schachter & singer

Question 1

what are the aims for Schachter and singer

Answer 1

1-to test the 2 factor theory of emotion
2- to research whether people turn to cognitice factors to help describing feelings provided a state of physiologival arousal with no explanation

Question 2

whats cognition

Answer 2

mental process of acquiring and processing knowledge

Question 3

whats emotion

Answer 3

the body adaptive response to a particular situation

Question 4

metacognition

Answer 4

thinking about thinking

Question 5

what does cognition interpets

Answer 5

cognition interprets our physiological state so that we can label our emotional responses

Question 6

what happens during physiological arousal

Answer 6

your heart and respiration rate increase pupils dilate and adrenaline is released

Question 7

what does schachter and singer suggested

Answer 7

they suggested that emotional experiences come from a combination of physical arousal and cognition that makes the best sense of the persons situation

Question 8

Background

Answer 8

Schachter & Singer developed the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion. They suggested that emotional
experiences come from a combination of physical arousal and cognition that makes the best
sense of the situation the person is

Question 9

hypothesis

Answer 9

1. If a person is aroused with no immediate explanation, they will describe their feelings in
   terms of the cognitions available.
2. When an individual is aroused and has an explanation, they won’t label their feelings in terms
   of the cognition available.
3. If an aroused person is in a situation which in the past could have made them emotional,
   they would be emotional again.

Question 10

research method

Answer 10

Highly standardised laboratory experiment.

Question 11

research design

Answer 11

independent group design

Question 12

sampling technique

Answer 12

self selct sampling

Question 13

sample

Answer 13

185 male participants taking introductory psychology at the University of Minnesota.

Question 14

IV

Answer 14

IV: Knowledge about the injection symptoms and the emotional situation following the injection.

Question 15

DV

Answer 15

Observational data recorded by two observers, and participants’ self-report.

Question 16

procedure

Answer 16

Participants were told the aim was to test the effects of the vitamin supplement ‘Suproxin’ on vision.
Informed consent was taken. They were deceived and actually injected with either
adrenaline, or a placebo (saline solution).

1- Participants in the informed condition was told the correct side effects of the injection, ‘your hand will start to shake’.

2- Ps in the misinformed condition were told the wrong side effects of the injection, ‘your feet
will feel numb’. The group was introduced as a control.

3- Ps in the ignorant condition were told that they would experience no side effects.

After their injection, the experimenter brought in another ‘participant’ who was actually a stooge.
They were told Suproxin absorption would take 10 minutes after which they’d have a vision test.
Ps were exposed to the anger or euphoria condition.

Question 17

euphoria condition

Answer 17

The stooge made icebreaker comments, played with the items in the room,
and suggested the participant join in. A participant ‘initiates new activity’ (example of a new
activity: hula-hooping) when they show a behaviour which wasn’t included in the stooge’s routine.

Question 18

anger condition

Answer 18

The experimenter told them Suproxin absorption would take 20 minutes. Ps
completed a questionnaire in this time, which had personal questions. The stooge created a
feeling of anger in the room with comments and crumpled up the questionnaire at the end and
stomped out.

Question 19

results

Answer 19

 Data of only 169 Ps were included.

 Ps who received adrenaline were significantly more sympathetically aroused compared to
the placebo Ps. The misinformed group only took part in the euphoria condition as it was a control.

 In all the adrenaline conditions, Ps’ pulse rate increased, whereas the pulse rate for the placebo group decreased.

 From the self-report measure, the euphoric misinformed group was the happiest. Euphoria
ignorant group was the second happiest. The informed group was the least happy as they
had an explanation for what they were feeling.
Ps in the anger ignorant condition were the angriest, and those in the placebo group were
the second angriest. They were susceptible to the stooge as they had no explanation.

Question 20

ETHICS & ETHICAL ISSUES

Answer 20

All Ps gave consent. Injections were given by a trained doctor for protection. Ps were deceived.

Question 21

conclusion

Answer 21

An aroused person with no explanation for the arousal describes their feelings in terms of the
cognition available. The study is useful in treating people with anxiety or panic attacks as they
can identify the environmental triggers that cause them to be aroused.
Individuals do not explain arousal by only looking at the behaviour of those around them. They
use past experiences to explain arousal.

Question 22

strength and weakness

Answer 22

 It was a highly controlled laboratory experiment, as the same experimental rooms were used,
and the stooge had given scripted responses. Participants were randomly allocated to different
conditions. All participants were deceived, and the double-blind technique was used.

 The sample consisted of university students so participant variables may distort findings. This
makes results less valid.

 The sample only had male participants thus, the study is less generalisable as females may
experience emotions differently.

 Adrenalin does not affect everyone in the same way due to individual differences.

 No assessment was made of the participant’s mood before the injection; thus, it reduces
validity.

 Questionnaires helped operationalise the dependent variables, therefore the data is
standardised.
Strength
 Quantitative data collected can be easily analysed and used to compare results
across two conditions.
Weakness
 Questionnaires do not give participants the same freedom to express feelings as
discussions would. However, other measures such as observation were useful as the results
matched the data in the self-reports.