Rosenham

Rosenham 

Aim: To test hypothesis that psychioatric diagnosis was not reliable and not valid 

Particpiants 

• Staff at 12 psychiatric hospitals
• Old + New hospitals 
• Staff were unaware of research

Method 

• Particpant observation 
• 8 Pseudo patients (inc. Rosenham)
•  3 women + 3 men 
• range of occuptions 
• each contacted hospital for appointment 
• claimed to hear voices of same sex 
• False names 
• all admitted but one with diagnosis of schizophrenia 
• Started behaving normally once admitted and collected data on staff and patient interactions 

Results 

• Length of time ranged from 7 - 52 days
• Mean = 19 days
• No detection by staff 
• Disharged with diagnosis: schizophrenia in remission 

Behaviour interpreted with context of Schizophernia included:

• Normal account of pseudo patients' relationship = dysfunctional 
• Queing early for lunch = Oral Aquisitive Syndrome
• Taking notes = Writing behaviour  

Data Collected 

Study 2

Method 

• Larger teaching + research hospital 
• Told to expect pseudo patients over next few months 
• Knew about first study 

Results 

• 193 patients were rated 
• 41 suspected
• No pseudo patients actually sent 
• staff making type 1 error to avoid making type 2 error 

Conclusions 

• Process of diagnosis open to many errors
• Hospital environment + Labels = Perception of patient behaviour as insane 

Evaluation

Strength

• High ecological validity 
• Participant observation = detailed data 
• No demand characteristics 

Weaknesses

• Serious ethical issues (invasion of privacy, consent, deception)
• not as many controls as lab 

Uses 

• Suggests improvements to hospital care and staff training