Psychology

Rosenhans (1973) study, as was discussed in the authors scholarly article, On being Sane in Insane Places, has explored one specific issue that challenges the field of Psychology in an attempt to set the boundaries between sanity and insanity or normality and abnormality. Rosenhans (1973) interest in exploring the issue was due to the inconsistencies on existing data or information about the standards that are used to label individuals as sane, insane, mentally ill, and such. In general, Rosenhans view is that ideas and perceptions about sanity and insanity are not universal and depends on actual situations and various contexts in which events that depict behavior occur.

Rosenhan (1973) proceeded to conduct an experiment in order to further explore the issue. In the experiment, Rosenhan (1973) asked eight sane people, with most of them related to the field of psychology and psychiatry. The eight pseudopatients went to different hospitals to be admitted for experiencing odd behavior, such as hearing voices. When the patients were admitted to the psychiatric ward, they however exhibited their normal behavior. Although the patients have exhibited their usual or normal behavior, the staff at the psychiatric ward was unable to detect the sane behaviors exhibited. Overall, the conclusion of Rosenhan (1973) was that the understanding of sanity and insanity is biased, which the author named as Type 2 error. Type 2 error is such that physicians are more likely to label healthy people as sick due to their behavior, than to evaluate the behavior of sick people and label them as healthy when they exhibit normal behavior.

The findings and conclusions of Rosenhan (1973) have stirred numerous critiques and feedback from other scholars. The succeeding sections will look into some of the discussions by other scholars about the findings of Rosenhan (1973).

Critiques about Rosenhans On Being Sane in Insane Places
Weiner (1975) has strongly argued that the study of Rosenhan (1973) was irrational, but that the behavior and judgments of physicians are rational. Weiner (1975) justified the argument by saying that Rosenhans (1973) perception of the inability of physicians to detect sane from insane behavior and that the psuedopatients should have been released earlier since they did not exhibit insane  behavior should not only be based on the study the latter conducted since it could be that the physicians in charge of the psychiatric wards were keeping the eight pseudopatients for further investigation in order to determine when the symptoms for schizophrenia would then appear. (Weiner 1975)

Crown (1975) also shares the criticisms of Weiner. According to Crown (1975), the identification of sane and insane behavior is not merely evaluated through observation or the display of sane behavior from patients. The capacity of physicians to truly detect sane and insane behavior is from the interaction between the patient and the pseudopatient. Furthermore, the work of physicians in the field of psychiatry is not limited to the behavior of patients, such that patients admitted to the psychiatric ward who exhibit normal behavior are easily discharged. Physicians, to label people as sane or insane, require a great amount of time for observation and comprehensive assessment. (Crown 1975)

Other critiques on Rosenhans (1973) study were based on technicalities. For Crown (1975), the use of pseudopatients stirs up arguments about the ethical use of pseudopatients in conducting  a scientific research and that merely questioning the ethical standards of the study will place the validity and reliability of the study in jeopardy. The same argument was shared by Millon (1975) and Spitzer (1975). Millon strongly expressed that the empirical data obtained from the experimental study was seriously flawed. Millons (1975) argument was that Rosenhan (1973) was not able to place the variables in a controlled environment in order to yield more precise, valid, and reliable results. Furthermore, Millon (1975) said that the Rosenhan (1973) failed to exhibit logic and rationalism in interpreting the results of the study.

According to Spitzer (1975), the findings of Rosenhan (1973) have failed to meet the standards for validity and reliability. Furthermore, the fact that the pseudopatients were discharged as in remission means that the physicians were able to detect that the pseudopatients were not insanely ill. The rational judgment of the physicians based on their prolonged observation of the behavior of the pseudopatients contradicts the conclusions of Rosenhan (1973) and the authors interpretation of the results of the study.

Determining Sanity and Insanity
Based on the study of Rosenhan (1973) and the criticisms of other scholars on the formers study as previously discussed, a specific description of sanity and insanity materialized which may guide individuals in labeling emotions, thoughts, and behaviors as sane or insane. Detecting emotions, thoughts, and behaviors as psychologically abnormal requires a careful and considerable amount of effort in making observations and interacting with an individual to base the judgments or evaluation on. It is not enough that individuals merely say they are insane, although it would be one of the primary manifestations that would signal that individual to seek professional help.

However, based on the study of Rosenhan (1973), insanity should be based on the consistency of the prolonged behavior of an individual. In the study, the pseudopatients were discharged as in remission as their behavior indicated that they were not insane. Hence, behavior plays a significant role in determining sanity and insanity, but such behaviors should be carefully observed and diagnosed in order to be labeled as specific abnormal behaviors. Rational judgments may be based on the difference between normal and abnormal behavior. Individuals who display abnormal behavior that are psychological in nature, such as talking to invisible people, extreme display of behavior, unresponsiveness to people, and so on may be labeled as insane. Furthermore, the study by Rosenhan (1973) may emphasize the consistency in the thought process and behavior of individuals in labeling them as sane or insane. As previously discussed, it is not enough that people say they are hearing voices for instance, they should be able to think that they are hearing voices and act as if they are hearing voices. Abnormal behavior should then be something that the person exhibits in thought and in action.

The  problem in such descriptions is that it limits how individuals are to be labeled as sane or insane. For one, individuals cannot be labeled as insane because they display abnormal behavior. What if these individuals are merely odd or eccentric Thus, normality should not be the only basis for determining sanity or insanity. Furthermore, the previous definitions will most likely lead to errors in the judgments and observations of physicians. Physicians work based on guidelines or protocol. The judgments of physicians are based on what the patient says he thinks, and as proven by the research of Rosenhan (1973), physicians are able to act on specific cases simply by listening to what the patient says although it may be that the patient merely says it and not really thinks and acts it. The previous argument supports the arguments of Rosenhan (1973) on the inconsistency and flaws of judging people and labeling them as sane or insane. Furthermore, it proves how the rules of sanity and insanity are utilized in other situations such as criminal cases. The previous descriptions of insanity may make it easy for criminals to claim insanity by exhibiting how physicians regard insane individuals to be.

However, for individuals who are not directly linked to the field of psychology and psychiatry, the descriptions above may do in helping them determine sane or insane individuals from each other but it should not simply be the ultimate guide for making judgments. Furthermore, the previous descriptions may serve as basis or groundwork for future studies and research on abnormal study. The criticisms of some scholars on Rosenhans (1973) work may have been instrumental in establishing further studies on abnormal psychology since the arguments have raised specific important inquiries about sanity and insanity.

Overall, based on the previous discussions, it is important that abnormal psychology and the study of human behavior remain flexible, especially since there are various open arguments and flaws on the limited views and perspectives of sanity and insanity. The field of psychology and psychiatry should be very much open to new research studies and trends in understanding behavior in order to come up with various solutions to the problems concerning the inconsistencies on how sanity and insanity may be judged. It is also useful that scholars continue to critique research studies in order to arrive at various arguments that would set forth important questions that would guide the continuous development of the mentioned fields.