Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): D. L. Rosenhan
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 179, No. 4070 (Jan. 19, 1973), pp. 250-258
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1735662 .
Accessed: 03/02/2011 13:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Science.
http://www.jstor.org
The Geographical Distribution of Animals A. P. Platt and L. P. Brower, Evolu- the effects of gene flow. This is because the
(Wiley, New York, 1957); B. Rensch, Evolu- tion 22, 699 (1968); 0. Halkka and E. effective gene selection on males in sex-linked
tion Above the Species Level (Methuen, Mikkola, Hereditas 54, 140 (1965); B. C. loci makes the net selection stronger, com-
London, 1959); V. Grant, The Origin of Clarke, in Evolution and Environment, E. T. pared to autosomal loci, for the population
Adaptations (Columbia Univ. Press, New Drake, Ed. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, as a whole. See C. C. Li, Population Genetics
York, 1963). 1968), p. 351; B. C. Clarke and J. J. Murray, (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955) for
5. S. Wright, Genetics 16, 97 (1931). in Ecological Genetics and Evolution, R. a good discussion of sex-linkage and selection.
6. , ibid. 28, 114 (1943); ibid. 31, 39 Greed, Ed. (Blackwells, Oxford, 1971), p. 30. The equilibrium configurations are not sig-
(1946); Evolution and the Genetics of Popu- 51; J. A. Bishop and P. S. Harper, Heredity nificantly altered if the emigrants from the
lations, vol. 2, The Theory of Gene Fre- 25, 449 (1969); J. A. Bishop, J. Anim. Ecol. end demes do not return, unless the number
quencies (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 41, 209 (1972); G. Hewitt and F. M. Brown, of demes (d) is very small (J. A. Endler,
1969); F. J. Rohlf and G. D. Schnell, Amer. Heredity 25, 365 (1970); G. Hewitt and C. unpublished data).
Natur. 105, 295 (1971). Ruscoe, J. Anim. Ecol. 40, 753 (1971); 31. See, for example, the models of B. C.
7. J. B. S. Haldane, J. Genet. 48, 277 (1948). H. Wolda, ibid. 38, 623 (1969); F. B. Living- Clarke [Amer. Natur. 100, 389 (1966)] and
8. R. A. Fisher, Biometrics 6, 353 (1950); M. stone, Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 31, 1 (1969). those in (14).
Kimura, Annu. Rep. Nat. Inst. Genet. 22. C. P. Haskins, E. F. Haskins, J. J. A. 32. This model incorporates Clarke's model of
Mishima-City, Japan 9, 84 (1958). McLaughlan, R. E. Hewitt, in Vertebrate frequency-dependence; see B. C. Clarke,
9. M. Kimura and G. H. Weiss, Genetics 49, Speciation, W. F. Blair, Ed. (Univ. of Texas Evolution 18, 364 (1964).
561 (1964); M. Kimura and T. Maruyama, Press, Austin, 1961), p. 320. 33. R. A. Fisher and F. Yates, Statistical Tables
Genet. Res. 18, 125 (1971). 23. A. J. Bateman, Heredity 1, 234, 303 (1947); for Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Re-
10. P. R. Ehrlich and P. H. Raven, Science 165, ibid. 4, 353 (1950); R. N. Colwell, Amer. J. search (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1948);
1228 (1969). Bot. 38, 511 (1951); M. R. Roberts and H. R. R. Sokal and F. J. Rohlf, Biometry
11. For example, J. Maynard-Smith, Amer. Natur. Lewis, Evolution 9, 445 (1955); C. P. Haskins, (Freeman, San Francisco, 1969).
100, 637 (1966). personal communication; K. P. Lamb, E. 34. See, for example, C. G. Johnson, Migration
12. J. M. Thoday, Nature 181, 1124 (1958); -- Hassan, D. P. Scoter, Ecology 52, 178 (1971). and Dispersal of Insects by Flight (Methuen,
and T. B. Boam, Heredity 13, 204 (1959); E. For localized distribution and problem of London, 1969); J. Antonovics, Amer. Sci. 59,
Millicent and J. M. Thoday, Ibid. 16, 219 establishment see also: W. F. Blair, Ann. 593 (1971).
