1 / 29

What Who Where How Why Which Example Different Similar

What Who Where How Why Which Example Different Similar. Devise at least 5 (no more than 10) questions on the Rosenhan study. Try to make them challenging – some ideas: They will mainly be knowledge based, but you can include some comprehension ones too. Now:.

aretha-rios
Download Presentation

What Who Where How Why Which Example Different Similar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What Who Where How Why Which Example Different Similar Devise at least 5 (no more than 10) questions on the Rosenhan study.Try to make them challenging – some ideas:They will mainly be knowledge based, but you can include some comprehension ones too.

  2. Now: • Pair up and quiz each other – help each other out if either of you is stuck! • We will rotate in a little while

  3. What did people find tricky?

  4. Recap and QuestionsD.L. Rosenhan (1973) • The ground breaking study : “On being sane in insane places”

  5. APPROACH: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES STUDY: ROSENHAN (1973) What was Rosenhan interested in? The main aim was to test whether the classification system that determined whether someone was sane or insane was reliable. Can sane individuals be diagnosed as insane and admitted to hospital? A secondary aim was see whether or not it is the characteristics of the patients that lead to diagnosis or the context itself. i.e. once on the ward, will all behaviour be judged as abnormal, regardless? CORE STUDY:ROSENHAN (1973)‘ON BEING SANE IN INSANE PLACES’ • TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT TO ROSENHAN’S STUDY • TO CRITICALLY CONSIDER DEFINITIONS OF ABNORMALITY • TO ANALYSE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DEFINITIONS

  6. Type 1 & 2 Errors

  7. Type 1 Error • Type I Error is a false positive, or when you reject the null hypothesis and it's actually true

  8. Type 2 Error • Type II error is a false negative, or when you accept the null hypothesis and it's actually false.

  9. The volunteers • EIGHT sane people • one graduate student • three psychologists • a paediatrician • a painter • Housewives • A psychiatrist (Rosenhan)

  10. What did they do?The procedure: • telephoned 12 psychiatric hospitals for urgent appointments • gave false name and address • complained of hearing unclear voices … saying “empty, hollow, thud” • Simulated ‘existential crisis’ • “Who am I, what’s it all for?” • This is because the symptoms, although clearly a sign of a mental disorder did not fit into a specific diagnosis well.

  11. What happened? • All were admitted to hospital • All but one were diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia • Once admitted the ‘pseudo-patients’ stopped simulating ANY symptoms • Took part in ward activities

  12. How did the ward staff ‘see’ them? • Normal behaviour was misinterpreted • Writing notes was described as - • “The patient engaged in writing behaviour” • Arriving early for lunch described as • “oral acquisitive syndrome” • Behaviour distorted to ‘fit in’ with label

  13. How long did they stay in hospital? • The shortest stay was 7 days • The longest stay was 52 days • The average stay was 19 days • They had agreed to stay until they convinced the staff they were sane. • Discuss: • How would YOU convince someone you are sane?

  14. Were they treated in the same way as normal patients? • Given total of 2100 medication tablets • they flushed them down the loos • Noted that other patients did the same and that this was ignored as long as patients behaved themselves!

  15. What sorts of records did they keep? • Nurses stayed in ward offices 90% of time • Each ‘real patient’ spent less than 7 minutes per day with psychiatric staff

  16. Perhaps they behaved ‘abnormally’ • Pseudo-patient’s visitors detected “No serious behavioural consequences” • DID ANYONE SUSPECT? • Yes – the real patients

  17. What about the REAL patients? • 35 out of 118 patients voiced their suspicions

  18. On release - • The pseudo-patients were diagnosed as • Schizophrenia “IN REMISSION”

  19. Rosenhan: The follow up study • A teaching & research hospital was told of the first study • and warned that … • Over the next three months ONE OR MORE pseudo-patient will attempt to be admitted

  20. What happened? • Staff members rated ‘new patients’ on scale 1 - 10 as ‘how likely to be a fraud’ • 193 patients ‘assessed’ • 41 rated as a pseudo-patient (by staff) • 23 rated as pseudo-patient (by psychiatrist) • 19 rated as pseudo-patient (by both)

  21. How many of these SUSPECTSwere pseudo-patients? • NONE • No pseudo-patients were sent – the staff were rating their regular intake

  22. Summary of findings:

  23. Summary of findings:

  24. Rosenhan’s conclusion • “It is clear that we are unable to distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals” • In the first study : We are unable to detect ‘sanity’ • In the follow up study : We are unable to detect ‘insanity’

  25. Rosenhan’s study highlighted • The depersonalisation and powerlessness of patients in psychiatric hospitals • That behaviour is interpreted according to expectations of staff and that these expectations are created by the labels SANITY & INSANITY

  26. Homework • Evaluate Rosenhan • Due next lesson

More Related