The Rosenhan experiment was a 1973 study by psychologist David Rosenhan testing whether psychiatric staff could reliably distinguish sane people from genuinely disordered ones inside a hospital setting. Eight healthy pseudopatients, including Rosenhan himself, feigned a single auditory hallucination to gain admission to twelve psychiatric hospitals, then behaved normally once admitted. None were identified as impostors by staff, though other patients frequently suspected them. Decades later, both the study's design and Rosenhan's own published account were challenged as unreliable.
Facts
Disputed
Key FindingNone of the twelve hospitals' staff identified any of the eight pseudopatients as sane; the pseudopatients were discharged after an average stay of nineteen days, most with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission, showing psychiatric diagnosis in that setting could not reliably separate the sane from the genuinely disordered. 1 That hospital staff failed to detect any pseudopatient is well documented from Rosenhan's own account and contemporary responses; what is genuinely disputed is whether that account itself is a reliable record of what happened. Method
Study DesignCase Report or Case Series 1 Participants Connections
Associated With
Conducted By
In Branch
Open Questions
Source Wikipedia: Rosenhan Experiment
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Source Wikipedia: Rosenhan Experimenttier 2
Sources
1. Wikipedia: Rosenhan Experiment
Wikimedia FoundationFindings
Despite openly and frequently taking extensive notes on the behavior of the staff and other patients, none of the pseudopatients were identified as impostors by the hospital staff
Pseudopatient experiment section
Though presented with identical symptoms, seven were diagnosed with schizophrenia at public hospitals, and one with manic-depressive psychosis, a more optimistic diagnosis with better clinical outcomes, at the private hospital. Their stays ranged from 7 to 52 days, and the average was 19 days.
Accusation of fraud section
despite an extensive search, she is only able to identify two of the eight pseudopatients: Rosenhan himself, and a graduate student whose testimony is allegedly inconsistent with Rosenhan's description in the article
Lead section
The Rosenhan experiment or Thud experiment was a study regarding the validity of psychiatric diagnosis.
lead section, study-design
For the experiment, participants submitted themselves for evaluation at various psychiatric institutions and feigned hallucinations in order to be accepted, but acted normally from then onward. Each was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and given antipsychotic medication.
View the Source Open Questions (1 open question)
Did all eight of the pseudopatients David Rosenhan described in his 1973 "On Being Sane in Insane Places" study genuinely exist and undergo the hospitalizations as published?
Susannah Cahalan's 2019 archival investigation (The Great Pretender) could confirm only two of the eight claimed pseudopatients, Rosenhan himself and one graduate student whose own account allegedly conflicts with the published article, and found other inconsistencies and apparently fabricated quotations in Rosenhan's papers.
What would resolve this Identification and independent corroboration (hospital admission records, first-person testimony) of the six remaining pseudopatients Rosenhan claimed but never named.
History of PsychologyWikipedia: Rosenhan Experiment
Dissenting Readings (1 dissenting reading)
Key Finding
Journalist Susannah Cahalan's 2019 book The Great Pretender found apparent distortions in Rosenhan's own published account: inconsistent data, misleading descriptions, and inaccurate or fabricated quotations from psychiatric records, and could confirm only two of the eight claimed pseudopatients. Historian Andrew Scull's 2023 paper in History of Psychiatry went further, characterizing the experiment as a successful scientific fraud.
A dissenting reading, from Susannah Cahalan and Andrew ScullWikipedia: Rosenhan Experiment, Wikimedia Foundation
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.