(1961); J. M. Thoday and J. B. Gibson, Amer. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 44, 179 (1943); Evolution 4, 35. E. C. Pielou, An Introduction to Mathematical
Natur. 105, 86 (1971). 253 (1950); L. R. Dice, Amer. Natur. 74, 289 Ecology (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1969).
13. F. A. Streams and D. Pimentel, ibid. 95, 201 (1940); P. Labine, Evolution 20, 580 (1966); 36. W. F. Blair, Contrib. Lab. Vertebrate Biol.
(1961); Th. Dobzhansky and B. Spassky, Proc. H. Lewis, ibid. 7, 1 (1953); W. Z. Lidicker, Univ. Mich. No. 36, 1 (1947).
Roy. Soc. London Ser. B. 168, 27 (1967); personal communication; J. T. Marshall, Jr., 37. P. A. Parsons, Genetica 33, 184 (1963).
, J. Sved, ibid. 173, 191 (1969); Th. Condor 50, 193, 233 (1948); R. K. Sealander, 38. G. Hewitt and B. John, Chromosoma 21,
Dobzhansky, H. Levene, B. Spassky, ibid. 180, Amer. Zool. 10, 53 (1970); P. Voipio, Ann. 140 (1967); Evolution 24, 169 (1970); G.
21 (1972). Zool. Fenn. 15, 1 (1952); P. K. Anderson, Hewitt, personal communication; H. Wolda,
14. M. Slatkin, thesis, Harvard University (1971). Science 145, 177 (1964). J. Anim. Ecol. 38, 305, 623 (1969).
15. S. K. Jain and A. D. Bradshaw, Heredity 24. N. W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky, in The New 39. L. R. Dice, Contrib. Lab. Vertebrate Genet.
21, 407 (1966). Systematics, J. S. Huxley, Ed. (Oxford Univ. Univ. Mich. No. 8 (1939), p. 1; ibid. No. 15
16. Parapatric divergence is divergence between Press, Oxford, 1940), p. 73. (1941), p. 1.
adjacent but genetically continuous popula- 25. The null point is the position at which 40. I. C. J. Galbraith, Bull. Brit. Mus. Natur.
tions. See H. M. Smith, Syst. Zool. 14, 57 selection changes over from favoring one Hist. Zool. 4, 133 (1956).
(1965); ibid. 18, 254 (1969); M. J. D. White, type to favoring another. 41. I am grateful to the National Science Founda-
R. E. Blackith, R. M. Blackith, J. Cheney, 26. J. A. Endler, in preparation. tion for a graduate fellowship in support
Aust. J. Zool. 15, 263 (1967); M. J. D. White, 27. L. M. Cook, Coefficients of Natural Selection of this study. I thank Prof. Alan Robertson
Science 159, 1065 (1968); K. H. L. Key, (Hutchinson Univ. Library, Biological Sci- and the Institute of Animal Genetics, Uni-
Syst. Zool. 17, 14 (1968). ences No. 153, London, 1971); F. B. Living- versity of Edinburgh, for the Drosophila, and
17. J. S. Huxley, Nature 142, 219 (1938); Bijdr. stone, Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 31, 1 (1969). for kindly providing me with fresh medium
Dierk. Leiden 27, 491 (1939). 28. W. C. Allee, A. E. Emerson, 0. Park, T. throughout the study. Criticism of the manu-
18. F. B. Sumner, Bibliogr. Genet. 9, 1 (1932). Park, K. P. Schmidt, Principles of Animal script by Professors John Bonner and Jane
19. F. Salomonsen, Dan. Biol. Medd. 22, 1 Ecology (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1949); H. C. Potter, Dr. Philip Ashmole, Peter Tuft, Dr.
