This is the first time I'm hearing that it was a hoax from the start. I've heard this study referenced more times than I can count in discussions on mental illness and mental hospitals. Could it really be that it was complete horseshit?
Certainly the original paper failed even the most basic norms, and large parts of if were clearly fabricated, and the remaining ones cannot be verified now.
Ultimately he claimed to have eight pseudo-patients, but investigation has turned up three, and none match what was described in the paper. (Eg, Rosenhan said it was easy to be admitted, even after showing limited symptoms, but he was actually only admitted after showing extreme symptoms. He said life while admitted was dreadful, but one of the subjects was dropped because he found it peaceful and helpful.)
Occam's razor suggests that there were only 3-4, he lied about their results, and made up the rest. But maybe there were some others, and maybe some of them actually had experiences similar to the paper? But even so, at best, he lied, filtered data, and reported very mixed results as being anything but. More likely....yes, complete horseshit.
There's no real defence of his work possible; at this point it's just speculating over whether it was all lies, or just a misleading mixture of lies and truth, and trying to estimate the damage it did.
> It's still entirely possible that it happened as reported, but that the (properly) confidential records were destroyed/lost.
Did you read the article? This isn't possible at all.
> the distinguished psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, who was in charge of assessing Rosenhan’s tenure file, reported that she and others were deeply suspicious of him, and that they found it ‘impossible to know what he had really done, or if he had done it’, granting him tenure only because of his popularity
True, this is just circumstantial.
> At various times, Rosenhan had proffered sometimes contradictory biographical fragments about pseudo-patients 2 through to 8, but even with the assistance of a private detective, these leads led nowhere.
Hmm, it'd be hard for everything to have happened as reported, given that what was reported contradicted itself.
> In a larger sense, it scarcely matters, because Cahalan uncovered so much other evidence of Rosenhan’s malfeasance and lies.
Hmmmmmmmm...
> He claimed, for example, to have carefully coached his volunteers before sending them forth. Bill Underwood and Harry Lando emphatically denied this.
OK, now we know it didn't happen as reported even in cases where there wasn't an internal contradiction in the reporting.
> Lando appears to have been dismissed from the study, not because he violated protocol, but because, as Rosenhan incredulously noted about his confinement, ‘HE LIKES IT!’
The "throw away any data you don't like" school of research.
> Most damning of all, though, are Rosenhan’s own medical records. When he was admitted to the hospital, it was not because he simply claimed to be hearing voices but was otherwise ‘normal’.
Note that this is what he reported he had claimed.
> On the contrary, he told his psychiatrist his auditory hallucinations included the interception of radio signals and listening in to other people’s thoughts. He had tried to keep these out by putting copper over his ears, and sought admission to the hospital because it was ‘better insulated there’. For months, he reported he had been unable to work or sleep, financial difficulties had mounted and he had contemplated suicide. His speech was retarded, he grimaced and twitched, and told several staff that the world would be better off without him.
Not sure why you're being down voted. Maybe just tone with the 'hmmmmm' and such. Anyway, I agree that there appears to be ample evidence for this conclusion.
