Casey & Family Psychological Profile #4

[elfie]

The above link does not work for me. Are you referring to the Rosenthal Effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

Russell

I see the link is no longer working. The addy for the weekly schedule (only full reference to the show) is still the same, though. I think Verite's description is better. The program aired on The Science Channel Monday at midnight.

Searching for Sanity

TV-PG, CC

In 1972 an American named Dr David Rosenhan performed an extraordinary experiment that revolutionised the medicine of mental health. He proved that psychiatry, the science of the mind, couldn't tell the difference between sanity and insanity.

 

[Verité]

Originally posted by Knot4u2No
The above link does not work for me. Are you referring to the Rosenthal Effect?

No, Rosenhan social psych study. Use this first link posted by elfie, 9:18 PM.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-sche...e=20090209.040

I'm sure you can google David Rosenhan & get more details than in the
tidbit from schedule in the link. A fun study to review. Enjoy!

 

[Verité]

Another recommendation about the differential diagnosis of psychopathic
(aka antisocial) vs. narcissistic personality disorder is The Mark of Cain by Dr. Reid Meloy. A scholarly work.

Dr. Meloy is a San Diego, California forensic psychologist with a tremendous
amount of experience in criminal justice settings, as well as consulting on high profile criminal cases, and training/consulting with the FBI.

 

[shadowraiths]

The above link does not work for me. Are you referring to the Rosenthal Effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

Russell

Here's a link to the study being discussed, Russell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Rosenhan's study consisted of two parts. The first involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients," who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. The second involved asking staff at a psychiatric hospital to detect non-existent "fake" patients. In the first case hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, in the second the staff falsely identified large numbers of genuine patients as impostors.​

 

[OneLostGrl]

I found the link.

Searching for Sanity

http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/daily.html?date=20090209.040

The study was done in 1972. The show appeared to be more recent though, hmmm. Probably based on the original study.

Well goodness, times have changed a bit since 1972. Quite an old study.

 

[Verité]

The relevance of the Rosenhan study to psychiatric diagnosis is that it demonstrated
the construct of confirmation bias. To challenge that this doesn't occur in
2009 would require replication of that study in 2009 (or design of a new study).

 

[nancy botwin]

The relevance of the Rosenhan study to psychiatric diagnosis is that it demonstrated
the construct of confirmation bias. To challenge that this doesn't occur in
2009 would require replication of that study in 2009 (or design of a new study).

I agree with OneLostGirl-- the date of the study should definitely be taken into consideration. Rosenhan's study explored and indicted the efficacy of the DSM II and its use in psychatric settings in 1972. Rosenhan's findings were actually taken into account in subsequent revisions of the DSM. The DSM II was quite different than the DSM/multi-axial system used today.

I don't think Rosenhan's findings suggest confirmation bias so much as they reveal the ineffective modes of diagnosis in the 1970's. In the experiment, impostor patients with false symptoms checked themselves into mental hospitals. The clinicians were then asked to find the impostors. The researcher's revelation that some patients were impostors would effectively negate confirmation bias-- if indeed clinicians do begin with the biased belief that a patient is likely disordered, this preconception would be flipped on its head because the clinician was essentially told "some of these people are definitely not disordered."

 

[nancy botwin]

An interesting aside in defense of conscientious "arm-chair" psychology:

While the clinicians in the Rosenhan study failed to identify the impostor patients, the real patients were generally successful at identifying the impostor patients. :nono:

 

[OneLostGrl]

The relevance of the Rosenhan study to psychiatric diagnosis is that it demonstrated
the construct of confirmation bias. To challenge that this doesn't occur in
2009 would require replication of that study in 2009 (or design of a new study).

In your opinion. Mine is different.

 

[OneLostGrl]

An interesting aside in defense of conscientious "arm-chair" psychology:

While the clinicians in the Rosenhan study failed to identify the impostor patients, the real patients were generally successful at identifying the impostor patients. :nono:

Aint that the truth!! :blowkiss:

 

[nancy botwin]

Aint that the truth!! :blowkiss:

lol-- :blowkiss:

 

[OneLostGrl]

I agree with OneLostGirl-- the date of the study should definitely be taken into consideration. Rosenhan's study explored and indicted the efficacy of the DSM II and its use in psychatric settings in 1972. Rosenhan's findings were actually taken into account in subsequent revisions of the DSM. The DSM II was quite different than the DSM/multi-axial system used today.

