Let’s start today’s lesson by Using our whiteboards, identify the key information from last lesson

Rosenhan (1973) Suggests psychiatrists were not able to identify the difference between the SANE and INSANE

The staff of a hospital Were aware of the first study The second study The staff of a hospital Were aware of the first study Were informed that during the next 3 months pseudo- patients would attempt to be admitted into the hospital Were asked to rate on a 10-point scale the likelihood that each new patient was a pseudo-patient

The Second Study IV=The false information DV= number of patients staff subsequently suspected of being pseudo-patients

Many patients of the hospital’s regular intake were judged to be pseudo-patients Number of patients judged 193 Number of patients confidently judged as being pseudo-patients by at least 1 staff member 41 Number of patients judged as being pseudo-patients by at least 1 psychiatrist 23 Number of patients judged as being pseudo-patients by at least 1 psychiatrist AND 1 staff member 19

Proudly announced they reported 193 pseudo-patients the hospital Proudly announced they reported 193 pseudo-patients However, Rosenhan send ZERO

Was the aim of Rosenhan 1973 study met? So… this means that Was the aim of Rosenhan 1973 study met? The psychiatrists could not reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and people who are not sane (193 GENUINE patients were thought to be fake) First study failed to detect….. Sanity Second study failed to detect…. Insanity

For example; schizophrenia vs broken leg Rosenhan suggests Mental illness labels tend to stick in a way that medical labels do not For example; schizophrenia vs broken leg Everything a patient does is interpreted in accordance with the diagnostic label once it has been applied

Rosenhan claims… Misdiagnosis due to doctors have a strong bias towards Type 2 errors - they are more inclined to call a healthy person sick (a false positive) than to call a sick person healthy (a false negative, or Type 1 error). However, “A type 2 error in psychiatric diagnosis does not have the same consequences it does in medical diagnosis. A diagnosis of cancer that has been found to be in error is cause for celebration. But psychiatric diagnoses are rarely found to be in error. The label sticks, a mark of inadequacy forever.”

Having once been labelled schizophrenic, there is nothing the pseudo patients could do to overcome the label. Once a person is designated abnormal all of his other behaviours are coloured by this label. Indeed the label is so powerful that many of the normal behaviours were overlooked completely, or profoundly misinterpreted. This is demonstrated by the fact that when the patients were released from the hospital, they were still labelled as “schizophrenics in remission”.

On whiteboards… Outline what you think are… Two strengths Two weaknesses Prepare to present to class

Strengths The use of observation…. What is good about this? It allowed for the pseudo patients to experience the ward from the patients perspective while also maintaining a degree of objectivity

Strengths The study was a field experiment Why is this a potential strength? It allows for variables such as pseudo patients behaviours to be controlled

What does this allow for? Strengths Rosenhan and participants attended a range of hospitals Why would this be a strength? Each hospital was different from the next – they were in different states, old and new, poorly staffed and well staffed, one private, federal and university funded What does this allow for? Generalisation

Weaknesses The hospital staff were deceived This of course is unethical! However, Rosenhan did not: Conceal the names of hospitals or staff Instead he tried to climate any clues which would lead to their identification

Weaknesses Was Rosenhans experience as a pseudo-patient the same as a real patient?? Not necessarily Rosenhan, unlike the real patients, had comfort in knowing that the diagnosis he received was false.

Format of peel Point: What is the evaluation point? “One weakness of the multi-store model is…” Explain: What does this mean? “This means that…” Evidence: Is there any evidence to support this? “This idea is supported by study… which found…” Link: Link back to question? “This weakens the explanation provided by the multi-store model of memory” Using your worksheet, PEEL One strength One weakness

Go in pairs and swap PEEL’s What does your pair have that you don’t? What is good about their PEEL? How could they improve? Give (and subsequently receive) feedback cards

PREP Complete work packs DUE: 8th February 2017 will be checked in class

Create a poster, mind map, flash card or whatever other method based on Rosenhan (1973) study one and study two This will help you for the exam