OCR Psychology A Level Book 2 sample

check your understanding 1. Identify the participants in each of the two main studies. 2. Give one piece of evidence for each of the following experiences: (a) depersonalisation and (b) the stickiness of labels. 3. Describe the procedure for study 2. 4. Describe how the mini-experiment was conducted. 5. Give three pieces of quantitative data from study 1 and/or the mini-experiment. 6. What does Rosenhan’s research tell us about the diagnosis of disorders? Identify two main conclusions. Conclusions This study shows that the diagnosis was not valid because the psychiatrists failed to distinguish the sane from the insane. However, all except one of the pseudo-patients were diagnosed with the same disorder (schizophrenia), suggesting that diagnosis is reliable. The overdiagnosis in the first study showed that psychiatrists are more inclined to call a healthy person sick rather than calling a sick person healthy. Presumably it is more dangerous to misdiagnose someone as sane who is ill and therefore psychiatrists are overcautious. In the second study the hospital staff erred in the opposite direction— they were calling a sick person healthy presumably because they were trying to avoid calling a healthy person sick. This study might make us consider the overlaps between sane and insane—one is not entirely distinct from the other. Rosenhan comments how if we cannot attribute behaviour to some external cause then we tend to attribute it to the individual—in this case to a ‘psychiatric disorder’. Rosenhan considers the results from this study to be frightening. The lack of accuracy of diagnosis can have disastrous consequences for those incorrectly diagnosed. Stickiness of psychiatric labels Rosenhan noted the ‘stickiness of psychiatric labels’—this means that when given a label of having a disorder, this greatly affects other people’s perceptions of that individual and their behaviour. Once a person is labelled as abnormal, all their other characteristics and behaviours are interpreted according to that label. Behaviour is likely to be determined by the situation rather than the individual. Mini-experiment Aim In four of the hospitals the pseudo-patients carried out a mini- experiment to see if staff behaved differently towards patients compared with an individual asking similar questions in the non- clinical environment of the Stanford University campus. Procedure The pseudo-patient approached a staff member in the hospital grounds and asked a question such as ‘Excuse me, Mr/Mrs/Dr. X, could you tell me when I will be presented at the staff meeting?’. The question depended on the situation, but was always courteous. In the second condition a confederate approached busy staff members on a university campus and asked a similarly simple question such as ‘Do you know where … is?’. Results Only 4% of pseudo-patients received an answer from a psychiatrist out of 185 occasions. Only 0.5% received an answer from a nurse (1283 attempts). On 88% of the occasions, the nurses moved on, completely ignoring the patient. On the other hand all 14 requests at the university were acknowledged and responded to. Although when the student asked where she could find a psychiatrist the response dropped to 78%. Study 2 Aim In the first study it is possible that psychiatrists were overcautious because they did not want to miss a diagnosis. Therefore, the second study sought to see whether, under other conditions, this might be reversed. Specifically, the aim was to see if psychiatrists and other mental health workers would be undercautious rather than overcautious because they had been told about the mistaken diagnosis in the first study. Method Sample The staff in one psychiatric hospital were informed of the results of the first study, which they found hard to believe. Therefore, a follow-up study was organised at this psychiatric hospital. The participants were all the staff at this hospital. Research method Data was collected using a questionnaire . Procedure The staff at the hospital were informed that during the next three months one or more pseudo-patients would attempt to be admitted into their hospital. None were actually presented. All staff members were asked to rate all patients who sought admission using a 10-point rating scale where 1 and 2 reflected high confidence that the patient was a pseudo-patient. Results Over the three-month period 193 patients were admitted for treatment. The number judged to be pseudo-patients was: • 41 by at least one staff member. • 23 by one psychiatrist. • 19 by one psychiatrist and one other staff member. The pseudo-patients took notes all the time on the ward, to record their observations. This was described as ‘ the patient engages in writing behaviour ’, which suggests it was interpreted as a behavioural manifestation of the mental illness. 17 Key research: Rosenhan (1973) on Being sane in insane places