Rosenhan KS
Aim: to investigate whether the sane can be reliability and accurately
distinguished from the insane
Study 1 - Would sane individuals be admitted to psychiatric hospitals? Would
they be discovered? (type 1 error)
Study 2 - Would genuine patients be misidentified as sane? (type 2 error)
Sample:
● 8 pseudopatients (aged 20+) including Rosenhan itself, only hospital
administrator and chief psychologist aware of involvement
● 3F + 5M
● Variety of occupations
● False names
● 12 hospitals (public, private, university funded) across 5 states in USA
from old to modern
● Staff to patient ratio varied
Design and procedure:
● IV: 12 different hospitals
● DV: admission, diagnosis, recordings of experiences
● Field experiment
● Participant observation - made own records
● Call for appointment -> arrive at admissions office reporting hearing
voices (empty, hollow, thud -> imply crisis about existence)
● Voices unfamiliar but same sex
● All other information given truthful
● Behaved ‘normally’ and engaged with others in conversation
● Told staff no longer experiencing symptoms
● Obeyed rules including pretending to take medication
● 4 hospitals asked ‘when am i likely to be discharged?’ -> answers
recorded and compared to control with simple question for university
staff at Stanford
Results:
● Pseudopatients all successfully admitted
● Despite showing no symptoms, pseudopatents undetected by staff
● All except 1 diagnosed with SZ and discharged with SZ in remission ->
continue to carry label
● Average length of stay - 19 days
● During first 3 trials, 35/118 patients voiced suspicions about
pseudopatients; none of hospital staff raised concerns
Aim: to investigate whether the sane can be reliability and accurately
distinguished from the insane
Study 1 - Would sane individuals be admitted to psychiatric hospitals? Would
they be discovered? (type 1 error)
Study 2 - Would genuine patients be misidentified as sane? (type 2 error)
Sample:
● 8 pseudopatients (aged 20+) including Rosenhan itself, only hospital
administrator and chief psychologist aware of involvement
● 3F + 5M
● Variety of occupations
● False names
● 12 hospitals (public, private, university funded) across 5 states in USA
from old to modern
● Staff to patient ratio varied
Design and procedure:
● IV: 12 different hospitals
● DV: admission, diagnosis, recordings of experiences
● Field experiment
● Participant observation - made own records
● Call for appointment -> arrive at admissions office reporting hearing
voices (empty, hollow, thud -> imply crisis about existence)
● Voices unfamiliar but same sex
● All other information given truthful
● Behaved ‘normally’ and engaged with others in conversation
● Told staff no longer experiencing symptoms
● Obeyed rules including pretending to take medication
● 4 hospitals asked ‘when am i likely to be discharged?’ -> answers
recorded and compared to control with simple question for university
staff at Stanford
Results:
● Pseudopatients all successfully admitted
● Despite showing no symptoms, pseudopatents undetected by staff
● All except 1 diagnosed with SZ and discharged with SZ in remission ->
continue to carry label
● Average length of stay - 19 days
● During first 3 trials, 35/118 patients voiced suspicions about
pseudopatients; none of hospital staff raised concerns
