Rosenhan (1973)

Question 1

What was the aim of the first study?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

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

Answer 2

Sane

Question 3

1. How many pseudo patients were there?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

1. How did they get an appointment?

Answer 4

They telephoned

Question 5

1. What false symptoms were reported?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

1. How did the pseudo patients feel after being admitted to the hospital?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

1. How were the pseudo patients going to get out of the hospital?

Answer 7

They had to convince the staff they were sane

Question 8

1. How many pseudo patients were admitted?

Answer 8

8

Question 9

1. How long did they remain in hospital?

Answer 9

Average of 19 days, 7-52 days

Question 10

1. When they were released, did they lose their abnormal label?

Answer 10

No

Question 11

What is a type 1 error?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

What is a type 2 error?

Answer 12

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

Question 13

1. What happened once the pseudo patients were admitted?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

1. What did the pseudo patients do whilst they were on the ward?

Answer 14

They made notes of their observations

Question 15

1. What were the pseudo patients diagnosed with?

Answer 15

7 with schizophrenia, 1 with bipolar depression

Question 16

1. What were the patients discharged as?

Answer 16

schizophrenics in remission

Question 17

1. Did hospital staff believe them?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

1. Did other patients realise they were sane?

Answer 18

Yes, 35/118 voiced their suspicians

Question 19

1. What did they conclude?

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

1. What was the main conclusion?

Answer 20

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

Question 21

2. What was the aim of the second part of the study?

Answer 21

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

Question 22

2. Why did the second part come about?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

2. In what period of time would the pseudo patients try and get back into the hospital?

Answer 23

within 3 months

Question 24

2. How many pseudo patients did they say would try and gain entry?

Answer 24

At least 1

Question 25

2. How were they measured to be insane or sane?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

2. How many patients tried to gain admission?

Answer 26

193 patients

Question 27

2. How many pseudo patients did Rosenhan send in?

Answer 27

None

Question 28

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

Answer 28

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

Question 29

2. What do the results demonstrate?

Answer 29

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

Question 30

2. What type of error were the staff making?

Answer 30

Type 1 as they were suggesting the sick patients were healthy

Question 31

3. What happened in the third part of the study?

Answer 31

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

Question 32

How was the study generalisable?

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Was it reliable?

Answer 33

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

Question 34

What is the application?

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Does it have mundane realism?

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Does it have ecological validity?

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Does it have historical validity?

Answer 37

No - took place 30 years ago

Question 38

Does it have internal validity?

Answer 38

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

Question 39

What was the aim of study 3?

Answer 39

To investigate staff/patient contact

Question 40

What happened in the third study?

Answer 40

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