Introduction

1. The topic under investigation is, if sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?
The nature of this question has huge social implications.  For example being able to thoroughly distinguish someone who is insane from someone who doesn’t conform to the norm of society. Would allow workers in the psychiatric field to do their jobs more effectively and with more efficiency.

2. The literature review that was included in this journal report was very simple. It contained references of past research, which tried to explain the reason for these phenomena. The subject area that was outlined showed that the last report had take place in 1934, and its results were inconclusive. There never was a clear conclusion drawn as to what would clearly define the sane from the insane. The areas lacking in past research were field studies. And that is where this study succeeded.

 3. The hypothesis of this study is that knowing the difference between sanity and insanity will help to diagnose patients and get better solutions to their problems. The conceptual independent variables of this study are that normality’s are seen as different thing in different thing in different countries. And the conceptual dependant variables of this study are that you will never know what insanity is without being insane and you will never know sanity without being sane.
method

4. The participants of this study were eight pseudopatients  (Graduate student, pediatrician, psychiatrist, painter, housewife, and three other pseudopatients. They were not compensated for participating. A 39-year old male was dropped out of the study, because he was expressing ambivalence and had a secret history of this behavior.

5.  The authors sent test subjects to a semi-controlled area (psychiatric facilities) so their behavior would be considered normal. To measure this they set up a chart that expressed the interaction between pseudopatients and workers. The same instruments and techniques were used to measure the independent variables.
Results

 6.  The main findings of the report were the under psychiatric settings people are treated in a manor that makes them exert a modified behavior.
Discussion

7.  The hypothesis in this investigation was supported because the research gained during
this experiment gave the researchers new insight into what insanity and sanity are and gave them a
better understanding of how to treat them.

8.  The authors explained the findings by stating that the pseudopatients experienced the same things that an ordinary patient would experience and reported that the way the workers treated them made them feel as though they had some sort of  psychological handicap.

 9. No based on my experience the results of the study do not surprise me because to most professionals in the health field it is better to misdiagnose someone sick than it is to misdiagnose them healthy.

10. One area of the study that might have been flawed was during the psychiatric research the supervisor of the facility knew that some of the patients were not true patients that may have had an effect on the results of the study. There was no evidence of bias however.

11. One of the improvements that the researchers suggested was not allowing any of the facilities attendants to know about the study. That is the only Improvement that I think could have been made.

12.  There were no additional studies planed for the future. One study I would suggest would be to go into another field of study and gather research without the knowledge of others in the field. This could be done collecting random people with psychiatric problems and others that don’t have any such problems and grouping them together and allowing them to be diagnosed by a trained professional.