Emotion Pt.2

Two–Factor Theory of Emotion (Schachter & Singer)

• Core proposal: every conscious emotion has two simultaneous components
  • Physiological arousal (autonomic, limbic, implicit)
  • Cognitive label (explicit, conscious interpretation)
• Formal shorthand \text{Emotion} = f(\text{Physiological Arousal},\; \text{Cognitive Label})
• Consequence: if the body is already aroused, the mind can mis-label that arousal and “spill over” into any emotion that fits the situation.

Misattribution / Spill-Over Effect

• Definition: assigning an existing state of arousal to the wrong source → incorrect emotional label.
• Works because the arousal step is implicit (limbic), whereas labeling is explicit (cortical & reflective).

Schachter & Singer (1962) – Epinephrine Experiment

• Participants: all male
• Injection: every subject receives epinephrine (adrenaline ➜ racing heart), but told different things.

Independent Variable 1 – Instruction Given

1. Informed: “The drug will amp you up.” (accurate)
2. Misinformed: “It’s just saline; no effect.” (deceptive)

Independent Variable 2 – Confederate’s Behaviour in Waiting Room

1. Euphoric / joyful – playful, excited
2. Irritating / angry – rude, annoying

Dependent Variable

• Self-reported or observed emotional state of the participant (joy vs. anger).

Results

• Misinformed group (told no effect):
  • Could not explain racing heart → searched environment for a label.
  • Adopted emotion of confederate (happy confederate → joy; irritating confederate → anger). ➜ Clear spill-over.
• Informed group (told will feel aroused):
  • Already had a causal label (“It’s the drug”).
  • Confederate’s mood had little or no influence on their reported emotion.

Take-away

• Knowing why you feel physiologically activated acts as a cognitive “buffer” against emotional contagion/misattribution.
• Demonstrates necessity of both factors in the two-factor model.

Everyday Illustration

• Feeling jittery & irritable after a double espresso → realise it’s caffeine, not genuine anger.

Dutton & Aron (1974) – “Bridge Study”

• Setting: two bridges in British Columbia (Canada)
  1. Low, sturdy bridge – safe, minimal arousal
  2. High, suspension bridge – sways, induces fear & autonomic arousal
• Confederate: attractive female experimenter stops solitary male passer-by, asks him to complete a short survey, then hands over her phone number “for results/questions.”

Design

• Independent Variable: bridge type (low-safe vs. high-scary). Between-subjects (each man on only one bridge).
• Dependent Variables (operationalised attraction)
  • Whether the participant later calls the confederate
  • Content of call (simple research query vs. asking for a date)

Prediction (based on spill-over)

• Men on the high-scary bridge should misattribute fear-induced arousal to sexual/romantic attraction ➜ higher call/ask-out rates.

Observed Outcome (classic finding)

• ~75\% of the class predicted correctly during lecture polling. Empirically, significantly more men from the scary bridge contacted/asked out the confederate.

Implications & Applications

• First-date advice: amusement parks, scary movies, spicy food, caffeine – any arousal heightener may artificially boost perceived chemistry.
• Ethical caveat: leveraging misattribution borders on manipulation; must consider consent & transparency.

Methodological Issues Noted

• Gender-biased sample (all male)
• Natural setting ➜ many uncontrolled variables (wind, foot traffic, personality).
• Replications with better controls generally uphold the effect.

Emotions vs. Feelings

• Emotions = rapid reactions to internal/external events; wax & wane quickly.
• Feelings = enduring mood states or attitudinal tones; can last hours, days, or be trait-like.
• Example linkage: lust (emotion) often underlies the broader feeling of love; joy underlies happiness, etc.

Love as a Feeling & Its Neural Chemistry

• Love is not on the basic-emotion list; it is a complex feeling comprised of multiple emotions & biological drives.
• Helen Fisher’s fMRI work (TED 2008)
  • Romantic love activates deep “reptilian” brain regions: ventral tegmental area (VTA), caudate nucleus, nucleus accumbens – classic dopamine reward pathway.
  • Neurochemical cocktail often dubbed “love drugs”:
    • \text{Dopamine} – motivation & reward
    • \text{Norepinephrine} – alertness, energy
    • \text{Serotonin} – mood modulation (drops during early infatuation)
    • \text{Oxytocin} & \text{Vasopressin} – bonding & long-term attachment
• Romantic rejection lights up three main systems:
  1. Reward circuit (still craving the partner)
  2. Cost–benefit / reasoning areas (orbito-/ ventromedial PFC)
  3. Attachment circuitry
  • Overlap with physical-pain matrix (dorsal anterior cingulate, insula) ➜ “heartbreak literally hurts.”
• Parallels to addiction: craving, tolerance, withdrawal, relapse, irrational behaviour (“crimes of passion”).

Universality & Individual Differences

• Evidence for love-like attachment across many mammals; emotional mind is not uniquely human.
• Aromantic & asexual individuals underscore diversity ➜ absence of romantic attraction ≠ pathology.
• Personality disorders can modulate capacity for attachment but are distinct issues.

Future Speculations

• Human Connectome Project & advanced neuro-matching could, in theory, predict dyadic compatibility from brain-wiring patterns (Black Mirror-style).

Key Brain Structures Mentioned

• Limbic system (implicit arousal, basic emotions)
• VTA, Nucleus Accumbens, Caudate (dopamine reward)
• Orbital / Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (cost–benefit analysis)
• Anterior Cingulate & Insula (pain & social rejection)

Research-Design Vocabulary Recap

• Independent Variable (IV): manipulated cause (drug instructions; bridge type).
• Dependent Variable (DV): measured outcome (self-reported emotion; call/ask-out rate).
• Between-Subjects: each participant experiences one level of IV.
• Within-Subjects: same participant experiences all levels (not used in bridge study).
• Confederate: actor working for experimenter to standardise social stimulus.

Everyday Relevance & Ethical / Practical Implications

• Recognise when coffee, exercise, lack of sleep, or environmental stressors may be colouring emotions.
• Marketers & reality-TV (e.g., The Bachelor/ette) routinely use high-arousal settings to amplify perceived chemistry.
• Important to maintain informed consent: exploiting misattribution for persuasion can be ethically dubious.

Limitations & Open Questions

• Gender bias in classic studies ➜ need broader samples.
• Cultural factors: do collectivist vs. individualist contexts modulate spill-over magnitude?
• Boundary conditions: extreme arousal might override or numb emotional labeling (inverted-U hypothesis?).
• Neuroscience of “why this person and not that one” remains largely mysterious; genotype, pheromones, immune-system complementarity (MHC) are active research fronts.

Study Tips & Concept Links

• Connect two-factor theory to other appraisal models (Lazarus, Scherer).
• Practice identifying IVs & DVs in any experiment you read.
• For exams, be ready to generate new misattribution scenarios and predict outcomes.
• Remember equation form: \text{Emotion} = \text{Arousal} + \text{Label} (shorthand cue).
• Be able to discuss differences between emotion (short, reactive) and feeling (enduring, trait-like).
• Tie ideas to real life: caffeine jitters, gym “runner’s high,” first-date venue choices.