KEY STUDIES IN PSYCHOLOGY
UNIT 2 CLINICAL CLASSIC STUDY: ROSENHAN (1973):
AIM – to find out whether mental health professional could distinguish between those who were
genuinely mentally ill and those who were not.
PROCEDURE – The study was a field experiment and a participant observation. It took place in 12
psychiatric hospitals varying in size and location. The sample was 8 pseudo patients , 5 men and 3
women, from different occupations: a painter, housewife, and psychologists including Rosenhan.
None were ever diagnosed with a mental illness (opportunity sampling). Pseudo patients called
mental hospitals complaining of hearing voices and the words ‘empty’ ‘thud’ and ‘hollow’. 7 pseudo
patients admitted with schizophrenia and 1 admitted with manic depression and psychosis. They
acted normally with both staff and genuine patients, accepted but did not take medication given to
them and did not report any more symptoms. Observed the behaviour of staff and took notes
gathering both qualitative and quantitative data. Follow up study took place in another hospital after
staff asked Rosenhan to send more pseudo patients over a period of three months, claiming they
would notice if they were fake patients. Rosenhan did not actually send any pseudo patients.
RESULTS – Pseudo patients hospitalised between 7 and 52 days prior to being considered sane
enough to be discharged. No doctors/nurses questioned their genuineness, but some patients
thought they may have been journalists. No staff answered pseudo patients’ questions in 4/12
hospitals. 71% doctors and 88% nurses and other staff ignored pseudo patient when questioned.
Normal behaviour interpreted as abnormal eg. note writing = engaged in writing behaviour, pacing =
nervousness when patient was actually bored. Follow up study: 41/193 cases identified as fake and
23 suspected as fake by psychiatrist but Rosenhan sent no pseudo patients.
CONCLUSION – Mental health professionals cannot distinguish. Between real and false patients,
willing to make diagnosis based on fake symptoms. Normal behaviour misinterpreted as abnormal to
support their idea of pseudo patients having illness. Suggests validity of diagnoses was low, but
consistency of diagnosis shows they are reliable but incorrect.
(+) HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY AND ETHICAL (-) DECEPTION AND ETHNOCENTRIC
UNIT 2 CRIME CLASSIC STUDY: LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974):
AIM: to investigate whether leading questions would influence the estimates of the speed of a
vehicle among eyewitnesses.
PROCEDURE EXPERIMENT 1: a total of 45 students were shown 7 short film clips of a traffic accident.
After each film clip, participants were asked to give an account of the accident they had seen and
were then given a questionnaire and asked to answer specific questions about the accident. The
length of the film clips ranged from 5 to 30 seconds. All participants received the same questionnaire
with the exception of one critical question that was changed. One group of 9 participants were asked
the critical question ‘about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ The remaining 4
groups of 9 participants were asked the same question but with the verb ‘hit’ changed to ‘smashed’
UNIT 2 CLINICAL CLASSIC STUDY: ROSENHAN (1973):
AIM – to find out whether mental health professional could distinguish between those who were
genuinely mentally ill and those who were not.
PROCEDURE – The study was a field experiment and a participant observation. It took place in 12
psychiatric hospitals varying in size and location. The sample was 8 pseudo patients , 5 men and 3
women, from different occupations: a painter, housewife, and psychologists including Rosenhan.
None were ever diagnosed with a mental illness (opportunity sampling). Pseudo patients called
mental hospitals complaining of hearing voices and the words ‘empty’ ‘thud’ and ‘hollow’. 7 pseudo
patients admitted with schizophrenia and 1 admitted with manic depression and psychosis. They
acted normally with both staff and genuine patients, accepted but did not take medication given to
them and did not report any more symptoms. Observed the behaviour of staff and took notes
gathering both qualitative and quantitative data. Follow up study took place in another hospital after
staff asked Rosenhan to send more pseudo patients over a period of three months, claiming they
would notice if they were fake patients. Rosenhan did not actually send any pseudo patients.
RESULTS – Pseudo patients hospitalised between 7 and 52 days prior to being considered sane
enough to be discharged. No doctors/nurses questioned their genuineness, but some patients
thought they may have been journalists. No staff answered pseudo patients’ questions in 4/12
hospitals. 71% doctors and 88% nurses and other staff ignored pseudo patient when questioned.
Normal behaviour interpreted as abnormal eg. note writing = engaged in writing behaviour, pacing =
nervousness when patient was actually bored. Follow up study: 41/193 cases identified as fake and
23 suspected as fake by psychiatrist but Rosenhan sent no pseudo patients.
CONCLUSION – Mental health professionals cannot distinguish. Between real and false patients,
willing to make diagnosis based on fake symptoms. Normal behaviour misinterpreted as abnormal to
support their idea of pseudo patients having illness. Suggests validity of diagnoses was low, but
consistency of diagnosis shows they are reliable but incorrect.
(+) HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY AND ETHICAL (-) DECEPTION AND ETHNOCENTRIC
UNIT 2 CRIME CLASSIC STUDY: LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974):
AIM: to investigate whether leading questions would influence the estimates of the speed of a
vehicle among eyewitnesses.
PROCEDURE EXPERIMENT 1: a total of 45 students were shown 7 short film clips of a traffic accident.
After each film clip, participants were asked to give an account of the accident they had seen and
were then given a questionnaire and asked to answer specific questions about the accident. The
length of the film clips ranged from 5 to 30 seconds. All participants received the same questionnaire
with the exception of one critical question that was changed. One group of 9 participants were asked
the critical question ‘about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ The remaining 4
groups of 9 participants were asked the same question but with the verb ‘hit’ changed to ‘smashed’
