Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

Psychology Rosenhan's study

Terms in this set (27)

What was Rosenhan's aim in study 1?
Whether psychiatrists can reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane
What was the research method used in study 1 for Rosenhan?
Rosenhan argued that it was a field experiment but because the study lacks a direct manipulation of the IV it is actually a Covert participant observation.
Describe Rosenhan's participants.
The staff and patients at 12 different hospitals from 5 different states in the USA, public and private hospitals.
Describe Rosenhan pseudo-patients
8 pseudo-patients. 5 male, 3 female. One was a psychology graduade, 3 psychologists, one psychiatrist, one painter, and a housewife. All used fake names and fake jobs whilst in the hospital.
How did the pseudo patients get admitted to hospital in Rosenhan's study?
Each pseudo patient contacted the hospital for an appointment and on arrival they reported hearing voices, they said the words were unclear but could hear the word 'thud'. The voice was of the same sex but did not recognise the owner of the voice.
How many were admitted and what were they diagnosed with in Rosenhan's study?
All 8 were admitted, 11 with schizophrenia and 1 with manic depressive psychosis.
What did the pseudo-patients do once they were admitted in Rosenhan's study?
All pseudo-patients stopped displaying symptoms of abnormality and behaved normally as agreed before the study was conducted in order for them to be released.
How was data recorded in study 1 in Rosenhan's study?
The pseudo patients made notes of everything that happened, first secretly but then in public places, it seemed as though no one cared. They tried to engage staff and patients in conversation, they didn't take medication although it was believed they did.
What were the dependent variables (what the pseudo patients recorded) in rosenhans study?
1. Responses to patients when they made requests to staff
2.The amount of time staff spent with patients
3.Number of times attendents and physicians left the office area (the cage).
4.Amount of eye contact from psychiatrists with patients.
5.Observations of how patients were treated.
Name 4 quantitative results from study 1 in Rosenhan.
Avoiding eye contact-71%
Amount of time spent with psychiatrist-less than 7 mins a day
Length of hospitalisation-7-52 days
Number of pills recorded-2100
What was the qualitative data recorded in study 1 in Rosenhan?
Personal privacy was at a minimum e.g. toilets had no door.
Staff ignored psuedopatients when talked to.
Attendents delievered verbal abuse
Writing in journal was seen as part of their disorder.
Study 1 conclusion for Rosenhan
Rosenhan shows the diagnostic system was unreliable. They were more likely to diagnose a healthy person as sick than they were to diagnose a sick person as healthy. Type one error.
What was the aim in study 2 for Rosenhan?
Hospitals where the staff had heard of the study said they would not make the same mistakes.
What was the research method in study 2 in Rosenhan?
A self report study in a natural environment.
Who were the participants in study 2 in Rosenhan?
One hospital and its staff.
Outline the procedure in study 2 in Rosenhan.
Rosenhan told the hospital that over the next 3 months some of the patients that would be presented to them would be fake. Staff members were asked to rate each new patient on a 10point scale on how likely they were to be a pseudo patient but to treat appropriately. Rosenhan did not send anyone to the hospital so all the patients were infact real patients.
Outline the results from study 2 in Rosenhan.
Number of patients admitted and judged-193
Patients that were judged by 1 member of staff to be a pseudo-patient-41
Patients were judged by a doctor to be a pseudo-patient-23
Patients judged by 2 members of staff to be a pseudo-patient-19
What was the conclusion made on study 2 in Rosenhan?
Rosenhan had once again shows the diagnostic system was unreliable.The doctors and psychiatrists could not reliably tell who was sane or insane. This time the docs and psychiatrists were more likely to diagnose a sick person as healthy than a healthy person as sick. Type 2 error.
What was the overall conclusion for Rosenhan's study?
Diagnostic system was unreliable. We cannot reliably distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals. Once a person is designated abnormal, all of their behaviours and characteristics are coloured by that label. Rosenhan described this as 'the stickiness of labels' Powerlessness and depersonalisation are common experiences in a hospital.
Strengths and weaknesses of Rosenhan's sample
Strengths- representative
Weaknesses-
Strengths and weaknesses of the research method in study 1 in Rosenhan.
Strengths- High Validity
- High ecological validity
Weaknesses-Ethical issues- deception
Strengths and weaknesses of how the data was recorded in Rosenhan.
Strengths- High ecological validity
Weaknesses- Bias
Strengths and weaknesses of collecting qualitative data in Rosenhan's study
Strengths-provides depth and detail into the diagnostic system in hospitals.
Weaknesses- Hard to compare results from other hospitals.
Strengths and weaknesses of the research method in study 2 for Rosenhan.
Strengths- Able to examine large sets of variables
Weaknesses-Social desirability bias
Strengths and weaknesses of Rosenhan's study overall
Strength- High ecological validity
Weakness- Ethical issues
What changes would you make to Rosenhan's study?
Change 1. Make the study longitudinal - over 4 months.
Change 2. Ethical issues -get informed consent.
Implications to the changes you made in Rosenhan's study.
Change 1. More representative and easier to see what changes occur.
May break protection from harm as pseudo patients may start to feel they have the disorder.
Change 2. Would resolve the ethical issue
May bring out demand characteristics
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...