schachter and singer (aishah) [done]

Question 1

Describe William James’ study

Answer 1

• physiological response is both pessary and sufficient for the occurrence of an emotional state.
• there is no need for cognitive processing for an emotion to be felt

Question 2

Describe Walter cannon’s study

Answer 2

• physiological response is neither pessary nor sufficient for the occurrence of emotion

Question 3

Who was the person Schahter and Singer were influenced by/got the idea of their experiment from? what was that person’s study?

Answer 3

• Maranon conducted an experiment in 1924 to check whether stimulation of body changes by injections of adrenalin would produce feelings of emotion
• 70% of the subjects experienced physical symptoms but no emotion and the rest described the experience ‘as if; they were feeling an emotion but did not feel the emotion.
• The experiment suggested that physiological arousal by the injection was not enough to produce emotion unless the person was provided with an appropriate cognition.

Question 4

What is the two-factor theory also known as?

Answer 4

cognitive labelling theory

Question 5

What is the two-factor theory?

Answer 5

• the two-factor theory suggests that emotions come from a combination of a state of arousal and cognition that makes the best sense of the situation the person is in.
• physiological arousal is necessary but is not sufficient for the experience of emotion as cognitive appraisal may label the same physiological arousal in several different ways.
  1) if someone experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they will try to label this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions that are available to them
  2) if a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have an appropriate explanation, then they will be unlikely to label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognition available.

Question 6

What were the subjects told about the aim of the study?

Answer 6

• that it was a study to look at the effect of vitamin injections on visual skills
• they were asked if they mind having an injection of superoxide, if they agreed then they would go ahead with the injection, if not then they were free to leave. All but 1 participant continued the experiment.
• all subjects thought they had received an injection of vitamins.

Question 6

Why was adrenalin used in this experiment?

Answer 6

Because its effect is very similar to the effect of arousal of the sympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous systems. for example an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugar level, respiration rate, and blood flow to the muscles and brain, with an accompanying decrease in blood flow to the skin.
The effect of adrenaline began after 3 mins and last from 10 mins to an hour.

Question 7

Describe the experimental conditions (5M)

Answer 7

There were 4 experimental conditions:
1. Ignorant: The subjects were given an adrenalin injection but were not told about its effects
2. Informed: The subjects were given an adrenalin injection and warned about the side effects of the drugs (handshake, heart pounding, dry mouth etc). therefore they were prepared for the effects of adrenalin
3. Misinformed: The subjects were given an adrenalin injection and told to expect side effects like numb feet and headache. Therefore the subjects were not excepting the effects of adrenalin.
4. Placebo: the subjects were given an injection of a saline solution which had no effects and they were given no instructions of what to expect.

all the experimental conditions thought they were receiving vitamin injections

Question 8

Why and for how long were the subjects left in the room after getting injections?

Answer 8

The subjects were left in the room for 20mins, to ‘let the drug be absorbed before a vision test’

Question 9

Was the study replicated?

Answer 9

• the study was not replicated for a long time due to:
  1. Perhaps people wanted to believe in the theory
  2. complexity of the experiment
  later in 1979, Marshall and Zimbardo did try to replicate the study but failed to obtain the same results

Question 10

Name a few problems in the study by Schachter and singer

Answer 10

1. Differences between the groups of subjects were small and they only became significant after a number of the subjects were discarded
2. the subjects in the misinformed and ignorant groups attributed their arousal state to the injection saying that the shot gave them shivers. This was a problem since they were meant to experience arousal without an obvious cause
3. there was no measure of the subject’s mood before the experiment.
4. the misinformed condition was not reported in the anger situation

Question 11

Name a few problems in the study by Schachter and singer

Answer 11

1. Differences between the groups of subjects were small and they only became significant after a number of the subjects were discarded
2. the subjects in the misinformed and ignorant groups attributed their arousal state to the injection saying that the shot gave them shivers. This was a problem since they were meant to experience arousal without an obvious cause
3. there was no measure of the subject’s mood before the experiment.
4. the misinformed condition was not reported in the anger situation

Question 12

briefly summarise the design of this experiment

Question 13

Describe the procedure

Answer 13

1. P’s were told that the test was to check for how a vitamin named suproxin affects vision.
2. they were injected with it if they consented, if not then they were free to leave
3. there were two groups formed: one who were given adrenalin and other who were given placebo
4. the adrenalin group was divided into three groups: the informed, misinformed and ignorant
5. to produce emotional state, there was the use of two conditions: euphoria and anger

Question 14

Suggest some other ways that you could measure and record your own and other people’s emotion

Question 15

What ethical concerns might be there in this study?

Question 16

Do you think the results would have been different if they had not used students in their study?

Question 17

what did schacter and singer propose in their theory?