(1955). Andrewartha and L. C. Birch, The Distribu- David Noakes, Dr. John Godfrey, Dr. Caryl
20. E. B. Ford, Biol. Rev. Cambridge Phil. Soc. tion and Abundance of Animals (Univ. of P. Haskins, and M. C. Bathgate was very
20, 73 (1945). Chicago Press, Chicago, 1954); G. L. Clarke, welcome. In particular, I thank my supervisor,
21. Examples of morph-ratio clines include: Elements of Ecology (Wiley, New York, Professor Bryan C. Clarke, for help and criti-
H. B. D. Kettlewell and R. J. Berry, Heredity 1954); R. Geiger, The Climate Near the cism throughout this study. Any errors or
16, 403 (1961); ibid. 24, 1 (1969); H. B. D. Ground (translation, Harvard Univ. Press, omissions are entirely my own. I thank the
Kettlewell, R. J. Berry, C. J. Cadbury, Cambridge, 1966). Edinburgh Regional Computing Center and
G. C. Phillips, Ibid., p. 15; H. N. Southern, 29. Results for autosomal and sex-linked systems the Edinburgh University Zoology Department
J. Zool. London Ser. A 138, 455 (1966); do not differ for the models to be discussed, for generous computer time allowances. I will
A. J. Cain and J. D. Currey, Phil. Trans. except that, for a given amount of selection, supply the specially written IMiP language
Roy. Soc. London Ser. B. 246, 1 (1962); the sex-linked system is loss sensitive to program upon request.
most power have least to do with pa- ritated. In examining these data, re- school: ". .. to the medical school?").
tients, and those with the least power member that the behavior of the 5) "Is it difficult to get in?"
are most involved with them. Recall, pseudopatients was neither bizarre nor 6) "Is there financial aid?"
however, that the acquisition of role- disruptive. One could indeed engage in Without exception, as can be seen in
appropriate behaviors occurs mainly good conversation with them. Table 1 (column 3), all of the questions
through the observation of others, with The data for these experiments are were answered. No matter how rushed
the most powerful having the most in- shown in Table 1, separately for physi- they were, all respondents not only
fluence. Consequently, it is understand- cians (column 1) and for nurses and maintained eye contact, but stopped to
able that attendants not only spend attendants (column 2). Minor differ- talk. Indeed, many of the respondents
more time with patients than do any ences between these four institutions went out of their way to direct or take
other members of the staff-that is re- were overwhelmed by the degree to the questioner to the office she was
quired by their station in the hierarchy which staff avoided continuing contacts seeking, to try to locate "Fish Annex,"
-but also, insofar as they learn from that patients had initiated. By far, their or to discuss with her the possibilities
their superiors' behavior, spend as little most common response consisted of of being admitted to the university.
time with patients as they can. Attend- either a brief response to the question, Similar data, also shown in Table 1
ants are seen mainly in the cage, which offered while they were "on the move" (columns 4, 5, and 6), were obtained
is where the models, the action, and and with head averted, or no response in the hospital. Here too, the young
the power are. at all. lady came prepared with six questions.
I turn now to a different set of The encounter frequently took the After the first question, however, she
studies, these dealing with staff re- following bizarre form: (pseudopatient) remarked to 18 of her respondents
sponse to patient-initiated contact. It "Pardon me, Dr. X. Could you tell me (column 4), "I'm looking for a psy-
has long been known that the amount when I am eligible for grounds priv- chiatrist," and to 15 others (column
of time a person spends with you can ileges?" (physician) "Good morning, 5), "I'm looking for an internist." Ten
be an index of your significance to him. Dave. How are you today?" (Moves off other respondents received no inserted
If he initiates and maintains eye con- without waiting for a response.) comment (column 6). The general de-
tact, there is reason to believe that he It is instructive to compare these gree of cooperative responses is con-
is considering your requests and needs. data with data recently obtained at siderably higher for these university
If he pauses to chat or actually stops Stanford University. It has been alleged groups than it was for pseudopatients
and talks, there is added reason to infer that large and eminent universities are in psychiatric hospitals. Even so, differ-
that he is individuating you. In four characterized by faculty who are so ences are apparent within the medical
hospitals, the pseudopatient approached busy that they have no time for stu- school setting. Once having indicated
the staff member with a request which dents. For this comparison, a young that she was looking for a psychiatrist,
took the following form: "Pardon me, lady approached individual faculty mem- the degree of cooperation elicited was
Mr. [or Dr. or Mrs.] X, could you tell bers who seemed to be walking pur- less than when she sought an internist.
