schachter and singer

s&s: Participants

185 male college students

(only 169 ppt's data was analysed)

s&s: What are Cognitive Factors?

experiences, senses or thoughts that can lead to knowledge and understanding (mental processes)

s&s: Which college did the participants attend?

Minnesota University

s&s: Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis)

Told the wrong side effects: numb feet, itching, headache

control condition

s&s: Explanations of participants bodily state (4) (1st IV)

1. Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf)

2. Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign)

3. Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis)

4. Placebo

s&s: How were the participants gathered?

They all took a psychology course at the University of Minnesota and were offered extra credit

s&s: Hypothesis (2)

If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have an appropriate explanation, they will be unlikely to label their feelings using alternative cognitions

s&s: Placebo

Treated like Epinephrine Ignorant. Told nothing

s&s: Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign)

Not told of the effects of the drug

s&s: Aim 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.

s&s: 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

s&s: Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf)

told the actual side effects: tremors, accelerated heart rate, warmth in face. They were prepared for the effects of "Suproxin"

s&s: 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.

s&s: Situations for the two conditions (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)

s&s: How were participants observed?

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

s&s: Hypothesis (1)

If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they will label this state through cognitive appraisal

s&s: The Dependent Variable

Participant's emotional state measured through observations and self-reports

s&s: The Independent Variables

1. The info about the adrenalin given to the subjects

2. The situation (euphoria or anger)

s&s: 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?"

s&s: Research method

A lab experiment. independent measures design

s&s: People who received adrenaline showed what?

Significantly more sympathetic arousal than the placebo subjects

s&s: Euphoria Results

Misinformed felt the happiest

Ignorant came in second

informed was least positive

s&s: What is a placebo?

fake medicine (sugar pills)

s&s: 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

s&s: Strengths of the study (4)

1. Large amount of control and standardised procedure - random allocation, deception, double-blind technique - valid

2. inter-observer reliability is high - valid

3. Large number of participants - generalisable

4. quantitative data - objective, easily analysed and compared

5. good ethics: debriefed, consent, trained doctor, checked medical records

s&s: Was deception used?

Yes. The researchers injected adrenaline into the participants and told them it was Suproxin (deception)

s&s: Did the observed behavior match the self-reports?

Yep

s&s: Weaknesses of the study (9)

1. Lacked ecological validity - lab experiment

2. low generalisability - only males, only uni students, approximately the same age

3. adrenalin does not affect everyone the same (individual difference)

4. the experience of emotions is more complex than what the theory states

5. questionnaires - social desirability bias, Likert scale type qs that do not provide enough freedom of answer

6. ethics: injecting people with adrenaline without consent, deception

7. 5 subjects were excluded because they may have found out what the study was about

8. No assessment of subjects' mood before injection (maybe they were extremely happy or exceptionally angry)

9. ethnocentric bias

s&s: Hypothesis (3)

If a person is put in a situation which can make them feel an emotion, they will experience an emotional state only if they are physiologically aroused

s&s: Ethnocentric bias

All were from the US (uni of Minnesota); cannot be generalised to other countries