Rosenhan study – Evaluation
AO1:
Aim – To find out whether mental health professionals could distinguish between those who
were genuinely mentally ill and those who were not.
Procedure:
8 Pseudopatients (three were women and 5 were men – one was a psychology
student, 3 were psychologist and others a housewife, painter, and paediatrician)
were recruited.
They visited 12 psychiatric hospitals across 5 states in the USA claiming they kept
hearing a voice saying ‘empty’ and ‘hollow’.
Each pseudopatients were given a false name to protect their identity but kept detail
about their life the same. All participants were admitted with diagnosis of
schizophrenia expect one with a diagnosis of maniac depression.
Once admitted the pseudopateints all stopped faking the symptoms and behaved
normally while keeping records of observations.
Follow-up study took place at another hospital. The hospital asked to send more
pseudopatients over 3 months and claimed that they would notice the real or fake
patients. Rosenhan did not send patients.
Results:
Pseudopatients were hopsitalised between 7 and 52 days prior to being considered
sane enough to be discharged. Averaging 19 days
In 4 of 12 hospitals, no staff answered the pseudopatients when they asked them
questions. 71% of doctors and 88% of nurses and other staff ignored the
pseudopatients when questioned.
Follow-up study found 41/193 patients wrongly reported as fake by at least one staff
member.
Conclusion:
Mental health professional cannot distinguish between real and false patients, and
they were willing to make a diagnosis based on one fake symptom.
Overdiagnosis occurred because clinicians avoided calling a sick person healthy.
AO3:
Strength – Study has high ecological validity. For example, the study was a field experiment
based on covert participation observations in a real psychiatric setting and used 12 real
hospitals that varied in locations. This is a strength because results can be applied to
different hospitals locations and medical teams.
CA – The study was carried out in the US and may not be representative of hospitals in all
cultures, and therefore the study has cultural bias.
AO1:
Aim – To find out whether mental health professionals could distinguish between those who
were genuinely mentally ill and those who were not.
Procedure:
8 Pseudopatients (three were women and 5 were men – one was a psychology
student, 3 were psychologist and others a housewife, painter, and paediatrician)
were recruited.
They visited 12 psychiatric hospitals across 5 states in the USA claiming they kept
hearing a voice saying ‘empty’ and ‘hollow’.
Each pseudopatients were given a false name to protect their identity but kept detail
about their life the same. All participants were admitted with diagnosis of
schizophrenia expect one with a diagnosis of maniac depression.
Once admitted the pseudopateints all stopped faking the symptoms and behaved
normally while keeping records of observations.
Follow-up study took place at another hospital. The hospital asked to send more
pseudopatients over 3 months and claimed that they would notice the real or fake
patients. Rosenhan did not send patients.
Results:
Pseudopatients were hopsitalised between 7 and 52 days prior to being considered
sane enough to be discharged. Averaging 19 days
In 4 of 12 hospitals, no staff answered the pseudopatients when they asked them
questions. 71% of doctors and 88% of nurses and other staff ignored the
pseudopatients when questioned.
Follow-up study found 41/193 patients wrongly reported as fake by at least one staff
member.
Conclusion:
Mental health professional cannot distinguish between real and false patients, and
they were willing to make a diagnosis based on one fake symptom.
Overdiagnosis occurred because clinicians avoided calling a sick person healthy.
AO3:
Strength – Study has high ecological validity. For example, the study was a field experiment
based on covert participation observations in a real psychiatric setting and used 12 real
hospitals that varied in locations. This is a strength because results can be applied to
different hospitals locations and medical teams.
CA – The study was carried out in the US and may not be representative of hospitals in all
cultures, and therefore the study has cultural bias.