me when I will be eligible for grounds posefully to some meeting or teaching
privileges?" (or " . . . when I will be engagement and asked them the fol-
presented at the staff meeting?" or ". . . lowing six questions. Powerlessness and Depersonalization
when I am likely to be discharged?"). 1) "Pardon me, could you direct me
While the content of the question varied to Encina Hall?" (at the medical Eye contact and verbal contact re-
according to the appropriateness of the school: ". . . to the Clinical Research flect concern and individuation; their
target and the pseudopatient's (appar- Center?"). absence, avoidance and depersonaliza-
ent) current needs the form was al- 2) "Do you know where Fish Annex tion. The data I have presented do not
ways a courteous and relevant request is?" (there is no Fish Annex at Stan- do justice to the rich daily encounters
for information. Care was taken never ford). that grew up around matters of deper-
to approach a particular member of the 3) "Do you teach here?" sonalization and avoidance. I have rec-
staff more than once a day, lest the 4) "How does one apply for admis- ords of patients who were beaten by
staff member become suspicious or ir- sion to the college?" (at the medical staff for the sin of having initiated ver-
19 JANUARY 1973
255
bal contact. During my own experience, down. Abusive behavior, on the other psychotherapy with other patients-all
for example, one patient was beaten in hand, terminated quite abruptly when of this as a way of becoming a person
the presence of other patients for hav- other staff members were known to be in an impersonal environment.
ing approached an attendant and told coming. Staff are credible witnesses.
him, "I like you." Occasionally, punish- Patients are not.
ment meted out to patients for misde- A nurse unbuttoned her uniform to The Sources of Depersonalization
meanors seemed so excessive that it adjust her brassiere in the presence of
could not be justified by the most radi- an entire ward of viewing men. One did What are the origins of depersonali-
cal interpretations of psychiatric canon. not have the sense that she was being zation? I have already mentioned two.
Nevertheless, they appeared to go un- seductive. Rather, she didn't notice us. First are attitudes held by all of us
questioned. Tempers were often short. A group of staff persons might point to toward the mentally ill-including those
A patient who had not heard a call for a patient in the dayroom and discuss who treat them-attitudes character-
medication would be roundly excori- him animatedly, as if he were not there. ized by fear, distrust, and horrible ex-
ated, and the morning attendants would One illuminating instance of deper- pectations on the one hand, and benev-
often wake patients with, "Come on, sonalization and invisibility occurred olent intentions on the other. Our
you m-----f-----s, out of bed!" with regard to medications. All told, ambivalence leads, in this instance as
Neither anecdotal nor "hard" data the pseudopatients were administered in others, to avoidance.
can convey the overwhelming sense of nearly 2100 pills, including Elavil, Second, and not entirely separate,
powerlessness which invades the indi- Stelazine, Compazine, and Thorazine, the hierarchical structure of the psy-
vidual as he is continually exposed to to name but a few. (That such a variety chiatric hospital facilitates depersonali-
the depersonalization of the psychiatric of medications should have been ad- zation. Those who are at the top have
hospital. It hardly matters which psy- ministered to patients presenting identi- least to do with patients, and their be-
chiatric hospital-the excellent public cal symptoms is itself worthy of note.) havior inspires the rest of the staff.
