Schachter and Singer

Background

* Early ideas that looked into emotions focused on purely physiological factors. This was based on the assumption that every emotion has a distinct physiological state.

When research was conducted in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was no real evidence for this assumption as many emotions appeared to have similar physiological bases. This allowed psychologists to begin to assess the role of psychological factors such as thoughts (cognitions) in emotions and how we experience them. Could it be that some emotions have a similar physiological basis but the way we are thinking at the time (e.g. because of what we are doing) makes us experience them as different emotions? Therefore, are emotions an interaction between physiological and psychological factors?

The psychology being investigated

* The two-factor theory of emotion forms the psychology of this study:

When someone experiences an emotion, physiological arousal occurs and the person uses the immediate environment to search for emotional cues to label the physiological arousal.

This can sometimes cause misinterpretations of emotions based on the physiological arousal.

When the brain does not know why it feels an emotion it relies on external stimulation for cues on how to label the emotion.

Aim

* To investigate the role cognitive factors have in the experience of emotion when we are in a state of physiological arousal that has no immediate explanation (e.g. how we label that emotion).


* When we do have an appropriate explanation for feeling a certain emotion, to see whether we always label it as the most appropriate emotion.
* To see whether a person will react emotionally to a certain situation based on his or her physiology even if the cognitive elements of the situation remain the same.

Participants

* Participants were 184 male students from the University of Minnesota's introductory Psychology course. Around 90 per cent of students in these classes volunteered to be participants in studies. They received two extra points in their final examination for every hour they took part in an experiment. All participants were cleared by the student health service to check that they would not be harmed by the injection given in this study.

What was the IV

* Knowledge about the injection symptoms (informed, misinformed, or ignorant).


* The emotional situation following the injection (euphoria or anger). There was a control group that was injected with a saline solution rather than epinephrine.

What was the DV

* Observational data was recorded by two observers through a one-way mirror during the emotional arousal. The observer had to measure to what extent the participant acted in a euphoric or angry way.


* The self-report that participants completed following the emotional arousal.

Design and procedure

As soon as participants had agreed to an injection of Suproxin (the name given to the "drug" used), they were placed into one of the four groups:


1. Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf). Participants in this group were injected with epinephrine and told that some people feel side effects of the drug, which last no more than 20 minutes. The side effects that they were told about were hand shaking, heart pounding and feeling warm.
2. Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign). The researcher injected these participants while saying that the drug was mild and harmless with no side effects.
3. Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis). Participants in this group were injected with epinephrine and told that some people feel side effects of the drug, which last no more than 20 minutes. However, the side effects described were incorrect. Participants were told that feet feeling numb, and becoming itchy and developing a headache were common side effects.
4. Saline. Participants in this group were injected with a saline solution (salt) and they followed the same procedure as the Epi Ign group.

Describe the conditions used

This study explored how psychological effects could help us to understand and label emotions caused by physiological mechanisms. Two conditions were used - euphoria and anger:

1\. Euphoria. As soon as participants in this group had been injected, the researcher left and then returned with a confederate (a person who poses as a true participant but is an actor and is part of the study). \n The confederate was introduced to the participant. \n Both were told that they had to wait 20 minutes before beginning the "tests of vision" to allow the Suproxin to be fully absorbed by the body. The room they were in was not tidy and the researcher apologised for this. The researcher left, saying that the confederate and participant could use the paper, rubber bands, pencils and other items in the room. \n The confederate then completed a set procedure that was designed (it was hoped) to bring about a feeling of euphoria. He or she drew fish on a piece of scrap paper and then complained that the paper was no good so screwed it up and tried to throw it into the bin. The confederate would always miss and then try to make it into a basketball game and get the true participant involved. Using items deliberately left in the room for the purpose, the confederate would then, for example, make a paper airplane, or a slingshot from a rubber band to fire paper across the room, or try to hula hoop. If the true participant ever came up with activities the confederate could take part in, the confederate would always do so.

2\. Anger. Participants in this group met the confederate in the same way as those in the euphoria condition. They were told that they needed to use the 20-minute waiting time to complete a questionnaire. Just before beginning, the confederate would tell the participant that it was unfair that the researcher had not revealed the injection beforehand and that it is difficult to refuse once you say yes to a study. At regular points when completing the questionnaire the confederate would raise issues with it. The first few questions were standard ones about non-contentious personal information, diet, etc. As the questionnaire progressed, the questions became more personal and less easy to answer. For example, respondents were asked to list childhood diseases they had caught, and the confederate would complain that he or she could never remember the details. Another question, about father's income, irritated the confederate. Subsequent questions took the form of statements such as "does not bathe or wash regularly" with respondents asked to name someone from their immediate family who most closely fitted the description. The confederate angrily crossed out these statements. Further questions included one on frequency of sexual intercourse and at this point the confederate shouted:

"To hell with it! I don't have to tell them all this!", then ripped up the questionnaire, threw the pieces on the floor and left the room.

