Schachter and Singer (1962)

Methodology (Type of Study)

-Laboratory experiment (unnatural setting). -Highly standardized procedure -2 IVs, resulting in 7 conditions -Example of an independent groups design (participants only experienced 1 of the 7 conditions).

Strengths

-Large amount of control (standardized procedure). Random allocation of diff. participants to diff. conditions. Deception of the real aim Stooge unaware of what condition participant was in (double blind technic) -Large amounts of qualitative & quantitative data that supported each other

Weaknesses

-Less ecological validity (artificial setting & way to induce emotion) -Poor sample (can generalize to male college students, but not to females due to possible differences)

Procedure Summary

-Participants were informed of the aim, investigating a so called "Suproxin" vitamin and its effect on vision. (Deception) -Participants either received adrenalin or a saline solution (placebo), with the dosage being enough to cause a reaction within 5 minutes with effects lasting up to an hour. -Adrenalin-injected participants were placed in 1 of 3 conditions: informed, ignorant, or misinformed. -Placebo-injected participants experienced a 4th condition. -Informed: Participants were told to expect side effects, were given the side effects common with adrenalin (shakey hands, heart pounding, face warming and flushing). They were given an explanation of any feelings they were having. -Misinformed: Participants were told that they could expect side effects (numb feet, itching sensation, slight headache). These are not the ones of adrenalin, so the participants wouldn't have any explanation for the actual side effects they would experienced (this was introduced as a control condition). -Ignorant: Participants were told they'd experience no side effects. Participants would also have no explanation for the actual side effects. Immediately after the injection, the doctor left and the experimenter returned with a stooge (introduced as another participant). Experimenter would explain they both received the Suproxin and that it would take 10 minutes to absorb into their bloodstream. They'd then receive a vision test. After this, they'd be exposed to 1 of 2 emotional states: euphoria or anger. -Euphoria: When experimenter left, he apologetically added that if they needed any rough paper, rubber bands, or pencils they should help themselves. The waiting room was arranged in a state of disarray. The stooge would introduce himself again after the experimenter left, making a few ice-breaker comments & begin his scripted routine. This consisted of playing with the items (papers, rubber bands, pencils, folders, and hula hoops). The stooge suggests that the participant should join in. This was as standardized as it could possibly be & the stooge never knew what condition any particular participant was in. -Anger: After the injection the experimenter introduced a stooge and explained the necessity to wait 20 minutes to let the Suproxin enter the bloodstream & that the participants had to complete a questionnaire during this wait. The stooge was then to create a feeling of anger in the room and this was done through a variety of comments. "it's unfair for them to give you shots" "This really irritates me" "The hell with it!" "I'm not wasting any more time" These comments were to increase in intensity and they were linked to questions in the questionnaire. The questions would become more and more personal, and the stooge would become increasingly irate in his behavior. When the participant's session with the stooge is over, the experimenter was to return and he took their pulses and informed them there was a final questionnaire that revolved around their physical responses to the Suproxin (this was used as the self-report measure for dependent variable 2). When their participants had completed these, the experimenter announced that the experiment was over, explaining the deception & the necessity to deceive the participants in detail, answering any questions & swearing the participants to secrecy to protect future trials of the experiment. All participants gave consent to take part in this experiment & their medical records were checked to make sure the injections wouldn't cause harm. The injections were performed by a trained doctor who remained in order to monitor the participants. Data was recorded in this way: It relied on recording how the participant reacted and what was said for each stage of the stooge's script. -For the euphoric condition, results were placed into categories where behaviors were coded coded based on whether the participant: joined in the activity, initiated a new activity, watches the stooge, or ignores the stooge. -For the anger condition, the observers coded behaviors into 6 categories based on participants' response. These categories were that the participant: agreed with a comment, disagreed with a comment, was neutral to a comment, initiates agreement or disagreement, watches or ignores the stooge. Deception was performed but was done to reduce the effects of demand characteristics & improve validity.

Relation to Biological Approach

-Practical applications (environment influence on emotions) -Low ecological validity (artificial setting) -Two-Factor Theory of Emotion can be seen as reductionist.