ones and the very plush private hospital Only two were swallowed. The rest Average daily contact with psychia-
were better than the rural and shabby were either pocketed or deposited in trists, psychologists, residents, and
ones in this regard, but, again, the the toilet. The pseudopatients were not physicians combined ranged from 3.9
features that psychiatric hospitals had alone in this. Although I have no pre- to 25.1 minutes, with an overall mean
in common overwhelmed by far their cise records on how many patients of 6.8 (six pseudopatients over a total
apparent differences. rejected their medications, the pseudo- of 129 days of hospitalization). In-
Powerlessness was evident every- patients frequently found the medica- cluded in this average are time spent
where. The patient is deprived of many tions of other patients in the toilet in the admissions interview, ward meet-
of his legal rights by dint of his psy- before they deposited their own. As ings in the presence of a senior staff
chiatric commitment (21). He is shorn long as they were cooperative, their member, group and individual psycho-
of credibility by virtue of his psychiatric behavior and the pseudopatients' own therapy contacts, case presentation con-
label. His freedom of movement is re- in this matter, as in other important ferences, and discharge meetings.
stricted. He cannot initiate contact with matters, went unnoticed throughout. Clearly, patients do not spend much
the staff, but may only respond to such Reactions to such depersonalization time in interpersonal contact with doc-
overtures as they make. Personal pri- among pseudopatients were intense. Al- toral staff. And doctoral staff serve as
vacy is minimal. Patient quarters and though they had come to the hospital models for nurses and attendants.
possessions can be entered and ex- as participant observers and were fully There are probably other sources.
amined by any staff member, for what- aware that they did not "belong," they Psychiatric installations are presently in
ever reason. His personal history and nevertheless found themselves caught serious financial straits. Staff shortages
anguish is available to any staff member up in and fighting the process of de- are pervasive, staff time at a premium.
(often including the "grey lady" and personalization. Some examples: a grad- Something has to give, and that some-
"candy striper" volunteer) who chooses uate student in psychology asked his thing is patient contact. Yet, while
to read his folder, regardless of their wife to bring his textbooks to the hos- financial stresses are realities, too much
therapeutic relationship to him. His per- pital so he could "catch up on his can be made of them. I have the im-
sonal hygiene and waste evacuation are homework"-this despite the elaborate pression that the psychological forces
often monitored. The water closets may precautions taken to conceal his profes- that result in depersonalization are
have no doors. sional association. The same student, much stronger than the fiscal ones and
At times, depersonalization reached who had trained for quite some time that the addition of more staff would
such proportions that pseudopatients to get into the hospital, and who had not correspondingly improve patient
had the sense that they were invisible, looked forward to the experience, "re- care in this regard. The incidence of
or at least unworthy of account. Upon membered" some drag races that he staff meetings and the enormous
being admitted, I and other pseudo- had wanted to see on the weekend and amount of record-keeping on patients,
patients took the initial physical exami- insisted that he be discharged by that for example, have not been as sub-
nations in a semipublic room, where time. Another pseudopatient attempted stantially reduced as has patient con-
staff members went about their own a romance with a nurse. Subsequently, tact. Priorities exist, even during hard
business as if we were not there. he informed the staff that he was ap- times. Patient contact is not a signifi-
On the ward, attendants delivered plying for admission to graduate school cant priority in the traditional psychia-
verbal and occasionally serious physical in psychology and was very likely to be tric hospital, and fiscal pressures do not
abuse to patients in the presence of admitted, since a graduate professor account for this. Avoidance and de-
other observing patients, some of whom was one of his regular hospital visitors. personalization may.
