Scribd
Upload
6 views4 pages

Research Methods

The document evaluates the experimental method in diagnosing mental health disorders, highlighting two key studies: Langer and Abelson (1974), which examines clinician biases, and Rosenhan et al. (1973), which investigates the impact of diagnostic labeling. Both studies reveal significant influences on diagnostic judgments and treatment, emphasizing the need for improved accuracy in mental health assessments. While the experimental method offers valuable insights, it also presents ethical concerns and limitations in ecological validity.

Uploaded by

Nilay Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views4 pages

Research Methods

The document evaluates the experimental method in diagnosing mental health disorders, highlighting two key studies: Langer and Abelson (1974), which examines clinician biases, and Rosenhan et al. (1973), which investigates the impact of diagnostic labeling. Both studies reveal significant influences on diagnostic judgments and treatment, emphasizing the need for improved accuracy in mental health assessments. While the experimental method offers valuable insights, it also presents ethical concerns and limitations in ecological validity.

Uploaded by

Nilay Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Introduction

●​ Diagnosing mental health disorders is influenced by multiple factors, such as clinician


biases, patient characteristics, and external influences.
●​ Understanding these influences is crucial for improving diagnostic accuracy.
●​ The experimental method is commonly used to study factors affecting diagnosis
because it allows for manipulation of variables in controlled settings to establish
cause-and-effect relationships.
●​ This essay evaluates the experimental method using two key studies:
○​ Langer and Abelson (1974) – Examining the role of clinician stereotypes and
bias.
○​ Rosenhan et al. (1973) – Investigating the effect of diagnostic labeling on
perception and treatment.

Study 1: Clinician Stereotypes & Bias – Langer & Abelson


(1974)
Aim:

●​ To investigate how clinician biases and stereotypes affect diagnostic judgments.

Method:

●​ Participants: Psychiatrists were shown a video of a young man interacting with an


older man.
●​ Procedure:
1.​ Half of the psychiatrists were told the young man was a psychiatric patient.
2.​ The other half were told he was a job applicant.
3.​ After watching the video, psychiatrists described the young man’s personality and
behavior.

Results:

●​ When psychiatrists thought the man was a psychiatric patient, they described him as
aggressive and frightened.
●​ When they thought he was a job applicant, they described him as confident.
●​ Conclusion: Expectations about the person’s role significantly shaped diagnostic
judgment, demonstrating clinician bias in diagnosis.
Improved Evaluation:

Strengths:

●​ Clear experimental manipulation of the independent variable (clinician expectation)


provides strong causal evidence.
●​ Controlled environment eliminates extraneous variables, ensuring reliability of results.
●​ Demonstrates real-world biases in how mental health professionals interpret behavior.

Limitations:

●​ Low ecological validity: Watching a video does not replicate an actual psychiatric
assessment, where a clinician interacts with the patient.
●​ Potential demand characteristics: Participants may have unconsciously adjusted
their responses to fit the expected outcome.
●​ Ethical concerns: Psychiatrists were not informed that their perceptions were being
manipulated, raising concerns about deception.

Study 2: Effect of Diagnostic Labels – Rosenhan et al.


(1973)
Aim:

●​ To investigate whether psychiatric labels influence clinicians’ perceptions and


treatment of patients.

Method:

●​ Participants: 8 mentally healthy individuals (pseudopatients).


●​ Procedure:
1.​ Pseudopatients faked mild symptoms of schizophrenia (claiming to hear
voices saying "empty," "hollow," "thud") to gain admission to psychiatric hospitals.
2.​ Once admitted, they behaved completely normally.
3.​ Staff continued treating them as schizophrenic, recording their behavior as
symptomatic of the disorder.
4.​ Some were prescribed antipsychotic medications.
5.​ The average hospital stay was 19 days, with all but one being discharged as
"schizophrenia in remission."

Results:
●​ The study demonstrated the power of diagnostic labeling—once a label was given,
all normal behavior was interpreted as a symptom.
●​ Highlighted confirmation bias, where clinicians misinterpreted normal actions
through the lens of schizophrenia.

Improved Evaluation:

Strengths:

●​ High ecological validity: Conducted in real psychiatric hospitals, making the findings
highly applicable to real-world settings.
●​ Strong real-world implications: Shows how labels impact patient treatment,
emphasizing the need for more careful diagnosis.
●​ Replicated in multiple hospitals, increasing reliability of findings.

Limitations:

●​ Ethical concerns:
○​ Deception—clinicians were unaware they were being studied.
○​ Potential distress—Pseudopatients may have experienced psychological
discomfort.
○​ Unethical for actual patients—Real psychiatric patients might have been
deprived of attention while the pseudopatients took up hospital resources.
●​ Small sample size (only 8 participants) limits generalizability.
●​ Focused only on schizophrenia, meaning the findings may not apply to other mental
disorders.
●​ Possible researcher bias: Rosenhan may have overemphasized staff
misinterpretation, impacting internal validity.

Conclusion
●​ Experimental research is highly valuable in understanding biases in diagnosis.
●​ Langer & Abelson (1974) demonstrated how clinician expectations shape diagnosis.
●​ Rosenhan et al. (1973) showed how labels influence patient treatment and clinician
perception.
●​ The strengths of the experimental method include:
○​ Control over variables → allows causality to be established.
○​ Replicability → ensures findings are reliable across different settings.
○​ Insights into clinician bias → helps in improving diagnostic accuracy.
●​ However, the experimental method has significant limitations:
○​ Ethical concerns (deception, psychological distress).
○​ Low ecological validity (artificial nature of experiments).
○​ Reductionism (focusing on single factors rather than the complexity of
real-world diagnosis).
●​ Conclusion:
○​ While experimental research provides critical insights into biases affecting
diagnosis, it should be complemented by naturalistic studies and qualitative
research to create a more holistic understanding of diagnostic processes.

You might also like