Yoel’s Lemonade Stand: Why Your Shrink Isn’t Good At Marketing

 People often ask me why I am so quick to dismiss psychiatric data when developing a marketing plan.

But before I answer that question, let me tell you about a Stanford psychiatrist named David Rosenhan.

Rosenhan was a  respected psychologist, but also a skeptic who believed psychiatric labels had more to do with perception than reality.

So he designed an experiment to prove it.

In 1973, Rosenhan sent eight perfectly sane volunteers into psychiatric hospitals across America.

A painter. A housewife. A pediatrician. A psychiatrist. Three psychologists. And Rosenhan himself.

Their instructions were simple: Walk in. Report hearing a single, vague voice saying one word: “Empty.” No other symptoms. Once inside, act completely normal and try to get out. The results were immediate and shocking.

Every single volunteer was diagnosed as mentally ill. Seven labeled with schizophrenia. One manic-depressive. Not a single doctor suspected the truth.

But here’s where it gets interesting for those of us in the persuasion business.

Even when the pseudopatients acted completely normal (eating meals, chatting pleasantly, taking notes) the staff interpreted everything as evidence of illness.

Writing notes? “Compulsive writing disorder.”

Being polite? “Exhibits pathological need to please.”

Even flushing a toilet was logged as “ritualistic behavior.”

The only people smart enough to see through the act were the real patients. Thirty-five patients across multiple hospitals said, “You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist checking up on this place.”

Yet the trained professionals were completely fooled by their own preconceptions.

When Rosenhan published his results, the psychiatric community was outraged. Some hospitals challenged him to send fake patients and promised their ability to spot them.

Rosenhan agreed red to the study and after three months the hospital proudly declared they’d detected 41 imposters. There was just one problem. 

Rosenhan never sent anyone. The paranoia of the hospitals  fooled them into seeing fakes everywhere.

The fallout was massive.

His study fueled the closing of many asylums, the rise of patient rights, and reforms in psychiatric diagnosis that shaped the DSM still used today.

This became known as “The Rosenhan Effect.” It claims that psychiatric labels are so powerful, they distort reality for doctors and patients alike.

But it also left haunting questions:

If the experts couldn't tell sanity from insanity... what does that say about psychiatry itself?

And how many lives were destroyed by a label that was never real?

Kind makes you think about the use of labeks in a lot of things actually.

But to get back to the question about why I’m so quick to reject psychological explanations of marketing…

Let’s just say that Rosenhan’s study is the only one I think you need to know about.