Contents

102 PART II: Descriptive MethodsBOX 4.2THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT “ON BEING SANE IN INSANE PLACES”In his article “On Being Sane in Insane Places,”Rosenhan (1973) questioned the nature of psychiatricdiagnosis and hospitalization. How couldnormal people be labeled as schizophrenic, one ofthe most severe mental illnesses we know? Whydidn’t the hospital staff recognize the pseudopatientswere faking their symptoms? After days orweeks of hospitalization, why didn’t the staff recognizethat the pseudopatients were “sane,” notinsane?These are important questions. After Rosenhan’sresearch article was published in Science magazine,many psychologists and psychiatrists discussedand wrote articles in response to Rosenhan’s questions(e.g., Spitzer, 1976; Weiner, 1975). Presentedbelow are just a few of the criticisms of Rosenhan’sresearch.—We cannot criticize the staff for making a wrongdiagnosis: A diagnosis based on faked symptomswill, of course, be wrong.—The pseudopatients had more than one symptom;they were anxious (about being “caught”), reportedthey were distressed, and sought hospitalization.Is it “normal” to seek admission into a mentalhospital?— Did the pseudopatients really behave normally oncein the hospital? Perhaps normal behavior would beto say something like, “Hey, I only pretended to beinsane to see if I could be hospitalized, but really, Ilied, and now I want to go home.”—Schizophrenics’ behavior is not always psychotic;“true” schizophrenics often behave “normally.”Thus, it’s not surprising that the staff took manydays to determine that the pseudopatients nolonger experienced symptoms.—A diagnosis of “in remission” was quite rareand reflects staff members’ recognition thata pseudopatient was no longer experiencingsymptoms. However, research on schizophreniademonstrates that once a person shows signs ofschizophrenia, he or she is more likely than othersto experience these symptoms again. Therefore,the diagnosis of “in remission” guides mentalhealth professionals as they try to understand aperson’s subsequent behavior.—“Sane” and “insane” are legal terms, not psychiatric.The legal decision of whether someone is insanerequires a judgment about whether a personknows right from wrong, which is irrelevant to thisstudy.As you can see, Rosenhan’s research wascontroversial. Most professionals now believethat this study does not help us to understandpsychiatric diagnosis. However, several importantlong-term benefits of Rosenhan’s researchhave emerged:—Mental health professionals are more likely topostpone a diagnosis until more information isgathered about a patient’s symptoms; this is called“diagnosis deferred.’’—Mental health professionals are more aware of howtheir theoretical and personal biases may influenceinterpretations of patients’ behaviors, and guardagainst biased judgments.—Rosenhan’s research illustrated the depersonalizationand powerlessness experienced by many patientsin mental health settings. His research influencedthe mental health field to examine its practices andimprove conditions for patients.and the role of the observer in the group. When the group under observationis small or the activities of the participant observer are prominent, the observeris more likely to have a significant effect on people’s behavior. This problemconfronted several social psychologists who infiltrated a group of people whoclaimed to be in contact with beings from outer space (Festinger, Riecken, &Schachter, 1956). The group’s leader said he had received a message from thealiens predicting a cataclysmic flood on a specific date. Because of the attitudesof members of the group toward “nonbelievers,” the researchers were forced tomake up bizarre stories in order to gain access to the group. This tactic worked