Describe the injection conditions

All four of the injection conditions experienced the euphoria procedure. Three conditions experienced the anger procedure (not the Epi Mis).

Two measures of emotion were collected:


1. Observation. Although they did not know it, participants were being watched through a one-way mirror. The confederate would engage in 14 standard behaviours during the euphoria condition. For each of these standard behaviours, the behaviour of the participant was classified into one or more of four categories: 1. Joins in with the activity; 2. Initiates a new activity that the confederate had not shown; 3. Ignores the confederate; 4. Watches the confederate. There was more than one observer to test for reliability and they agreed on 88 per cent of the observations.

\

* For the anger condition, behaviour was coded under six categories: 1. Agrees with the confederate;2. Disagrees with the confederate; 3. Neutral behaviour; 4. Initiates agreement or disagreement (e.g. says "I hate this kind of thing" but not as a response to the confederate); 5. Watches the confederate; 6. Ignores the confederate.


2. Self-reports. When the session with the confederate had ended, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on which they rated how angry they felt, how good or happy they felt and whether they had felt any side effects of the drug. All of these questions used rating scales. Examples of the questions were as follows:


1. Have you experienced any palpitation (consciousness of your own heart beat)?

* Not at all (0)
* A slight amount (1)
* A moderate amount (2)
* An intense amount (3)


2. Did you feel any tremor (involuntary shaking of the hands, arms or legs)?

* Not at all (0)
* A slight amount (1)
* A moderate amount (2)
* An intense amount (3)


3. How irritated, angry or annoyed would you say you feel at present?
* I don’t feel at all irritated or angry (0)
* I feel a little irritated and angry (1)
* I feel quite irritated and angry (2)
* I feel very irritated and angry (3)
* I feel extremely irritated and angry (4)
4. How good or happy would you say you feel at present?

* I don’t feel at all happy or good (0)
* I feel a little happy and good (1)
* I feel quite happy and good (2)
* I feel very happy and good (3)
* I feel extremely happy and good (4)

\
In addition, participants in the Epi Mis group were asked:

* Did you feel any numbness in your feet?
* Did you feel any itching sensation?
* Did you experience any feeling of headache?

Possible answers were rated on a 4-point scale from "not at all" to "an intense amount Finally, all participants were asked to answer two open-ended questions on any other physical or emotional sensations they experienced during the tasks. Pulse rate was also taken twice, once just prior to the injection and then immediately after the session with the confederate.

Procedure- additional information

* Participants were told that the study was about the effects of a vitamin supplement on vision.
* When they arrived they were taken to a private room and it was explained to them that the drug was Suproxin, the researchers were testing what effect it could have on vision and that the procedure was mild and harmless.
* Participants were then asked if they would agree to the injection and only one person refused. After this, a physician entered the room to give the injection.
* Depending on the condition that the participant had been placed in, the procedure followed the "Design" section above (e.g. if in the Epi Ign/euphoria group, the procedure reported above in the "Design" section for that group was followed).
* After participants had completed the questionnaire, the researchers stated that the experiment was over. They explained the deception element of the study and how it was necessary.
* Then they asked if participants had been suspicious of the confederate and learned that 11 participants had been. These participants' data were eliminated from the analyses.

Results

In all of the epinephrine conditions, pulse rate increased as expected. Also, those in the epinephrine groups experienced more palpitations and tremors. For five participants it was clear that the epinephrine was having no effect whatsoever and, while their data is presented in Table 6.1, the statistical analyses below did not include them.

When comparing groups in terms of the self-reported emotions, the following main findings emerged:

* Participants in the Epi Inf group were significantly less euphoric than those in the Epi Mis group.
* Participants in the Epi Inf group were significantly less euphoric than those in the Epi Ign group.
* There was no difference between the placebo and the Epi Mis group on levels of euphoria

In terms of behavioural indications of euphoria, Table 6.2 shows the average score on an activity index (how much participants engaged in euphoric behaviours) and the number of acts they initiated:

* Epi Inf:
* N=25
* Activity index= 12.72
* Mean number of acts initiated= .20
* Epi Ign:
* N=25
* Activity index= 18.28
* Mean number of acts initiated= .56
* Epi Mis:
* N=25
* Activity index= 22.56
* Mean number of acts initiated= .84
* Placebo:
* N=26
* Activity index= 16.00
* Mean number of acts initiated= .54

These results shows that the Epi Mis group engaged in the most activities and initiated more behaviours than participants in other groups. The only significant difference was between the Epi Mis and Epi Inf groups.

