rosenhan 20 mark essay plan Flashcards
para 1
AO1: aims
->Study 1 aims:
—>to test the hypothesis that piychiatrists can’t tell the difference between people who are sane and insane
—> to investigate whether diagnosis of
mental illness is invalid and affected by observers bias, causing clinicians to see symptoms of an underlying disorder
-> study 2 aims:
—>to further test the reliability and validity of diagnosis, testing type one and type two errors
AO3: strength
->high generalisability
—>Rosenhan used a range of psychiatric hospitals, eg. private, state-run, old, new, well-funded, under - funded.
—>this means that data can be
of gathered from a variety of different hospital settings to give more representative data, therefore the findings are highly generalisable as they can be applied to multiple types of hospitals
AO3: weakness
-> low generalisability
—> Rosenhan’s 1973 study has low generalisability as it is ethnocentric
—>There was only 8 pseudo-patients
in the study admitted to 12 diff hospitals across 5 US states (East to west), only looking at the reliability a validity of the dsm
—>the findings cannot be applied to psychiatric hospitals ontside of the Us, or to cultures who use other methods of diagnosis, eg. the ICD
para 2
AO1: IV / DV / CONTROLS
->study 1:
—>IV: symptoms displayed to psychiatrist
—>DV: admission to the hospital
->study 2
—>IV: expectations of staff
—>DV: diagnosis of patients
->controls:
—>experimental method was covert ppt observation (ppts remained in hosp. for
7-52 days)
AO3: strength
->high reliability
—>Rosenhan’s study followed a standardised procedure
–>in study 1 every ppt was given the same set of instructions to complete throughout the study, eg. all phoned hosp for an appointment and all complained of the same symptom (same sex voice: “empty”, “thud”, “hollow;
and stopped showing symptoms when admitted
—> therefore can be replicated.
AO3: weakness
-> low validity
—>Rosenhan’s study lacks temporal validity
—>his study took place in 1973, meaning that the results may not apply to modern society
—>This is because, over time, the treatment of patients for certain ilinesses may have changed, as well as revisions being made to diagnostic systems (eg. in 1973 the dsm-iii was used whereas now we use the Dsm-v)
therefore findings not relevant to today’s society
para 3
AO1: procedure (study 1)
->Study 1:
—>ppts were pseudo -patients
of varying background (5 men & 3 women, none had any recorded mental health issues). Each ppt adopted a fake identities, changing their name and jon but otherwise telling the truth, & were dispatched to different hospitals
—>each ppt phoned the hosp. for an appt. On arriving at admissions, ppts complained of hearing a same sex voice saying things such as “empty”, “thud”, and “hollow”
—>Upon admission, ppts stopped showing symptoms and wrote notes on what they observed
AO3: strength
->application
—> his study has IRL application as it shows the negative impact of labels after a diagnosis is given
—>despite the pseudo-patients not actually having sz, everything they said or did was noted as a symptom of sz or mania.
—>this is an issue as the pseudo-patients were acting completely sane and were flushing their medication down the toilet, suggesting that psychiatric hospitals do not complete accurate observations & instead just treat patients based on their inital diagnosis
AO3: weakness
->a disadvantage Of Rosenhan’s study is that it took time and work away from real patients who needed the nurse’s / psychiatrist’s attention
—>this is evident in the second Study where the staff had to attempt to identify psendo-patients
(there Weren’t any) & they concluded that 23/193 patients were psendo-patients
—>therefore they may not have got the correct treatment that they needed
para 4
AO1: procedure (study 2)
-> Study 2:
—>this was a field expt where the staff at the hosp. were from the given that findings from the first part of the study
—>they discussed the idea of type one and type two errors and the staff were then informed that sometime during the following 3 months, one or more pseudo patients would attempt to be admitted (no pseudo-patients were sent)
—>each member of staff was asked to rate each newly admitted patient on the likelihood that they were a pseudo patient.
AO3: strength
->high ecological validity
—> Rosenhan’s study had high ecological validity
—>the investigation was carried out in 12 hospitals in 5 different US states,
some were old, some were new, some overstaffed /understaffed
publicly funded with staff that were unaware of the study
—>the results that the Dsm-llI is not a valid classification system to diagnose mental illness & the poor treatment patients within hospitals /mental institutions has high validity
AO3: weakness
->implication
—> the findings have a political impact on the care system
—>the results showed that 11.3% staff remove themselves from their area & qualitative data showed the unjust treatment of the patients; some being beaten & the toilets not having doors.
—>therefore showing inconsistencies
within the care system as a whole.
para 5
AO1: findings
-> Study 1:
—>71% of psychiatrists and 86% of nurses walk on with their head averted when asked Qs by a patient
—>as little as 4% of P and 2% of N pause & chat with ppts
-> Study 2;
—>41/193 patients were suspected to be pseudo patients by one staff member
—>another staff member identified 23/193 patients as pseudo patients
—>19/193 were suspected by a psychiatrist
AO3: strength
->high validity
—>this study has high validity as there was a very low chance of demand characteristics
—>the hospital staff were unaware that the expt was being conducted, and they thought that the pseudo-patients noting was a symptom of their illness whereas they were actually observing their behaviour coverfly.
—>this is a strength as a cause a effect relationship can be established
AO3: weakness
->unethical
—>this study breaks the “no deception”rule & the “fully informed consent” rule in the BPS code of conduct
—>the pseudo-patients were the only ones aware of the study; the nurses, psychiatrists and other real patients
had no idea they were being
observed.
para 6
AO1: conclusion
->there are two types of errors that are commonly made
–>type 1, where a professional diagnoses a sick person as healthy
—>type 2, where a professional diagnoses a healthy person as sick.
—-> therefore this study shows that same people can easily be diagnosed as insane as type 2 errors were made frequently
AO3: strength
-> high validity
—> Rosenhan’s 1973 study has high validity due to it’s collection of primary data
—>during the study, the 8 pseudo-patients collected qualitative & quantitative data by observing the hosp. staff a noting their behaviour towards patients. This included reports of inhumane behaviour towards eg. physical abuse towards patients and 88% of psychiatrists ignoring patients
when asked a question
—>this data was collected first hand via their observations, therefore increasing the validity
AO3: weakness
->unethical
—>Rosenhan’s study may be considered unethical as he caused psychological harm to the ppts
—>in his journal article he described the patients as nervous and anxious, which inflicts psychological harm. Once admitted it was also very difficult to for the ppts to get discharged quickly, which compromises their right to withdraw
—>this means that the study goes against the BPS code of conduct, causing distress to the ppts.
