AICE Psychology- Two Factor Theory of Emotion (Schachter and Singer) (1962)

The Two Factor Theory (Cognitive Labeling Theory)

Both physiological arousal (a state of responsiveness to sensory stimulation or excitability) and cognitive interpretation are necessary. Pretty much means that when people become aroused they look for cues as to why they feel the way they do.

Purpose of the Study

To test 3 propositions regarding the interaction between physiological and cognitive factors in the experience of emotion. So basically they're testing the 2 factor theory.

Type of Study

A lab experiment

Type of Approach

Physiological

Hypothesis (1)

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

Hypothesis (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 cognitions available.

Hypothesis (3)

If a person is put in a situation, which in the past could have made them feel an emotion, they will react emotionally or experience emotions only if they're in a sate of physiological arousal.

What are Cognitive Factors?

something immaterial (a circumstance or influence) that contributes to producing a result

How were participants observed?

Researchers observed measure of emotional response through a one-way mirror

How were the emotions of participants recorded on paper?

They filled out a questionnaire that asked them emotional questions such as "how irritated, angry, or annoyed would you say you feel at present?"

Participants

184 male college students

Which college did the participants attend?

Minnesota University

How were the participants gathered?

They all took a psychology course and were offered extra credit

The Independent Variables

1. The info about the adrenalin given to the subjects

2. The situation (euphoria or anger)

The Dependent Variable

Participants emotional state

Explanations of participants bodily state (4)

1. Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf)

2. Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign)

3. Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis)

4. Placebo

Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf)

told the actual side effects such as hand shaken, dry mouth, etc. They were prepared for the effects of "Suproxin"

Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign)

Not told of the effects of the drug

Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis)

Told the side effects would be numb feet, slight headache, etc., which aren't actual side effects

Placebo

Treated like Epinephrine Ignorant.
Told nothing

Situations (2)

1. The stooge acted friendly and started to play with the items in the room. Stooge encouraged the participant to join him. (Euphoria)

2. Stooge acted angry (because of the questionnaire) and ripped up his paper. (Anger)

How many conditions were there?

Seven:
Epi Ign-- (1)euphoria and (2)anger
Epi Inf-- (3) euphoria and (4)anger
Placebo-- (5)euphoria and (6)anger
Epi Mis-- (7) euphoria

People who received adrenaline showed what?

Significantly more sympathetic arousal than the placebo subjects

Euphoria Results

Misinformed felt the happiest
Ignorant came in second

Anger Results

Ignorant felt the angriest
Placebo came in second
(more susceptive to the stooge because they had no explanation of why their bodies felt as they did)
The informed were least angry

Did the observed behavior match the self-reports?

Yes

Weaknesses of the study (7)

1. Lacked ecological validity

2. Bad sample (all male, all students, approximately the same age)

3. Questioned on ethical ground (injecting people with adrenaline without consent)

4. Results weren't impressive

5. 5 subjects were excluded because they may have found out what the study was about

6. No assessment of subjects mood before injection (maybe they were extremely happy or exceptionally angry) 7.Ethnosintric bias

Strengths of the study (2)

1. Amount of control in their procedure

2. Large number of participants

What is a placebo?

fake medicine (sugar pills)

Ethnocentric bias

All from one place/no mix

Was deception used?

Yes. The researchers injected adrenaline into the participants and told them it was Suproxin (deception). Didn't say that the participants had the right to withdraw and consent forms weren't signed