This could be taken as these participants choosing to use psychological or behavioural cues to regulate their behaviours.

Participants also self-rated their emotional state (for the euphoria conditions only). Each participant generated a score in the following way. They subtracted the value of the point they checked on the irritation scale from the value of the point they checked on the happiness scale.

Therefore, the higher the score, the happier and better the participants reported themselves to be feeling:

* Epi Inf:
* N=25
* Self-report scales: 0.98
* Epi Ign:
* N=25
* Self-report scales: 1.78
* Epi Mis:
* N=28
* Self-report scales: 1.90
* Placebo:
* N=26
* Self report scales: 1.61

Conclusion

* There are two factors involved in our experiences of emotions: our physiological arousal or state and the information or cognitions that help us to understand the behaviour we feel. These interact and make us feel different emotions depending on the information available to help us understand the situation we find ourselves in.

Evaluation

This study can also be evaluated in terms of ethical issues:

* Deception: participants thought that they were receiving a vitamin supplement called Suproxin (when it was actualy epinephrine). They also thought that the confederate was another real participant who had been injected and was completing the questionnaire.
* Protection: participants were injected, which could have caused physical pain. Also, as they were in situations that could bring about euphoria or anger, their psychological state on leaving the study was not the same as when they entered.

Other evaluation points include the following:

* Use of independent groups: the results may have been affected by participant variables as participants only took part on one of the conditions. Participants who were "naturally" more euphoric or angry could have been in the corresponding group and therefore it was not always the labelling that was affecting behaviour.
* participant variables could not be controlled for.

\
* Volunteers: the sample was made up of volunteer students which may not be representative of a wider population when it comes to the effects of cognitive factors on emotional behaviour. Older adults and people from other cultural backgrounds may have acted differently.
* Observations: there was high inter-rater reliability between the observers when watching participants behaviour. Also, as participants were unaware of being observed it is hoped that the behaviour they showed was a valid representation of how they were reacting to the situation they were in. These aspects increase both the reliability and validity of the study.

Application to everyday life

* It is useful to know that people describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available at that time, especially when people have no immediate explanation for the physiological arousal they experience. This could be useful in hospitals when patients (especially children) are given drugs that might have some side effects that are not desirable. If the patients are engaged in behaviours that might generate euphoria or happiness, this may help them to get through any short-term negative side effects. For example, the Epi Mis group showed the most euphoria when the confederate was showing euphoria too.

However, there could be ethical and moral issues in deceiving patients about side effects of drugs.

Individual and situational explanations

* The study appears to show a situational explanation for participants' behaviour. They used the situation they were in to try to understand the physiological reactions they had or thought they were having. However, these differences should be noted:
* If participants experienced an unexplained state of physiological arousal, they attempted to describe or label the emotions in terms of the relevant cognitive explanations available (e.g. euphoria or anger shown by the confederate). Therefore, the situation was used to label the emotions felt - so in the euphoria condition they "felt" joy whereas in the anger condition they "felt" fury.
* If participants had an appropriate explanation for the physiological arousal, they did not use situational cues to understand the arousal. For example, participants who clearly attributed their physiological state to the injection did not show any anger in the anger condition However this is based on just three participants showing a clear attribution.

Nature versus nurture

* Although the study did not focus on nature versus nurture, we can link some concepts to this issue. The study shows that there would appear to be an interaction between the two. The nature side is supported by the underlying physiological mechanisms involved in experiencing different emotions. This could be in-built (nature) or changed or developed via the environment (nurture). The cognitive component of experiencing the emotions could represent the nurture side of the argument as the environmental cues are being used to understand the current emotion a person is feeling. However, this too could be in-built in brain neurology (nature) or purely via life experiences (nurture).

Overall, it would appear that both nature and nurture are supported in this study.

Strengths of the study

* Laboratory experiments have high levels of standardisation and so can be replicated to test for reliability.
* This study had a standardised procedure including the set order of the confederate's activities, what the person injecting said and did, what was injected and how the observations were set out and categorised. This means other researchers could easily replicate this study to test for reliability.
* As laboratory experiments have high levels of control, researchers can be more confident it is the IV directly affecting the dependent variable DV.
* As there were many controls (e.g. the instructions given to the four groups and how the confederate behaved), the researchers could be confident that it was the information provided to participants that directly affected the moods and emotions they reported.

Weakness of the Study

* In many laboratory experiments participants take part in tasks that are nothing like real-life ones, so the tasks lack mundane realism.
* The task of being injected with an "unknown" drug, then sitting with a confederate and attempting to complete a questionnaire Is not a task that people conduct in everyday life. Therefore, the study may lack mundane realism.