rosenhan

Question 1

when did the study take place

Answer 1

1973

Question 2

aim

Answer 2

to test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane

Question 3

who were the pseudo-patients

Answer 3

one grad student 
three psychologists 
a paediatrician 
a painter 
2 housewives

Question 4

procedure of first study

Answer 4

• phoned 12 hospitals
• arrived at admissions and gave fake names and addresses
• complained of hearing unclear voices saying ‘empty, hollow, thud’
• said the voice was unfamiliar to them but same sex
• 7/8 were diagnosed with sz
• were not detected
• couldn’t leave until they were fit to be discharged
• field experiment
• IV = made up symptoms in pseudo patients
  DV = psychiatrists admissions and diagnostic label of pseudo patient
• ppt observation

Question 5

pathological interpretations

Answer 5

normal behaviour was misinterpreted
writing notes described as patietn engaged in writing behaviour
arriving early for lunch described as oral acquisitive syndrome
depression

Question 6

findings of first study

Answer 6

shortest day - 7 
longest day - 52
 average day - 19 
35/118 real patients suspected patients 
given 2100 tablets and all were flushed 
each real patient spent less than 7 minutes per day with staff

Question 7

response of each staff member

Answer 7

moves on with head averted - 71% psychiatrists 88% nurses 
makes eyes contact - 
23% psychiatrists 10% nurses 
pauses and chats - 
2% psychiatrists 4% nurses 
stops and talks - 
4% psychiatrists 0.5% nurses

Question 8

results of first study

Answer 8

powerless and depersonalisation =

• medical records were open to all staff
• personal hygiene monitored, may toilets had no door
• some ward orderlies were brutal to patients
• lack of normal reaction

Question 9

the second study procedure

Answer 9

• staff of a teaching and research hospital were falsely informed that pseudo-patients would be admitted into hospital
  asked on a ten point scale the likelihood that each new patient was a pseudo-patient

Question 10

iv and dv of second study

Answer 10

iv = false information 
dv= number of patients staff subsequently suspected of being pseudo-patients

Question 11

results of second study

Answer 11

number of patients judged - 193
no. of patients confidently judged as being p-p by at least one member of staff - 41
number of patients judged as being p-p by at least 1 psychiatrist - 23
number of patients judged as being p-p by at least 1 psychiatrists and 1 staff member - 19

Question 12

evaluation of procedure

Answer 12

STRENGTHS
- ppt observation meant that the pseudo-patients could experience the ward while maintaining objectivity
- field experiment so was ecologically valid while controlling confounding variables
- wide range of hospitals used - generalisable
- rosenhan kept names of staff confidential
WEAKNESSES
- ethics = staff were deceived
- experience of pseudo differed from real patients
- doctors more likely to call a type 2 error than type 1 error
- different DSM used and has been updated now
- maybe hospital was erring on side of caution

Question 13

reliability and validity of diagnosis

Answer 13

reliability = using the same methods to diagnose patients 
validity = if the diagnosis is a correct one or not

Question 14

evaluation of explanation

Answer 14

• study demonstrates both the limitations of classification
• pointed out the appalling conditions in many psychiatric hospitals
• rosenham argues that mental illness is a social phenomenon
• believes that mental illness is simply a consequences of labelling