I don't think Rosenhan's findings suggest confirmation bias so much as they reveal the ineffective modes of diagnosis in the 1970's. In the experiment, impostor patients with false symptoms checked themselves into mental hospitals. The clinicians were then asked to find the impostors. The researcher's revelation that some patients were impostors would effectively negate confirmation bias-- if indeed clinicians do begin with the biased belief that a patient is likely disordered, this preconception would be flipped on its head because the clinician was essentially told "some of these people are definitely not disordered."

Wasn't Epilepsy still treated as a mental illness in the 70's? Talk about ineffective modes of diagnosis.

 

[elementary]

Several things come immediately to mind. I would love to have read their conclusions about the study where they would have to offer alternate interpretations about their results. It certainly couldn't have been a perfect experiment. And was it replicated at all?

I can think of some alternate interpretations off the top of my head:

1. The psychiatrists were poor at diagnosis.
2. Situational expectation- that the experimenters are not measuring true bias but expectations about people who seek treatment in a hospital.
3. Faking symptoms does not mean they would not be taken seriously;
a) What tests were given to everyone? On what were the diagnoses based? Self-report is not enough.
b)It makes sense that patients would suss out the impostors because they interacted with them way more than the docs, on a day to day basis, and are very familiar with nuances of behaviour and symptoms.
4. It sounds as if they used, "There is confirmation bias" as the null hypothesis.
5. I'm not seeing a control group here.
6. The experiment induced bias because the docs were told to expect impostors.

(And what the other posters have added)

Not a well thought out experiment, IMO and it proved very little. I imagine the construct is way more sophisticated now.

Actually, I find the fact that the study shows that genuine patients recognised the impostors the most significant part of the results. It reinforces the idea that those who have encountered psychopaths or other character disordered, for instance, or the mentally ill up close and personal or have been mentally ill themselves, are more likely to assess others correctly or in the general ball park. That would be interesting to test!

 

[Knot4u2no]

Here's a link to the study being discussed, Russell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Rosenhan's study consisted of two parts. The first involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients," who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. The second involved asking staff at a psychiatric hospital to detect non-existent "fake" patients. In the first case hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, in the second the staff falsely identified large numbers of genuine patients as impostors.​

I see. It is quite easy to be diagnosed with a psychiatric problem. Quite easy to manipulate the staff and the whole mental health system, or at least many of the staff and most of the systems. Criminals are quite adept at it. Even within the best prison systems, the mental health programs are full of "pretenders" ... most of whom return to the community ... and our wonderful community mental health systems.
Russell

 

[OneLostGrl]

I see. It is quite easy to be diagnosed with a psychiatric problem. Quite easy to manipulate the staff and the whole mental health system, or at least many of the staff and most of the systems. Criminals are quite adept at it. Even within the best prison systems, the mental health programs are full of "pretenders" ... most of whom return to the community ... and our wonderful community mental health systems.
Russell

Sad but true.

 

[JBean]

Wasn't Epilepsy still treated as a mental illness in the 70's? Talk about ineffective modes of diagnosis.

OT but did you ever read the book Icy Sparks? It is about a girl with Tourette's in the 50's. wowza.

 

[Verité]

Originally posted by Knot4u2No
I see. It is quite easy to be diagnosed with a psychiatric problem. Quite easy to manipulate the staff and the whole mental health system, or at least many of the staff and most of the systems. Criminals are quite adept at it. Even within the best prison systems, the mental health programs are full of "pretenders" ... most of whom return to the community ... and our wonderful community mental health systems.

No need to be pedantic here. You got it!

 

[JBean]

No need to be pedantic here. You got it!

Really interesting stuff verite..thanks for posting.

 

[nancy botwin]

Wasn't Epilepsy still treated as a mental illness in the 70's? Talk about ineffective modes of diagnosis.

Exactly! So was being gay. Nothing is perfect, but I do think things have come a long way since the 1970s!

 

[Verité]

Originally posted by elementary
Not a well thought out experiment, IMO and it proved very little. I imagine the construct is way more sophisticated now.

The construct--or concept--of "confirmation bias" is no more or less
sophisticated, unless you mean that it's now directly examined in naturalistic
settings (such as on the witness stand) by both prosecution and defense,
and that it is.

The importance of the Rosenhan study is because it's foundational to
subsequent social/clinical/legal studies in confirmatory bias situations
(and to be able to correctly answer questions on licensing exams for
those respective disciplines!). Or, to ensure against one's own confirmation
bias--which is probably the most important of all.