(the pseudopatients) were writing it all The same person began to engage in Heavy reliance upon psychotropic
256 SCIENCE. VOL. 179
medication tacitly contributes to deper- same consequences it does in medical textual stimuli that often promote them.
sonalization by convincing staff that diagnosis. A diagnosis of cancer that At issue here is a matter of magnitude.
treatment is indeed being conducted has been found to be in error is cause And, as I have shown, the magnitude
and that further patient contact may for celebration. But psychiatric diag- of distortion is exceedingly high in the
not be necessary. Even here, however, noses are rarely found to be in error. extreme context that is a psychiatric
caution needs to be exercised in under- The label sticks, a mark of inadequacy hospital.)
standing the role of psychotropic drugs. forever. The second matter that might prove
If patients were powerful rather than Finally, how many patients might be promising speaks to the need to in-
powerless, if they were viewed as inter- "sane" outside the psychiatric hospital crease the sensitivity of mental health
esting individuals rather than diagnostic but seem insane in it-not because workers and researchers to the Catch
entities, if they were socially significant craziness resides in them, as it were, 22 position of psychiatric patients.
rather than social lepers,. if their an- but because they are responding to a Simply reading materials in this area
guish truly and wholly compelled our bizarre setting, one that may be unique will be of help to some such workers
sympathies and concerns, would we to institutions which harbor nether and researchers. For others, directly
not seek contact with them, despite the people? Goffman (4) calls the process experiencing the impact of psychiatric
availability of medications? Perhaps for of socialization to such institutions hospitalization will be of enormous use.
the pleasure of it all? "mortification"-an apt metaphor that Clearly, further research into the social
includes the processes of depersonali- psychology of such total institutions
zation that have been described here. will both facilitate treatment and
The Consequences of Labeling And while it is impossible to know deepen understanding.
whether the pseudopatients' responses I and the other pseudopatients in the
and Depersonalization
to these processes are characteristic of psychiatric setting had distinctly nega-
Whenever the ratio of what is known all inmates-they were, after all, not tive reactions. We do not pretend to
to what needs to be known approaches real patients-it is difficult to believe describe the subjective experiences of
zero, we tend to invent "knowledge" that these processes of socialization to true patients. Theirs may be different
and assume that we understand more a psychiatric hospital provide useful from ours, particularly with the pas-
than we actually do. We seem unable attitudes or habits of response for liv- sage of time and the necessary process
to acknowledge that we simply don't ing in the "real world." of adaptation to one's environment. But
know. The needs for diagnosis and we can and do speak to the relatively
remediation of behavioral and emo- more objective indices of treatment
tional problems are enormous. But Summary and Conclusions within the hospital. It could be a mis-
rather than acknowledge that we are take, and a very unfortunate one, to
just embarking on understanding, we It is clear that we cannot distinguish consider that what happened to us de-
continue to label patients "schizo- the sane from the insane in psychiatric rived from malice or stupidity on the
phrenic," "manic-depressive," and "in- hospitals. The hospital itself imposes a part of the staff. Quite the contrary,
sane," as if in those words we had special environment in which the mean- our overwhelming impression of them
captured the essence of understanding. ings of behavior can easily be misunder- was of people who really cared, who
The facts of the matter are that we stood. The consequences to patients were committed and who were uncom-
have known for a long time that diag- hospitalized in such an environment- monly intelligent. Where they failed,
noses are often not useful or reliable, the powerlessness, depersonalization, as they sometimes did painfully, it
but we have nevertheless continued to segregation, mortification, and self- would be more accurate to attribute
use them. We now know that we can- labeling-seem undoubtedly counter- those failures to the environment in
not distinguish insanity from sanity. It therapeutic. which they, too, found themselves than
is depressing to consider how that in- I do not, even now, understand this to personal callousness. Their percep-
formation will be used. problem well enough to perceive solu- tions and behavior were controlled by
Not merely depressing, but frighten- tions. But two matters seem to have the situation, rather than being moti-
ing. How many people, one wonders, some promise. The first concerns the vated by a malicious disposition. In a
are sane but not recognized as such in proliferation of community mental more benign environment, one that was
our psychiatric institutions? How many health facilities, of crisis intervention less attached to global diagnosis, their
have been needlessly stripped of their centers, of the human potential move- behaviors and judgments might have
privileges of citizenship, from the right ment, and of behavior therapies that, been more benign and effective.
