Schachter and Singer

Approach

Biological

Background

1: Cognition - mental process of acquiring and processing knowledge 2: Emotion - the body's adaptive response to a particular situation 3: Metacognition - thinking about thinking

Aim

1: To test the Two Factor Theory of Emotion 2: To research whether people turn to cognitive factors to help in describing feelings if provided a state of physiological arousal with no explanation

Research Method & Design

1: Lab experiment 2: Independent measures design

Sample / Sample Method

• 185 males taking intro to psych at University of Minnesota

• Self selecting sample

• Health records checked

• Received course credit

Variables

Independent (IV):

• Knowledge about injection (informed, misinformed, ignorant)

• Emotional situation (Euphoria or Anger)

Dependent (DV):

• Data recorded by two observers through one way mirror

• Self report

Procedures

1: Participant was taken to room and 'vitamin' supplement was given 2: If agreed, doctor gave injection of adrenaline (saline for control) 3: Informed told side effects, ignorant told no side effects, others told false side effects 4: Placed in either euphoric or angry room 5: Given questionnaire 6: Debriefed

Results

• 11 people had data excluded

• 5 had no arousal also excluded

• Adrenaline participants were more aroused

• Pulse increased in adrenaline group, decreased otherwise

• Misinformed condition was happiest, then ignorant, then informed

Conclusion

• An aroused person with no explanation for the arousal describes their feelings in terms of the cognition's 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 behavior of those around them. They use past experiences to explain arousal.

Generalizability

Strengths:

• Big sample size

Weaknesses:

• Adrenaline doesn't effect everyone in same way

Reliability

Strengths:

• Double blind

• Lab experiment highly controlled Weaknesses:

• Different questionares

Applicability

Strengths:

• Useful with anxiety Weaknesses:

• Lacks mundane realism

Validity

Strengths:

• Quantitative data collected so results can be compared Weaknesses:

• Lacks ecological Validity

Ethics

Strengths:

• Consent was given

• Injection administered by doctor

• Debriefing

Weaknesses:

• Deception

• Potentially triggered patients