Rosenhan Classics Study

Generalisability

AO1

The study included 8 psuedopatients, who were Rosenhan’s friends/colleagues (and Rosenhan himself) – 3 women, 5 men with no history of psychiatric disorder. 

AO3

Rosenhan’s generalisability could be said to be good, as the patients went to 12 hospitals in 5 different states in the US, including a representative range of different hospitals, including old, new over-staffed and under-staffed. This means that the findings should be more generalisable to the whole of America – however as the experiment was only completed in America it may lack generalisability to other cultures. Rosenhan’s sample size was also very small, only including 8 people, which limits his ability to generalise 

Reliability

AO1

All pseudopatients faked a single symptom, but everything else they said was true and reflective of a normal, healthy lifestyle. They said they heard a voice that was telling them ‘hollow’ ‘empty’ and ‘thud.’ However, once inside the hospital they did not report any more pseudo-symptoms, and behaved normally 

AO3

Rosenhan’s study could be said to be reliable, as all pseudopatients were instructed to follow the same standardised procedure, even down to physical appearances, where the pseudopatients stopped shaving, showering and brushing their teeth for exactly 5 days before arriving at the hospital. This would allow the study to be repeated, and hopefully obtain similar results. 
(However, once inside the hospital, not all pseudopatients followed this exact standardised method – for example one patient had a romance with a nurse) 

Applicability

AO1

100% of the pseudopatients were diagnosed as mentally ill and admitted to a psychiatric ward as schizophrenic, despite the fact that their symptoms did not match any known diagnosis of schizophrenia. 

AO3

Rosenhan’s study has the potential for huge positive applications to society, particularly in improving the conditions of psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric diagnosis, as it proves the inaccuracy of diagnosis. This exposes the need for better research, and could prompt updates to the DSM, or better training for psychiatrists in diagnosing disorders. (However, this study could simultaneously spark distrust in society surrounding mental health diagnosis, causing people that do genuinely need help to not wish to seek it out.) 

Validity

AO1

Inside the hospital, pseudopatients took a notepad and pen to record what they heard and saw via covert observation 

AO3

Rosenhan’s study had aspects of good validity, as the pseudopatients recorded covert first-hand observations of the hospital staff. As the staff were unaware of the pseudopatients’ presence, their responses were entirely reflective of their usual behaviours, and there was no risk of social desirability bias, which would have impacted the validity of the results. This therefore increases the internal validity of the study, making Rosenhan’s results more accurate. 

Ethics

AO1

The hospital staff were deceived, and were unaware of their own participation in the study – giving no informed consent 

AO3

Lack of informed consent from the hospital staff due to their unawareness of their participation, means that they had no ability to withdraw from the study.  
Lack of protection from harm of the pseudopatients, who witnessed violence within the psychiatric wards, and were trying to be given medication from hospital staff. Violation of BPS ethical guidelines (although these did not exist at the time) 
(However – the ends may justify the means and have positive ethical implications to future psychiatric patients, as this exposes the need to improve mental health facilities, which may result in more humane treatment)