Lecture: Emotion Flashcards
Schachter & Singer
Aim: Originally a social comparison & becomes an emotion study (on the basics of emotion)
Procedures: Inject participants with epinephrine (adrenaline) or placebo
Inform of symptoms or not
Euphoric or angry confederate
Euphoric confederate: two people are waiting for the drug to take effect with toys in it and start playing with the toys
Angry Confederate: both fill out the survey, and it becomes increasingly insulting
Findings: If they are informed about injecting with adrenaline, they feel no emotion. If they are not informed about injected with adrenaline they experience the emotion of the confederate.
Epi. ignorant > Placebo > Epi. Informed
Suggested to other researchers maybe people are feeling the emotion but attributing it to the shot
Two-factory theory
Emotion = arousal + label
Qualifications of the two-factory theory
Not all emotions have the same pattern
Arousal for intensity, not existence
Facial feedback
Bodily cues can influence the intensity of emotion
Facial Feedback study
People are asked to hold a pen with their teeth or lips
Hold pen while reading comics
Hold pen with teeth is found funnier due to smiling compared to holding the pen with lips who are frowning
Misattribution of arousal
Excitation transfer: arousal from one source to a different source
Dutton & Aron 1974: Shaky Bridge Study
Procedures: On the a high bridge, male participants were approached by an attractive female, who told them to complete the survey and gave them their number (card)
On a more sturdy bridge and less high, male participants were approached by an attractive female, told them to complete the survey and gave them their number (card)
Findings: Low bridge: 2/16 (12.5) call
High bridge: 9/188 (50%) call
Why?
Misattribution of arousal
Actual source: fear
Misattributed source: lust
Self-Perception Theory
Cognitive alternative to dissonance
If internal cues are vague, observer our behavior and make inference
Sometimes we’re like observers (of ourselves), not actors
Lepper, Greene & Nisbett Study (1973)
Procedures: Study on preschoolers with magic markers
Kids play with the magic markers
The second condition if they play with the magic markers they get a reward
A week later they returned with toys including magic markers
Findings:
The kids without the reward continue to play with the magic maker (they still have intrinsic motivation)
The kids with the reward don’t continue to play with the magic maker (they don’t have intrinsic motivation)
Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973) signficance
Overjustification: Undermine intrinsic motivation w/external reward
Wasn’t saying rewards don’t work but you need to sustain them
Bonuses rather than bribes preserve intrinsic motivation
Lepper et al. (1982) (follow-up study)
“Eat your hupe before you can have your hule” (vegetable, dessert) was told to kids
Asked what is the hupe and the hule
12/16 preschoolers (75%) said hule is preferred (sweeter, more sugar, etc)
Zanna & Cooper 1974
Procedure: Give a placebo- feelings of tension, relax, or nothing
Write counter attitudinal essay under choice or not
Findings: Arousal key to dissonance - the arousal gets misattributed to the placebo pill in the high-choice condition. Thus, Dissonance better explains attitude change
Self-perception better explains attitude formation
What are Grades?
performance-contingent rewards
