Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Rosenhan Study- Classic Study - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In terms of the USA, the sample is small (5 out of 50 states) and the results could’ve been easily skewed with anomalies involving corruption within hospitals. His results could also be only somewhat represent that time as we have developed with MHDs from 1973 therefore it can be considered ‘time-locked’.
        
        As USA is of an individualistic culture, the treatment they receive might not be reflective of those from a collectivist culture as they promote inter-dependence and co-operation whereby individualist focusses more on independence which could impact the way they interact with those they see as different and 'insane'. This is supported by the Shamanic view on MHDs as they see it in a more positive light than the USA as it's something to be praised and celebrated to them and in USA, it's something to change/get rid of. This may lead to a differing in treatments across cultures which decreases generalisability.
- - - - It was a covert participant observation as the staff wasn’t aware the pseudopatients were researchers. So, there is high ecological validity therefore the observed behaviour of staff would reflect how they treat their patients in everyday-life. An example is incidents of physical abuse occurred, staff member to patient, but when another staff member arrived, the abuse ceased. This quantitative and qualitative data collected by the researchers is valid as it was a naturalistic experiment.
      - However, Rosenhan selected people who supported him to be the pseudopatients with him so maybe they were biased in finding negative behaviours to back up Rosenhan’s predictions for treatment of patients.
      - Difficult to establish reliability as within each hospital, little data was collected, however comparison can allow for reliability if treatment of patients is similar throughout. Low inter-rater reliability within each hospital as many only had 1 researcher in them which means they could’ve easily missed behaviours.
      - The willingness to admit a patient on flimsy evidence might be down to them thinking that no one would self-admit who wasn’t mentally ill so they would have no reason to suspect someone pretending.
- - - - Mini experiment:
        4% of pseudopatients received an answer from an psychiatrist and only 0.5% from a nurse and 78% of people stopped to talk if asked where a psychiatrist could be found
    - - It also highlighted the damage of the label 'schizophrenic in remission', as those who have left no longer experiences symptoms but suggests to society that there is still a chance they could relapse and become a danger. This is further damaging as it also blocks those who are better from integrating back into society and they have to add this label to their CV and other important forms which makes an employer think they could be a liability in the workplace as stress could make them revert back so they are more likely to be rejected.