardon me, could you tell me when i will be eligible for ground privileges’
- avoided asking same staff more than once a day
- asked as normally as possible
Results from s1 (Rosenhan)
•all pps were admitted •7/8 diagnosed schizophrenic •shortest stay=7 •longest =52 •average =19 •on release pps labeled "schizo in remission" •normal behaviour mis-interpreted E.g early for lunch= behaviour distorted in order to fit in
Results from s2 Rosenhan
193 patients were assessed
•41 rated pseudo by at least 2 staff
•23 by 1 psychiatrist
Results from s3 (Rosenhan)
100% uni faculty responded to young f
23/185 psychiatrist made eye contact
47/1283 nurses responded to pseudo
What was the aim of Griffith’s study?
To compare the behaviour and cognitions of RG and NRG
What method was used in Griffith’s study
Quasi Field Experiment, snapshot
Describe the sample used in Griffith’s study
60 pps
Mean age= 23.4
30 RG 29m:1f (gamble atleast 1x week)
30 NRG 15:15 (gamble 1x month or
Practical Application from Griffith’s study
•rehabilitation if problem gamblers
•show RG may have cog biases
-can be helped by newly developed therapies to change their thinking
Describe the eco validity of Griffith’s study
Field exp- high natural setting
However lack- using someone else’s £ may reduce risk/excitement
Thinking out loud- not normal
Ethical issues in Griffith’s study
Fully informed consent given
Right to withdraw
Pps protection- given £ to gamble may be seen as encouragement
What were the IV&DV’s in Griffith’s study
IV= RG/NRG
DV=skill/verbalisation/speed/perception
What was hypothesis 1 in Griffith’s study
There will be no sig difference between RG and NRG on objective measure of skill
Hypothesis 2 from Griffith’s study
RG will produce more irrational verbalisations than NRG (measured by thinking aloud)
Hypothesis 3 Griffith’s study
RG will be more skill-oriented than NRG on subjective measures of skill
Describe the procedure used in Griffith’s study
- each pps given £3 stake(30 plays) to play fruit machine in local arcade
- pps asked to try to stay on for 60
- after 60 plays pps could carry on or take the money
What 3 forms of assessment were used in Griffith’s study?
1) behavioural •skill observed on 7 diff variables -total plays -end stake -win rate etc 2) thinking aloud •1/2 NRG & 1/2 RG asked to think aloud to gain insight to cog process -verbalisations tape recorded 3)post experiment interview •semi structured -opinion on level of skill involved in fruit machine playing -asked to judge their own skill
Reliability of Griffith’s study
Inter=low categories subjective/bias
•only clearly understood by Griffith’s
Outline validity of Griffith’s study
High- supported by triangular data
•observation •interview •thinking aloud
(Variety of data collection)
What changes could be made ti Griffith’s study?
•use open questioned self report instead of thinking aloud
•use variety if gambling methods
-dice -cards -horse racing
Data collection in H1 (Griffith)
Quantitative= behavioural measure of skill
Data collection H3 (Griffith)
Qual- gained through semi structured interview
•perception of skill
Data collection H2 (Griffith)
Qual turned to quan by coding system
•irrational verbalisation
Findings from H1 (griffith)
Overall no sig difference
•RG slightly higher play rate than NRG
-8 per min // 6 per min
Findings from h2 (griffith)
Overall
•both made more rational than irrational verbalisations
•RG produced more irrational than NRG (14% - 2.5%)
•NRG more rational questions
-“whats going on here”
•RG more personification of machine
-“the machine likes me”
Define gambling
Activity of wagering money in an event where you do not know the outcome
Key components of gambling
Stake
Predictability
Odds
Define addiction
Behavioural pattern characterised by compulsion, loss of control and repetition of behaviour in-spite of adverse consequences
