Rosenhan (1973) Flashcards

1
Q

What was the aim of the first study?

A

To see if 8 people who gained admission into 12 different hospitals would be found to be sane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

1 .Did the individuals conducting the study start off sane or insane?

A

Sane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  1. How many pseudo patients were there?
A

8, 3 women, 5 men. The pseudo patients were not the participants, the hospital staff were

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. How did they get an appointment?
A

They telephoned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  1. What false symptoms were reported?
A

Hearing voices saying ‘empty’, ‘hollow’ and ‘thud’ as they seemed to place emphasis on the persons life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. How did the pseudo patients feel after being admitted to the hospital?
A

They felt nervous as they didn’t think they would be so easily admitted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. How were the pseudo patients going to get out of the hospital?
A

They had to convince the staff they were sane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. How many pseudo patients were admitted?
A

8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  1. How long did they remain in hospital?
A

Average of 19 days, 7-52 days

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. When they were released, did they lose their abnormal label?
A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is a type 1 error?

A

An incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, diagnosing a sick person as healthy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is a type 2 error?

A

When an incorrect null hypothesis is accepted, being more likely to diagnose a healthy person as sick

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  1. What happened once the pseudo patients were admitted?
A

They stopped displaying symptoms of abnormality and didn’t swallow any medication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. What did the pseudo patients do whilst they were on the ward?
A

They made notes of their observations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. What were the pseudo patients diagnosed with?
A

7 with schizophrenia, 1 with bipolar depression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q
  1. What were the patients discharged as?
A

schizophrenics in remission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q
  1. Did hospital staff believe them?
A

No records indicate that hospital staff showed any doubts over their authenticity

18
Q
  1. Did other patients realise they were sane?
A

Yes, 35/118 voiced their suspicians

19
Q
  1. What did they conclude?
A
  • people more likely to make a type 2 error - gives a stigma that is hard to shake
  • unreliable diagnosis: none had schizophrenia, one diagnosed with bipolar depression
20
Q
  1. What was the main conclusion?
A

The label given and the environment you are placed in influences the way the behaviour is viewed

21
Q
  1. What was the aim of the second part of the study?
A

To investigate if the tendency towards diagnosing the sane as insane could be reversed

22
Q
  1. Why did the second part come about?
A

Another hospital heard of the findings of the first part of the study and didn’t believe it could occur in their hospital

23
Q
  1. In what period of time would the pseudo patients try and get back into the hospital?
A

within 3 months

24
Q
  1. How many pseudo patients did they say would try and gain entry?
A

At least 1

25
Q
  1. How were they measured to be insane or sane?
A

Each member of staff was asked to rate every patient who wanted admission on a scale of 1-10 in terms of whether they thought they were real or fake

26
Q
  1. How many patients tried to gain admission?
A

193 patients

27
Q
  1. How many pseudo patients did Rosenhan send in?
A

None

28
Q
  1. How many people were judged to be fake by at least 1 staff member?
A

41 by 1 staff member
23 by a psychiatrist
19 by a psychiatrist and 1 other staff member

29
Q
  1. What do the results demonstrate?
A

Issues with the reliability and validity of diagnosis and suggests that it is not possible to detect the sane from insane

30
Q
  1. What type of error were the staff making?
A

Type 1 as they were suggesting the sick patients were healthy

31
Q
  1. What happened in the third part of the study?
A

Staff didn’t respond to questions inside the hospital because they assumed the patient was crazy, if they weren’t in a psychiatric setting their questions were answered

32
Q

How was the study generalisable?

A

Took place in a range of different hospitals in over 5 states, should eliminate individual differences in staff although ethnocentrically biased

33
Q

Was it reliable?

A

Same results on multiple occasions - test retest reliability, standardised procedure - all said they were hearing voices

34
Q

What is the application?

A

Evidence to suggest criteria for diagnosis needs to be clearer, unfair to keep healthy patients in but the study took place 30 years ago - irrelevent

35
Q

Does it have mundane realism?

A

Yes because nurses would have to admit patients regularly but in part 2 they were aware that a pseudo patient might come - may have influenced result

36
Q

Does it have ecological validity?

A

Took place in a psychiatric hospital, the workplace for the participants so yes

37
Q

Does it have historical validity?

A

No - took place 30 years ago

38
Q

Does it have internal validity?

A

Unlikely that many patients lie about their symptoms so can’t blame psychiatrists for admitting sane people

39
Q

What was the aim of study 3?

A

To investigate staff/patient contact

40
Q

What happened in the third study?

A

Pseudo patients asked staff in 4 hospitals if they were eligable for ground privileges. Young female asked university staff for a psychiatrist. Pseudopatients ignored.