Rosenhan core study

study 1

see if sane patients could get admitted to a psychiatric hospital

study 2

see if psychiatric staff could differentiate sane and insane

study 3

investigate patient/staff contact

• opportunity sampling
• hospital staff and patients at 12 psychiatric hospitals in the USA (1)
• hospital staff at a large teaching and psychiatric hospital in (2)
• doctors and staff in four of the hospitals used in study 1 (3)

study 1

• telephoned 12 hospitals- urgent appointments
• empty, hollow, thud- voices
• pseudo-patients showed no symptoms after being admitted
• took notes over the course of the stay

study 2

• psych hopsitals told over the next 3 months, some pseudo-patients would try and get admitted
• no pseudo-patients
• members of staff had to rate on a scale of 1-10 of likelihood of being a pseudo-patient

study 3

• 4 psych hosps
• pseudo-patients asked when they would be eligible for ground priveleges
• avoided asking the same staff more than once a day

study 1

• all pseudo-patients admitted
• 7 out of 8 diagnosed
• normal behaviour, insane-pacing, taking notes, queuing for lunch slightly early

study 2

• 193 patients assessed
• 41 pseudo- by at least 2 staff
• 23 psuedo- at least one psychiatrist
• 19 psuedo- psychiatrist and one other member

study 3

• only 4% of psychiatrists and 0.5% nurses stopped and talked
• 71% p and 88% n moved on with head averted
• 23% p and 10% n make eye contact
• 2% p and n stopped to chat
• young female participnt asked for directions- 100% time stopped and chatted

• P: not always possible to differentiate between sane and insane- label creates expectations
• E: 7 out of 8 researchers diagnosed with schizophrenia in study 1, many sick people diagnosed as healthy in study 2
• E: therefore better to place abnormal individuasl in community healthcare to avoid the institutional context. focus on behavioural diagnoses rather than a global label such as schizophrenia

Description replicate the study cross culturally e.g. in the UK

repeat the same 3 studies across 12 different psychiatric hospitals

team of 8 researchers- hearing voices etc

Advantage

more valid- different diagnositic systems- internationally ICD-10, whilst in the US it is DSV-IV

Disadvantage

impractical, difficult to find willing participants- especially if they know the results of the original study

Implications

results are different due to diagnostic system differences, psychiatric hospitals are different -perhaps more detailed analysis of participants symptoms besides supposedly hearing voices- less diagnoses of schizophrenia than in the original?

Description

send a self-report questionnaire to doctors- give them scenarios and asking them how likely they would be to put them in a hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. rating scale 1-10 (1- extremely unlikely and 10 as extremely likely). one example- i'm hearing voices - empty, hollow, thud

Advantage

• cheap, easy, no ethical issues
• more representative- larger sample is much easily obtainable
• open questions- detailed, insight, qual data

Disadvantage

• people may not give accurate answers- lack of self-knowledge, socially desirable, possible dishonesty

Implications lower in validity & ecological validity, higher reliability- standardised questionnaire, more likely to diagnose correctly- reputation, no demand characteristics or expectations