Schachter & Singer Flashcards
what, according to schachter & singer’s two-factor theory of emotion, are the two components of an emotion?
a) physiological arousal, caused by an external stimuli (eg. adrenaline rush)
b) cognitive interpretation of situation, ie. the label given to it (eg. “fear”), using cognition about what is happening in the surroundings (eg. dark parking lot + stranger approaching you)
AIM
to test the two-factor theory of emotions
RESEARCH METHOD
lab experiment
HYPOTHESIS 1
if a person doesn’t have an explanation for their state of arousal, they will label their feelings based on immediate cognition.
HYPOTHESIS 2
If a person has an explanation for their state of arousal they won’t necessarily take into account available cognitions to label their feelings.
HYPOTHESIS
If a person experiences a previously encountered emotional situation, they only react or feel emotional if they are physiologically aroused.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
independent measures
IVs
epinephrine informed euphoria/anger
epinephrine misinformed euphoria
epinephrine ignorant euphoria/anger
placebo
DV
reaction of participants to stooge
results of self-report on mood
SAMPLE
185 male students taking a course on introductory psychology at the University of Minnesota; given course credits for participation.
ETHICAL GUIDELINE: physical/psychological harm
how was it followed?
all participants’ medical records checked prior to experiment to ensure epinephrine wouldn’t have any adverse effects; injection administered by a doctor, who stayed around to monitor participants.
ETHICS: DECEPTION
how were the participants deceived?
told they would be injected with the vitamin Suproxin; experiment was on its effects on vision
IV: epinephrine misinformed
what were participants told & why?
incorrect symptoms: “your feet will feel numb, you will have an itching sensation over parts of your body and you may get a slight headache.” therefore participants have no explanation for actual symptoms they would experience.
IV: epinephrine informed
what were participants told & why?
correct symptoms: “your hand will start to shake, your heart will start to pound, and your face may get warm and flushed.” therefore participants would have an explanation for symptoms felt.
IV: epinephrine ignorant
what were participants told and why?
told they would not experience any side-effects. therefore participants have no explanation for actual side-effects they would experience.
DV: controlled observation
behavioral categories for euphoric condition
does the participant: join the activity; initiate a new activity; watch the stooge; ignore the stooge.
DV: controlled observation
behavioral categories for anger condition
does the participant: agree with a comment; disagree with a comment; act neutral with a comment; initiate an agreement; initiate a disagreement; watch the stooge; ignore the stooge.
DV: controlled observation
how many observers were present?
two
STRENGTHS: inter-observer reliability
observers agreed on 88% of observations
PROCEDURE
euphoria condition: what did the stooge do?
after experimenter left he reintroduced himself & made some ice-breaker comments; began routine which consisted of playing with items left in the room, suggesting that the participants join in while he used the items.
PROCEDURE
euphoria condition: what did the experimenter say?
he introduced the stooge as another participant who had also been given the injection and stated that the Suproxin injection would take another ten minutes to be absorbed in their bloodstream, after which they would both be given the same tests of vision.
before leaving he apologetically added that participants should help themselves to any materials such as erasers, pen or paper should they need them.
PROCEDURE
euphoria condition: what did the stooge play with? (5)
paper, rubber bands, pencils, folders and hula hoops.
PROCEDURE
anger condition: what did the experimenter say?
he introduced the stooge and explained that it was necessary to wait 20 minutes for the Suproxin to enter the bloodstream and that the participants had to complete a questionnaire during this time.
PROCEDURE
anger condition: what did the stooge do?
+ 4 things he said
created a feeling of anger in the room by making a variety of comments that increased in intensity as the questionnaire became more personal, eg.
“…it’s unfair for them to give you shots.”
“This really irritates me.”
“The hell with it!”
“I’m not wasting any more time.”
PROCEDURE
anger condition: what were some of the questions on the questionnaire?
- List the foods you would eat on a typical day.
- List the childhood diseases you have had and the age at which you had them.
- How many times a week do you have sexual intercourse?
- With how many men (other than your father) has your mother had extramarital relationships?
PROCEDURE
after session with the stooge: what did the experimenter do?
returned to the room, took the participants’ pulse and explained that they would have to take a questionnaire which would consider their physical responses to the Suproxin. (responses to be used as self-report measure of DV)
PROCEDURE
debriefing: what was done?
the deception and its necessity was explained in full; any questions asked were answered; swore the participants to secrecy to protect future runs of the study.
RESULTS
participants excluded
1 disagreed to the injection; 11 were so suspicious that their results were discarded; 5 had no physiological reaction to the injection and were excluded from the analysis. therefore 169 participants’ data was analysed.
PROCEDURE
examples of questions in self report
How irritated, angry or annoyed would you say you are at present? (0 - not at all; 4 - extremely irritated and angry)
Did you feel any tremor?
(0 - not at all; 3 - an intense amount)
RESULTS
comparison of placebo and epinephrine groups
participants receiving epinephrine injections showed significantly more sympathetic arousal than placebo participants.
they showed more evidence of physiological responses (change in pulse rate) and also reported higher scores for palpitations and tremors, which suggests they were having a behavioral response to the increased levels of arousal.
RESULTS
proof of physiological arousal
(euphoria: epinephrine informed vs. placebo)
change in pulse rate (informed): 2.9
change in pulse rate (placebo): -3.3
palpitations (informed): 1.2
palpitations (placebo): 0.3
RESULTS
euphoria condition: self-report measures
misinformed participants: feeling the happiest
ignorant group: second happiest group
informed group: felt the least positive
demonstrates that participants in the misinformed and ignorant group were more susceptible to the stooge because they had no way of explaining why they felt as they did.
RESULTS
anger condition: self-report measure
the ignorant group felt the angriest; second angriest was the placebo group. least angry was the informed group.
shows that participants were more susceptible to the angry stooge because they had no way of explaining why they felt as they did.
CONCLUSIONS
Schachter and Singer argue that a) their findings support their theory of emotion; b) all their hypothesis were supported. therefore they concluded that if a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they will label this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available to them at the time.
what does the two-factor theory of emotion state?
that physiological arousal in different emotions is entirely the same and that we label our arousal according to the cognitions we have available.
STRENGTHS (3)
- highly controlled procedure; random allocation of participants; standardised routine of stooge; use of double blind technique (stooge did not know which condition the participant was in)
- low demand characteristics due to successful deception
- use of questionnaires to operationalise dependent variable allowed standardisation of data collection
WEAKNESSES (4)
- lot of participant variables - adrenaline does not affect everyone the same way, eg. five participants weren’t affected by the injection and had to be removed
- no assessment of participant’s mood taken before experiment; some might have already been in a bad mood. therefore validity lowered
- unrepresentative sample: only males; cannot be generalised
- people do not usually experience emotions this way + use of questionnaires restricted freedom of expression; lowered ecological validity
ETHICAL ISSUES
- deception
- risk of psychological harm
- no informed consent