to vote and drive to that of handling for all of their own problems, tend to
their own accounts? How many have References and Notes
avoid psychiatric labels, to focus on
feigned insanity in order to avoid the 1. P. Ash, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44, 272
specific problems and behaviors, and to (1949); A. T. Beck, Amer. J. Psychiat. 119,
criminal consequences of their behav- retain the individual in a relatively non- 210 (1962); A. T. Boisen, Psychiatry 2, 233
ior, and, conversely, how many would (1938); N. Kreitman, J. Ment. Sci. 107, 876
pejorative environment. Clearly, to the (1961); N. Kreitman, P. Sainsbury, J. Morrisey,
rather stand trial than live interminably extent that we refrain from sending the J. Towers, J, Scrivener, ibid., p. 887; H. O.
in a psychiatric hospital-but are Schmitt and C. P. Fonda, J. Abnorm. Soc.
distressed to insane places, our impres- Psychol. 52, 262 (1956); W. Seeman, J. Nerv.
wrongly thought to be mentally ill? sions of them are less likely to be dis- Ment. Dis. 118, 541 (1953). For an analysis
How many have been stigmatized by of these artifacts and summaries of the dis-
torted. (The risk of distorted percep- putes, see J. Zubin, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 18,
well-intentioned, but nevertheless erro- tions, it seems to me, is always present, 373 (1967); L. Phillips and J. G. Draguns,
ibid. 22, 447 (1971).
neous, diagnoses? On the last point, since we are much more sensitive to an 2. R. Benedict, J. Gen. Psychol. 10, 59 (1934).
recall again that a "type 2 error" in individual's behaviors and verbaliza- 3. See in this regard H. Becker, Outsiders:
Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Free
psychiatric diagnosis does not have the tions than we are to the subtle con- Press, New York, 1963); B. M. Braginsky,
19 JANUARY 1973
257
D. D. Braginsky, K. Ring, Methods of state law to the contrary notwithstanding. I H. E. Freeman and 0. G. Simmons, The
Madness: The Mental Hospital as a Last was not sensitive to these difficulties at the Mental Patient Comes Home (Wiley, New
Resort (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New outset of the project, nor to the personal and York, 1963); W J. Johannsen, Ment. Hygiene
York, 1969); G. M. Crocetti and P. V. situational emergencies that can arise, but 53, 218 (1969); A. S. Linsky, Soc. Psychiat. 5,
Lemkau, Amer. Sociol. Rev. 30, 577 (1965); later a writ of habeas corpus was prepared 166 (1970).
E. Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (Free for each of the entering pseudopatients and 13. S. E. Asch, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41, 258
Press, New York, 1964); R. D. Laing, The. an attorney was kept "on call" during every (1946); Social Psychology (Prentice-Hall, New
Divided Self: A Study of Sanity and Madness hospitalization. I am grateful to John Kaplan York, 1952).
(Quadrangle, Chicago, 1960); D. L. Phillips, and Robert Bartels for legal advice and 14. See also I. N. Mensh and J. Wishner, J.
Amer. Sociol. Rev. 28, 963 (1963); T. R. assistance in these matters. Personality 16, 188 (1947); J. Wishner,
Sarbin, Psychol. Today 6, 18 (1972); E. Schur, 9. However distasteful such concealment is, it Psychol. Rev. 67, 96 (1960); J. S. Bruner and
Amer. I. Sociol. 75, 309 (1969); T. Szasz, was a necessary first step to examining these R. Tagiuri, in Handbook of Social Psychology,
Law, Liberty and Psychiatry (Macmillan, questions. Without concealment, there would G. Lindzey, Ed. (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge,
New York, 1963); The Myth of Mental Illness: have been no way to know how valid these Mass., 1954), vol. 2, pp. 634-654; J. S. Bruner,
Foundations of a Theory of Mental Illness experiences were; nor was there any way of D. Shapiro, R. Tagiuri, in Person Perception
(Hoeber Harper, New York, 1963). For a knowing whether whatever detections oc- and Interpersonal Behavior, R. Tagiuri and
critique of some of these views, see W. R. curred were a tribute to the diagnostic L. Petrullo, Eds. (Stanford Univ. Press, Stan-
Gove, Amer. Sociol. Rev. 35, 873 (1970). acumen of the staff or to the hospital's ford, Calif., 1958), pp. 277-288.
