Rosenhan (1973) Flashcards
What was the aim of the first study?
To see if 8 people who gained admission into 12 different hospitals would be found to be sane
1 .Did the individuals conducting the study start off sane or insane?
Sane
- How many pseudo patients were there?
8, 3 women, 5 men. The pseudo patients were not the participants, the hospital staff were
- How did they get an appointment?
They telephoned
- What false symptoms were reported?
Hearing voices saying ‘empty’, ‘hollow’ and ‘thud’ as they seemed to place emphasis on the persons life
- How did the pseudo patients feel after being admitted to the hospital?
They felt nervous as they didn’t think they would be so easily admitted
- How were the pseudo patients going to get out of the hospital?
They had to convince the staff they were sane
- How many pseudo patients were admitted?
8
- How long did they remain in hospital?
Average of 19 days, 7-52 days
- When they were released, did they lose their abnormal label?
No
What is a type 1 error?
An incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, diagnosing a sick person as healthy
What is a type 2 error?
When an incorrect null hypothesis is accepted, being more likely to diagnose a healthy person as sick
- What happened once the pseudo patients were admitted?
They stopped displaying symptoms of abnormality and didn’t swallow any medication
- What did the pseudo patients do whilst they were on the ward?
They made notes of their observations
- What were the pseudo patients diagnosed with?
7 with schizophrenia, 1 with bipolar depression
- What were the patients discharged as?
schizophrenics in remission
- Did hospital staff believe them?
No records indicate that hospital staff showed any doubts over their authenticity
- Did other patients realise they were sane?
Yes, 35/118 voiced their suspicians
- What did they conclude?
- 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
- What was the main conclusion?
The label given and the environment you are placed in influences the way the behaviour is viewed
- What was the aim of the second part of the study?
To investigate if the tendency towards diagnosing the sane as insane could be reversed
- Why did the second part come about?
Another hospital heard of the findings of the first part of the study and didn’t believe it could occur in their hospital
- In what period of time would the pseudo patients try and get back into the hospital?
within 3 months
- How many pseudo patients did they say would try and gain entry?
At least 1
- How were they measured to be insane or sane?
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
- How many patients tried to gain admission?
193 patients
- How many pseudo patients did Rosenhan send in?
None
- How many people were judged to be fake by at least 1 staff member?
41 by 1 staff member
23 by a psychiatrist
19 by a psychiatrist and 1 other staff member
- What do the results demonstrate?
Issues with the reliability and validity of diagnosis and suggests that it is not possible to detect the sane from insane
- What type of error were the staff making?
Type 1 as they were suggesting the sick patients were healthy
- What happened in the third part of the study?
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
How was the study generalisable?
Took place in a range of different hospitals in over 5 states, should eliminate individual differences in staff although ethnocentrically biased
Was it reliable?
Same results on multiple occasions - test retest reliability, standardised procedure - all said they were hearing voices
What is the application?
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
Does it have mundane realism?
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
Does it have ecological validity?
Took place in a psychiatric hospital, the workplace for the participants so yes
Does it have historical validity?
No - took place 30 years ago
Does it have internal validity?
Unlikely that many patients lie about their symptoms so can’t blame psychiatrists for admitting sane people
What was the aim of study 3?
To investigate staff/patient contact
What happened in the third study?
Pseudo patients asked staff in 4 hospitals if they were eligable for ground privileges. Young female asked university staff for a psychiatrist. Pseudopatients ignored.
