The psychology of individual differences Flashcards
1
Q
Describe the context and aim of Rosenhan’s study
A
- Ruth Benedict, 1934, suggested that normality and abnormality are not universal
- Situational or dispositional: Do the salient characteristics that lead to diagnoses reside in the patients themselves or in the environments and contexts in which observers find them?
- Hypothesis: Psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between the sane and the insane
2
Q
Describe the method and pseudopatients in Rosenhan’s study
A
- Participant observation
- 3 women, 5 men
- 1 psychology student in his 20s, 3 psychologists, 1 pediatrician, 1 psychiatrist, 1 painter, 1 housewife
- All used pseudonyms
- Those in mental health professions alleged another occupation (avoid special attentions)
- Presence and nature of research unknown to hospital staff (except Rosenhan, known to admin and chief pscyhologist)
3
Q
Describe the setting of Rosenhan’s study
A
- 12 hospitals across five different US states
- East and West coasts
- Some old/shabby, some new
- Well staffed and under-staffed
- One private, one university funded, others were state/federal funded
- Can be generalised
4
Q
Describe the procedure of Rosenhan’s 1st study
A
- Called for appointment
- Admissions office - hearing unfamiliar, unclear voices of same sex saying “empty”, “hollow”, “thud”
- No cases of existential psychoses had existed
- Falsified name, vocation and employment; no further altercations of person/history - not pathological
- Upon admission, ceased simulating symptoms
- Responded to instructions, said they were fine
- Wrote observations secretly at first, then openly as no one much cared
5
Q
Describe the diagnoses given to the pseudopatients
A
- 11 admitted with schizophrenia
- 1 admitted with manic depression
- All were discharged ‘in remission’ - implied effects on furture job prospects
6
Q
Briefly describe the experience of the pseudopatients in the mental hospitals
A
- Average stay 19 days (7-52 range)
- Total 2100 pills - variety of medications for patients presenting identical symptoms
- Nurses/doctors misinterpreted behaviour
- writing - pathological? Not even a symptom!
- pacing - nervous? No, bored
- waiting for lunch - oral-acquisitive? Not much else to do
- Powerlessness and depersonalisation
- Abusive behaviour
7
Q
Describe the staff-patient interactions and other experiences showing depersonalisation in Rosenhan’s study
A
- Attendants spent 11.3% of time outside of glassed quarters ‘cage’ (3-52% range) - strict segregation
- Physicians did not answer/barely listened to questions asked by pseudopatients
- Verbal and occasional physical abuse - stopped when other staff members came
- Staff did not care that patients rejected medication as long as they behaved
- Staff at top of hierarchy have less to do with patients
- No privacy e.g. toilets had no doors
- 35/118 real patients suspicious, none of the staff were
8
Q
How did the nurses respond to the questions asked by pseudopatients in Rosenhan’s study?
A
- stops and talks 0.5%
- pauses and chats 1.5%
- makes eye contact 10%
- continues, looking the other way 88%
This involves a situational explanation. Inmates are mentally ill and so cannot communicate/are non-people
9
Q
Describe the procedure for Rosenhan’s 2nd study
A
- Research and teaching hospital
- Informed that in the following 3 months, one or more pseudopatients would attempt admission
- Staff rated each patient on likelihood of being a pseudopatient
- 10-point scale - 1/2 high confidence the patient is a pseudopatient
10
Q
Describe the results of Rosenhan’s second study
A
- 193 patients admitted
- 41 high confidence
- 23 suspected by at least one psychiatrist
- 19 suspected by one psychiatrist and one other staff member
- No actual pseudopatients were sent by Rosenhan
11
Q
What explanations did Rosenhan suggest for the experience of mental hospitalisation?
A
- More inclined to Type 2 error - safer to diagnose healthy as sick than vice versa
- Situation of hospital determines assumptions made by staff of patients
- Stickiness of psychodiagnostic labels - colours others’ perceptions of patient
- Depersonalisation as staff did not want anything to do with patients - worsens mental condition
12
Q
Evaluate Rosenhan’s study
A
- Generalisation: yes; range of pseudopatient and hospital characteristics
- Reliability: questionable; similar results for 12 hospitals, similar procedure means can be replicated; however, observation may not be reliable
- Validity: low; changes in the DSM makes study outdates
- Ecological validity: quite high; real hospitals and accounts of real patient behaviour; however, pseudopatients cannot tell what real patients feel
- Ethics: no; deception, no consent, no right to withdraw, no personal debriefing; however, confidential
- Usefulness: high; led to re-evaluation of diagnosis criteria, reveals danger of psychodiagnostic labelling
13
Q
Define
multiple personality disorder (MPD)
A
A rare dissociative disorder in which two or more personalities with distinct memories and behavior patterns apparently exist in one individual.
14
Q
Describe Thigpen & Cleckley’s subject
A
- Eve White (aka Christine Sizemore)
- 25 years old
- Married (unhappily)
- A 4-year-old daughter
- Eldest of three sisters (twin sisters)
- Telephone operator
15
Q
Describe Thigpen & Cleckley’s method
A
-
Logitudinal case study (14 months)
- MPD is rare (so studying one individual is realistic)
- wanted to study MPD, Eve was an interesting case (so could collect in depth data/understand the source of her problem and help her - action research)
- provides basic information for further research on MPD
- Hypnosis initially to access Eve Black, and to retrieve memories
-
Self-report: unstructured interviews (approx. 100 hours total) to assess the personalities
- may have demand characteristics and researcher bias
