Schachter and Singer Study

Approach

Biological Approach

Why Approach?

\-All emotions are physiological (biological response- how does the brain figure out what emotion one is feeling?)

Psychology

Two Factor Theory of Emotion

* Physiological arousal occurs first (processes of the body)
* Brain relies on external stimulation to identify + label emotion

Background

\-James Lange: physiological arousal happens first ---> then have an emotional experience

\-Cannon-Bard: physiological arousal and emotional experience happen at same time

\
1950’s: Start to question the early theories

\*\*leaving cognitive appraisal out: figure out how the same physiological feeling can be labelled as 2 different emotions

Cognitive Appraisal

Interpretation made by an individual, which will turn a feeling into a label

AIM

\-To test the Two Factor Theory of Emotion

* Test role of cognitive factors in emotional experience
* Know if you have an appropriate explanation for emotion, will you have appropriate label
* Know if physiological arousal is needed for an emotional experience

Hypothesis

1. If an individual experiences physiological arousal, with no immediate explanation, they will then label the state and describe it in terms of the cognitions available
2. If an individual experiences physiological arousal, for which they have an appropriate explanation, they will label it accordingly
3. Given the same circumstances, an individual will react emotionally/describe their feelings as emotions only if they have physiological arousal

DV

\-Emotional response (happy or angry)

Measured by:

* Direct observations w/ behavioral checklist and one-way mirror
* Self-reports questionnaire at end of study

IV

\-Physiological Arousal: what injection participants would get and what they are told

* Epi-informed: injected with epinephrine and told true side effects
* Epi-misinformed: injected with epinephrine and told false side effects
* Epi-ignorant: injected with epinephrine and told nothing
* Placebo: injected with saline and told nothing

\
\-Participant’s explanation for why they feel the way they do

* Informed: should NOT copy behavior of stooge + stooge will have nothing to do with their behavior
* Misinformed: should copy the behavior of stooge and use stooge as explanation
* Ignorant: should copy the behavior of stooge and use stooge as explanation
* Placebo: no physiological arousal -- no need for explanation

\
\-The Situation

* Euphoric Behavior
* Anger Behavior

Conditions

1. Euphoric Informed
2. Euphoric Misinformed
3. Euphoric Ignorant
4. Euphoric Placebo
5. Anger Informed
6. Anger Ignorant
7. Anger Placebo

Why No Anger Misinformed?

\-Not needed, and will save time

Method

Lab study

\-Controlled environment

Design

Independent Measures Design

\-Can’t put participants in both euphoric and anger condition- will know what will happen; can’t un-inject someone

Apparatus

* Injection of epinephrine -called' ‘Suproxin’
* Placebo: saline shot
* Private room: gets shot and told or not told side effects
* Waiting room: one-way mirror for observation and stooge
* Euphoric condition: paper, folders, wastebasket, hula hoop
* Anger condition: ambiguous questionnaire that is sensitive/personal to elicit anger response for stooge

Participants

185 male college students taking classes in Introductory to Psychology at University of Minnesota

* Received 2 extra credit points for every hour
* All cleared by student health
* 1 Dropped out, 11 were suspicious of experiment

Sampling Method

\-Volunteer Sampling

Controls

* All participants will be given an injection
* All participants in each condition received the same instructions in the same order
* Stooge will always repeat same behavior in the same order
* Items will always be placed in same location every time in the rooms

Data

\-Quantitative

Questionnaire and Observations (behavioral checklist)

* Euphoria Categories

\-Joined in with stooge

\-Initiated new activity

\-Ignored stooge

\-Watched stooge but did NOT join

* Anger Categories:

\-Agrees with stooge

\-Disagrees with stooge

\-Neutral towards stooge

\-Initiate (start talking before stooge)

\-Ignore stooge

\-Watch stooge

\
\-Qualitative

Self-report questionnaire - subjective\*\*

\*Had control questions for effects of epinephrine

\*False symptoms of control group (placebo-effect)

\
\-2 questions embedded about emotional state (5-point scale)

* How irritated, angry or annoyed do you feel?
* How good or happy do you feel?

\-2 questions embedded about physiological state (4-point scale)

* Have you experienced any heart palpitations?
* Do you feel any terror?

\

Findings

* In all epinephrine conditions, it increased their pulse and experiences more heart palpitation than placebo group

(had more physiological arousal - only 5 people reported no symptoms)

\
* Epi-informed reported less euphoria than both misinformed and ignorant (had explanation)
* No significant difference with placebo

\
* Epi-misinformed had highest level of euphoric activity
* Epi-informed had least euphoric activity

\
* Epi-informed had highest anger score
* Epi-ignorant had lowest anger score

\
* Epi-informed had lowest level of anger activity
* Epi-ignorant had highest anger activity (joining in)

Conclusions

\-All hypotheses were supported

\-Experiment gave evidence for the Two Factor Theory (know that emotions must have physiological arousal, and must contain cognitions/thoughts)

Ethics

\-Confidentiality kept

\-Informed consent

\-Debriefing

\
Protection from harm:

\*Emotional distress in anger condition

\*Gave injection- can cause pain at injection sight

Deception:

\*Lied about test of vision (aim of study)

\*Lied about the injection- told vitamin supplement

\*Lied to about side effects (misinformed group)

\*Stooge: thought they were another participant who received a shot

Strengths

\-Highly standardized

\-Highly controlled

\-Large sample

\-Independent Measures: reduced risk of order effects, and figuring out aim of experiment

\-Stooge

\-Both types of data

\-Used standardized observation with behavioral checklist- objective way of gathering data

\-Helps to support 3 approaches: biological, cognitive, social

Weaknesses

\-Low mundane realism (not everyday task of being injected)

\-Low ecological validity: artificial setting (could have acted differently)

\-All college-aged males- low generalizability

\-Ethical concerns

\-Independent measures: participant variables

\*\*\*personality + temperament alters validity)

Nature v. Nurture

\-Nature: everyone has physiological arousal experience to emotions

\-Nurture: past experiences tie to cognitive appraisal

Individual v. Situational

\-Individual: we all have physiological arousal

\-Situational: understand our emotions better by understanding situations you are in

Application

\-Undesirable side effects of shots

\-Helps understand how people use different environmental cues to help them interpret physiological state

\-Treating people with anxiety + panic attacks (identify environmental triggers)