After that there is literally just one fact that possibly indicates manipulating the original study data, which is allegedly omitting one participant’s experiences which were “positive” (as self-reported decades later).
Even if true, the overall study only included some tiny sample size, and if even only 1-2 had harrowing or abusive experiences, which Rosenhan himself had in his own faked hospital stay, wouldn’t that be enough to prove the general point that abuse was shockingly common and patient treatment in these facilities at that time was seriously troubled?
Meanwhile this article itself is also pushing various book ads for the author’s own book.
My takeaway is that Rosenhan may have selectively excluded data, but the point of his paper was much more qualitative and directional in a direction that turned out to be true and led to a huge overhaul of mental health facilities for the better.
If we can prove Rosenhan manipulated data, we should acknowledge that, and it should not be treated lightly. But it also doesn’t seem to invite sweeping reassessment of the original paper at all.
This piece just seems like somewhat of a publicity grab.