4. E. Goffman, Asylums (Doubleday, Garden rumor network. Obviously, since my con- 15. For an example of a similar self-fulfilling
City, N.Y., 1961). cerns are general ones that cut across indi- prophecy, in this instance dealing with the
5. T. J. Scheff, Being Mentally Ill: A Sociologi- vidual hospitals and staffs, I have respected "central" trait of intelligence, see R. Rosen-
cal Theory (Aldine, Chicago, 1966). their anonymity and have eliminated clues thal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion in the
6. Data from a ninth pseudopatient are not that might lead to their identification. Classroom (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New
incorporated in this report because, although 10. Interestingly, of the 12 admissions, 11 were York, 1968).
his sanity went undetected, he falsified aspects diagnosed as schizophrenic and one, with the 16. E. Zigler and L. Phillips, J. Abnorm. Soc.
of his personal history, including his marital identical symptomatology, as manic-depressive Psychol. 63, 69 (1961). See also R. K.
status and parental relationships. His experi- psychosis. This diagnosis has a more favorable Freudenberg and J. P. Robertson, A.M.A.
mental behaviors therefore were not identical prognosis, and it was given by the only Arch. Neurol. Psychiatr. 76, 14 (1956).
to those of the other pseudopatients. private hospital in our sample. On the rela- 17. W. Mischel, Personality and Assessment
7. A. Barry, Bellevue Is a State of Mind (Har- tions between social class and psychiatric (Wiley, New York, 1968).
court Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1971); diagnosis, see A. deB. Hollingshead and 18. The most recent and unfortunate instance of
I. Belknap, Human Problems of a State Mental F. C. Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness: this tenet is that of Senator Thomas Eagleton.
Hospital (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956); A Community Study (Wiley, New York, 19. T. R. Sarbin and J. C. Mancuso, J. Clin.
W. Caudill, F. C. Redlich, H. R. Gilmore, 1958). Consult. Psychol. 35, 159 (1970); T. R. Sarbin,
E. B. Brody, Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 22, 314 11. It is possible, of course, that patients have ibid. 31, 447 (1967); J. C. Nunnally, Jr.,
(1952); A. R. Goldmnan, R. H. Bohr, T. A. qui'te broad latitudes in diagnosis and there- Popular Conceptions of Mental Health (Holt,
Steinberg, Prof. Psychol. 1, 427 (1970); un- fore are inclined to call many people sane, even Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1961).
authored, Roche Report 1 (No. 13), 8 those whose behavior is patently aberrant. 20. A. H. Stanton and M. S. Schwartz, The
(1971). However, although we have no hard data on Mental Hospital: A Study of Institutional
8. Beyond the personal difficulties that the this matter, it was our distinot impression that Participation in Psychiatric Illness and Treat-
pseudopatient is likely to experience in the this was not the case. In many instances, ment (Basic, New York, 1954).
hospital, there are legal and social ones that, patients not only singled us out for attention, 21. D. B. Wexler and S. E. Scoville, Ariz. Law
combined, require considerable attention be- but came to imitate our behaviors and styles. Rev. 13, 1 (1971).
fore entry. For example, once admitted to a 12. J. Cumming and E. Cumming, Community 22. I thank W. Mischel, E. Ome, and M. S.
psychiatric institution, it is difficult, if not Ment. Health 1, 135 (1965); A. Farina and Rosenhan for comments on an earlier draft
impossible, to be discharged on short notice, K. Ring, J. Abnorm. Psychol. 70, 47 (1965); of this manuscript.