Individual Differences:
Psychology often makes generalisations about people. Depending upon your point of view this can be seen as a great strength of psychology or a weakness or probably both. It is important that we recognise that there are as many differences between people as there are similarities. An issue that is often included in the section of individual differences is what psychologists refer to as abnormality. However the concept of abnormality is also a highly controversial issue. The judgement that somebody is abnormal is relative and is based on factors such as culture, class, religion, sexuality and so on.
Main Assumption of the Approach:
Strengths of the Approach:
Weaknesses of the Approach:
Psychology often makes generalisations about people. Depending upon your point of view this can be seen as a great strength of psychology or a weakness or probably both. It is important that we recognise that there are as many differences between people as there are similarities. An issue that is often included in the section of individual differences is what psychologists refer to as abnormality. However the concept of abnormality is also a highly controversial issue. The judgement that somebody is abnormal is relative and is based on factors such as culture, class, religion, sexuality and so on.
Main Assumption of the Approach:
- To understand the complexity of human behaviour and experiences it is necessary to study the differences between people rather than those things that we have in common.
Strengths of the Approach:
- Usefulness
- Reliability/Quantitative Data
Weaknesses of the Approach:
- Situational vs Dispositional Debate
- Ethics
The Studies!
Rosenhan
On being sane in insane places... |
Griffiths
The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling... |
Thigpen and Cleckley
A case of multiple personality... |
... Rosenhan!
Background:
In the 1960's a number of psychiatrists and psychotherapists began to fiercely criticise the medical approach to abnormality. David Rosenhan was also a critic of the medical model and this study can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate that psychiatric classification is unreliable.
Aim:
To test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.
Procedure (Part 1 of 2):
A field experiment that also involved participant observation (as once admitted, the pseudo patients recorded how the ward operated).
IV: The made up symptoms of the pseudo patients
DV: The psychiatrists' admission and diagostic label of the pseudo (pretend) patient.
Sample: 8 sane people (a psychology graduate student in his 20's, three psychologists, a paediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a 'housewife') attempting to gain admission to 12 different hospitals, in five different states in the USA. There were 3 women and men.
The pseudo-patients phoned the hospital for an appointment at the admissions office. They complained of hearing voices that were unfamiliar but the same sex as themselves and said words like 'empty', 'hollow' and 'thud'. Pseudo patients gave a false name and job but all other details were true.
Once they were admitted, the pseudo-patients stop exhibiting any symptoms of abnormality. They acted how they normally would and when asked how they were feeling by staff they replied they felt fine. The pseudo patients had to get out by their own devices by convincing staff they were sane. They spent time writing notes about their observations, which at first was done secretly but then openly when it became clear no one was bothered.
In four of the hospitals pseudo-patients carried out an observation of behaviour of staff towards patients that illustrated the experience of being hospitalised on a psychiatric ward. The pseudo patients would approach a staff member with a request. To compare the results Rosenhan carried out a similar study at Stanford University with students asking university staff a request.
Procedure (Part 2 of 2):
IV: False information
DV: Number of patients which staff subsequently suspected of being pseudo patients
For this part, the staff of a teaching hospital were falsely informed that over the next three months one or more pseudo patients would attempt to be admitted to the hospital. Staff were asked to judge patients on a 10-point scale each new patient as to how likely they were a pseudo patient.
Background:
In the 1960's a number of psychiatrists and psychotherapists began to fiercely criticise the medical approach to abnormality. David Rosenhan was also a critic of the medical model and this study can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate that psychiatric classification is unreliable.
Aim:
To test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.
Procedure (Part 1 of 2):
A field experiment that also involved participant observation (as once admitted, the pseudo patients recorded how the ward operated).
IV: The made up symptoms of the pseudo patients
DV: The psychiatrists' admission and diagostic label of the pseudo (pretend) patient.
Sample: 8 sane people (a psychology graduate student in his 20's, three psychologists, a paediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a 'housewife') attempting to gain admission to 12 different hospitals, in five different states in the USA. There were 3 women and men.
The pseudo-patients phoned the hospital for an appointment at the admissions office. They complained of hearing voices that were unfamiliar but the same sex as themselves and said words like 'empty', 'hollow' and 'thud'. Pseudo patients gave a false name and job but all other details were true.
Once they were admitted, the pseudo-patients stop exhibiting any symptoms of abnormality. They acted how they normally would and when asked how they were feeling by staff they replied they felt fine. The pseudo patients had to get out by their own devices by convincing staff they were sane. They spent time writing notes about their observations, which at first was done secretly but then openly when it became clear no one was bothered.
In four of the hospitals pseudo-patients carried out an observation of behaviour of staff towards patients that illustrated the experience of being hospitalised on a psychiatric ward. The pseudo patients would approach a staff member with a request. To compare the results Rosenhan carried out a similar study at Stanford University with students asking university staff a request.
Procedure (Part 2 of 2):
IV: False information
DV: Number of patients which staff subsequently suspected of being pseudo patients
For this part, the staff of a teaching hospital were falsely informed that over the next three months one or more pseudo patients would attempt to be admitted to the hospital. Staff were asked to judge patients on a 10-point scale each new patient as to how likely they were a pseudo patient.