Answer 17

they manipulated arousal by giving injections of adrenalin and proposed that the subjects would interpret this arousal in terms of the available cognitions ie the environmental cues that are available to them.

Question 18

What was the aim of the study?

Answer 18

S & S proposed that if you experience a state of physiological arousal for which you have no immediate explanation then you will interpret this state in terms of the cognitions available to you. If an adequate explanation has been provided to you then you don’t need to do this.

Question 19

How were the emotions manipulated?

Answer 19

1. the state of physiological arousal: it was manipulated by deceiving the P’s into thinking that they were participating in a study on the effect of vitamin injections on vision but in reality they were injections of adrenalin or placebo.
2. available explanation: manipulated by the info given to the P’s. for ex: informed condition told abt correct effects like heart rate)
3. emotional environment: euphoria or anger condition

Question 20

Describe the two conditions that the P’s went through

Answer 20

1. euphoria: the stooge doodled on paper, tossed it round the room, made paper places, played w hula hoop etc.
2. anger: the P and the stooge were given a questionnaire to fill that began fairy innocent (ex: list all the foods you have had to eat today) but then became increasingly personal (ex: what is your father’s annual income and how many times each week do u have sexual intercourse). The stooge started getting angry by every question they answered, until the end when he ripped up the questionnaire and stormed out of the room.

Question 21

How did they measure emotion?

Answer 21

1. standardised observation: the behaviours were observed thru a one way mirror
2. self reports: P’s were asked to complete a questionnaire containing a number of killer questions about hunger and fatigue as well as some critical question like:
   ‘ how irritated, angry or annoyed would you say you feel at present’ or ‘how good or happy would you say you feel at the present?’
   both rated from 0-4

Question 22

how were the results calculated?

Answer 22

subtracting the self-reports score for irritation from the self-report score for happiness.
the higher the positive value, the happier the participant.

Question 23

Was the sample representative?

Answer 23

• undergraduate students may not be representative of the general population
• since the students were offered course credits, the likelihood of the students behaving in a way that they thought the experimenters wanted them to behave would increase.

Question 24

what is the type of data collected in this study and what are its weaknesses?

Answer 24

the data collected were quantitative:
1. self reports: where P’s had to rate their feeling on a 0-4 scale. The P’s might interpret the scale in different ways and this may mean that P’s with similar levels of emotion rate themselves very differently.
2. P’s may not tell the truth when asked questions like these, maybe due to demand characteristics or social desirability bias.

Question 25

Was this study ethical? and why?

Answer 25

The study broke several ethical guidelines, mainly the issue of deception.
- they were told that they would be injected by vitamin but it was epinephrine
- they were also told falsely about the effect of the drug, except for the informed group.
- they were led to believe that the stooge was another P
- they were not aware that they were being observed from the one way mirror
the study could have also caused distress to the P, especially those in anger condition who may have got offended by the questions in the questionnaire.

Question 26

Does the study by S & S give an individual or situational explanation of behaviour?

Answer 26

S & S concluded that our emotional experiences are results of cognitive appraisal of the situation we find ourselves in so they offered a situational explaining for behaviour.

Question 27

What was the conclusion of the study?

Answer 27

that there are not specific patterns of arousal associated with each emotion but a general pattern of arousal which is combined with cognitive appraisal necessary but not sufficient.

Question 28

What are the problems in the conclusion of this study?

Answer 28

1. the study has proved impossible to replicate and it won’t be too unethical to replicate it now.
2. conclusion may be overstated:
   a. it is possible that the Ps are simply more suggestible when under the influence of adrenaline and therefore imitate the stooge more.
3. initial analysis of the Dara revealed only one difference and it was only when the researchers excluded Ps who they decided had worked out the same of the study that they found differences in the observer ratings for euphoria condition

Question 29

What was the real aim of the study?

Answer 29

• to test the two-factor theory: emotional experience is a result of both the physiological arousal and the cognitive interpretation of a situation.

Question 30

Describe the methodology in this study

Answer 30

• laboratory experiment
• independent measures design
• highly standardised
• IV:
  1. knowledge about injections: informed, misinformed, ignorant.
  2. emotional state: euphoria, anger
• DV: reaction the participants exerted to the actions of the stooge

Question 30

Describe the methodology in this study

Answer 30

• laboratory experiment
• independent measures design
• highly standardised
• IV:
  1. knowledge about injections: informed, misinformed, ignorant.
  2. emotional state: euphoria, anger
• DV: reaction the participants exerted to the actions of the stooge

Question 31

describe the sample used in this study

Answer 31

• 185 individuals
• taking a course in introductory psychology
  -University of Minnesota
  -They were given course credit for participation.

Question 32

Describe the sample used in this study

Answer 32

• 185 individuals
• taking a course in introductory psychology
  -University of Minnesota
• they were given +2 points in their final exam for every hour they took part.