Kelsi Weakley

Rosenhan study

EDPR 7521 – Summer 2017

1. What was the problem and purpose of this study?

• This study wanted to test the reliability of mental health diagnoses. This study also
wanted to test if medical professionals could tell the difference between sane and
insane patients in a clinical setting

2. What are major findings of this research?

• All participating facilities diagnosed the pseudopatients as mentally ill and none of
the interacting staff recognized the pseudopatients as being healthy. Many
pseudopatients witnessed abuse from staff, patients refusing medication and
inhumane living conditions with no respect for privacy or adherence to HIPPA.
Rosenhan also noted that although the staff did not recognize the pseudopatients as
healthy, some of the truly ill patients did.

3. Was the research ethical? Regardless of your answer to this question, where did these
researchers test the limits of ethical conduct.
• This study was unethical because of the use of deception. Pseudopatients imitated
patients suffering from mental health issues deceiving physicians and staff. The
study also breached confidentiality between staff and the patients as well as breaching
privacy of the staff and patients.
4. What are the implications of this research?
• The implications of this study change the way we view mental health diagnosis and
the way they are diagnosed. This has led to modifications in the regulatory guidelines
concerning mental health patients and the way they are managed and diagnosed. It
has also led to the conclusion that patients with these conditions should be
reevaluated over time instead of relying on a diagnosis made once.

5. How might it have been done more ethically?

• Rosenhan should have obtained informed consent from the doctors and staff in
hospitals and given them an opportunity to withdraw from the study.

6. What might be a good follow-up to this research? Suggest both a qualitative and
quantitative follow-up study in very general terms.
• A quantitative follow up for this study could include observing patients for a longer
length of time or the number of subjects observed to determine more of a pattern
based on a larger sample size. A qualitative follow up for this study could be
 allowing pseudopatients a more structured way to journal and log details and feelings
as they occur.

Zimbardo Prison Study

1. What was the problem and purpose of this study?

• The purpose of this study was to see if behavior was directly related to one’s
environment. This study was to test what the psychological effects are on individuals
who become a prison or a prison guard by placing normal men in a prison like setting.

2. What are major findings of this research?

• The behavior of normal middle class men who have knowingly committed no crimes
can be changed according to their environment and participants assigned the role of
guard are effected when given a role resulting in power and status. This study proved
that environments are influential and the way someone is treated or viewed can
influence their opinion of themselves and of others.

3. Was the research ethical? Regardless of your answer to this question, where did these
researchers test the limits of ethical conduct.
• This study was unethical because of the negative effects is produced for the mock-
inmates. This study did not provide the participants with the right to withdraw and
created actual pain and suffering for the men participating. The researcher
conducting this study was also involved creating a biased experiment leading to a
skewed point of view during the experiment.

4. What are the implications of this research?

• The implications of this research shows that humans are highly influential despite
their personalities and opinions of situations when placed in an environment that
requires them to act the part. This lead to the conclusion that if good people are
placed in an evil place, they too will become evil.

5. How might it have been done more ethically?

• Prisoners consented to a situation that would not include physical harm, however
some guards did inflict physical abuse on the participants leaving long-lasting
negative effects and subjects the participants to unjustifiable harm. The participants
who played guards received no training or preparation for this role and could behave
in whatever way they deemed appropriate with little guidance. Providing the guards
with a stricter set of guidelines may have prevented some of the unnecessary harm to
the prisoners.

6. What might be a good follow-up to this research? Suggest both a qualitative and quantitative
follow-up study in very general terms.
• A follow up to this study might have been to follow up with the individuals who
played prisoners and see how their experience affected them mentally and physically
and also examine the same with the participants who were guards. Also, it would be
 an interesting quantitative study to see statistically if the individuals involved were
less likely to commit a crime after participating in the study.

Reference: http://www.prisonexp.org