Any chance you can mark this for me:
Langer and Rodin aims:
Control refers to the extent to which an individual feels able to shape their own behaviour. Individuals may feel in control or controlled by other forces (internal bodily processes or external agents). It’s believed that perceived control may be more important than actual control. It’s possible that physically changes that occur in old age may not be biologically determined, but instead to due to the loss of the sense of personal control. As people become old, they experience of a loss of roles which lead to a loss of perceived competence and a decrease in sense of responsibility. Adler (1930) described the need to control ones personal environment as ‘an intrinsic necessity of life itself’.
Earlier studies have highlighted the link between increased sense of control reducing stress and pain. Langer et al. (1975) found hospital patients who felt a greater sense of control requested less pain relievers and were judged by nurses to show less anxiety. Furthermore, Stotland and Blumenthal (1964) found that students who were allowed to choose the order in which to take a series of ability tests were less anxious (measures by sweatiness, an indicator of activity of the autonomic nervous system) than those who were given a pre-determined order.
Martin Seligman (1975) linked a lack of control to depression. Seligman described a syndrome of learned helplessness that develops when an individual continually feels incapable of controlling events in their life, which leads to permanent feelings of helplessness and ultimately depression. Additionally, Ferrare (1962) found interesting data from his observations of geriatric patients. He questioned a number of individuals and found 17 who said they had no alternative but to move to an old people’s home. 1 month later eight of these individuals had died, eight more died within 10 weeks- all deaths classified as unexpected.
Langer and Rodin aimed to investigate the effects of enhanced personal responsibility and choice in a group of nursing home patients. They wanted to see if increased control and direct experience of personal responsibility would have generalised beneficial effects, and whether physical/mental alertness, sociability and general satisfaction are all affected.
Reckon it's the best essays i've done so far.
Rosenhan aimed to investigate whether psychiatrist could distinguish between the sane and insane and used naturalistic observation, in study 1. A strength of using naturalistic observation is that Rosenhan was able to observe psychiatric wards in its natural setting, with no adjustment to the actual environment, providing mundane realism. A weakness of the use of naturalistic observation in this study, is that Rosenhan could have demonstrated observer bias by recording details relevant to the study, for example, he noted a lot of negatives about psychiatric wards such as the amount of time staff spent with patients and highlight no positives – demonstrating bias, as he wanted damage the creditability of psychiatric wards. An advantage of the use of a field experiment was that both quantitative and qualitative data was obtained, allowing for easier analysis of data (quantitative) and in-depth description of interactions between staff and patients (qualitative), which allowed for conclusions to be drawn - resulting in better diagnoses and treatment of psychotic patients. However, such an experiment leads to bad publicity of psychiatric institutions, resulting in people not wanting to see doctors if they have a problem – meaning people who are ill will not receive treatment to get better.
In terms of reliability, a strength of the study is that is replicable, which results in the finding and conclusion drawn by Rosenhan being more valid. For example, Slater (2004) replicated Rosenhan study and reported she had presented herself at the emergency rooms of multiple hospitals with a single auditory hallucination and she was prescribed with antipsychotics or antidepressants. Proving Rosenhan findings quite reliable, however, unlike Rosenhans pseudopatients Slater has previously been diagnosed with a mental disorder (clinical depression). However, there are 2 dis-advantages of reliability in study. In study 1, only 8 pseduopatients were used and they all knew the hypothesis of the study and while observing psychiatric wards, they may have demonstrated observer bias which makes the results un-reliable – not to mention a small group of pseudopatients. Additionally, in the 2nd study, only one hospital was used meaning it isn’t reliable because it the ratings given weren’t from a decent sample of hospitals.
In terms of reliability, a strength was all doctors and nurses took part in the study and behaved naturally because they were unaware they were being studied. This was an advantage as there was there was no demand characteristics and had real life behaviour, furthermore, the study brought to light the issue with validity of psychiatric diagnoses making it of value and relevance to reality. Also, another strength of the validity was that the study used 12 hospitals, meaning the study had high ecological validity, meaning it could be generalised. On the other hand, a weakness of the validity in this study is that it lacks mundane realism, because it demonstrated the psychiatric system can be tricked, but doesn’t mean it isn’t effective on real patients assessment of psychotic illness. However, Rosenhan follow-up study showed that real patients were mistaken for pseudopatients, demonstrating psychiatrist tend to make a type 2 error.
An issue can also be highlighted in the sample used in this study, that being that the participants in this study were the nurses and doctors in the hospitals studies, and only 12 hospitals were used by Rosenhan. Showing there wasn’t a huge sample, meaning it could lack ecological validity. However, this can be justified as there were only 8 pseudopatients, expected a sample of 30-40 hospitals would be quite difficult.
There are some major ethical issues in this study that were breached. For example, doctor and nurses in hospitals didn’t know that they were being observed as part of a research so this means that there was no informed consent of the study, so staff were not offered the right to withdraw because they didn’t know they were taking part. However, this can be justified, as telling staff the aim of the study would just result in the studying not taking place at all. Furthermore, staff feel victim to deception from pseudopatients and believed that they were actually mentally ill, but once again this can be justified by the point made above. There are also some issues with confidentiality and privacy, as Rosenhan published the results of study 1 which highlighted the hospitals which admitted psudopatients and privacy was could be breached in study 2, were staff believed that there were pseudopatients in their workplace. Additionally this could cause psychological harm, knowing that there’s a pseudopatient in the hospital you work in and that results will be publicised in a few months, shaming hospitals that admitted healthy people as psychotically ill.
I really need this marked, because this if my first evaluation of the methodlogy and I want to make sure I'm doing it right.