Dependent Variable 2

Self-report completed by the participants following the emotional arousal element of the research involving their mood.

Emotion

The body's adaptive response to a particular situation.

Cognition

The mental processes of acquiring and processing knowledge & understanding through experiences, senses & thought.

Two-Factor Theory of Emotion

Theory that establishes the idea that we experience emotions as an interaction between physiological (arousal) and psychological (cognitive interpretations) variables.

Purpose/Aim

To test the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion.

Dependent Variable 1

To what extent the participant acted in a euphoric or angry way (observed by 2 researchers and individually rated)

Main Findings

-11 participants were suspicious so their data was discarded -5 participants had no physiological reaction to the epinephrine and their data was excluded. -The participants who received the adrenalin showed significantly more sympathetic arousal compared to the placebo participants (self-reports). Higher palpitation and tremor scores suggested the participants had a behavioral response to the increased levels of arousal -Pulse rate increased significantly in all adrenaline conditions when compared with the decreased characteristic of the placebo conditions. (shown from self-report answers). Clear that participants in adrenalin conditions were physiologically aroused during the experiment. -(From the self-reports) The misinformed participants were feeling happier than all of the others in the euphoria condition, the second happiest was the ignorant. Demonstrates that the participants were more susceptible to the stooge as they had no way to explain why they felt the way they did. Informed felt the least positive because they were aware of why they felt how they did. -In the anger condition, the ignorant group felt the angriest & the second agriest group was the placebo group. Informed was the least angry. Participants are more susceptible to the stooge because they had no way of explaining why their body felt the way it did. Behavior was observed through the 1-way mirror & matched the self-reports.

Sample

-185 male college students taking intro. psych at the University of Minnesota. -Received extra credit for participations -Health records were checked before to ensure no harm caused by injections.

Ethics

-Deception: Participants were unaware that the injection was adrenalin. -Protection of Participants: we know background on heart health, but now specifically to responses to injection. (can also argue that they intended to cause emotional distress when injected & placed into anger condition) -Debriefed: were debriefed & able to discuss feelings throughout -Confidentiality: nothing about participants other than gender and college is known

Relevant Background

-How individuals use either internal or external cues to identify their own emotional state has been of interest to psychologists since the late 1800s. -Schachter and Singer developed the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion, which suggests that emotional experience comes from a combination of a physical state of arousal and a cognition that makes best sense of the situation the person is in.

Conclusions

-Schachter & Singer both argue that their findings support the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion (physiological arousal in different emotions is entirely the same & we label our arousal according to the cognitions available) -This study helps us understand how people use different environmental cues to help them interpret their physiological state. -Could be useful in treating people who have anxiety & panic attacks that are triggered from environmental stimuli. -Two-Factor theory, while influential, has had studies showing that the relationship is more complex (past experiences).

Independent Variable 2

Concerns the emotional situation the participation is placed in following the injection; either euphoria

Independent Variable 1

Concerns the knowledge of the injections; whether participants were informed, misinformed, or ignorant (about the symptoms of the injection & how specific its description is).

Relation to Psych Issues

Generalizations: -Results provide a clear statistical significance on the role of the stooge on mood (happiest and angriest didn't know side effects) -Two-Factor Theory attempts to simplify a complex concept like behavior so it's easily understood Limitations: -Under representative sample doesn't allow for generalization outside of very specific boundaries -Emotions aren't generally induced in such an unnatural way so it's difficult to generalize outside of the lab

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 in terms of the alternative cognitions available.

Hypothesis 1

If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they will label this state & describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available to them at the time.

Hypothesis 3

If a person in 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 are in a state of physiological arousal.

Ecological Validity

Low ecological validity -Lab setting -Artificial experience of emotions -Emotions have to do with other things such as past experiences & other variables.

Data Type

Mixed

Control

Not injected with epinephrine but with a saline solution.

Usefulness

Useful: -Help us recognize why we are angry based on situation (moderate anger/behavior) -Depressed people could use happy people/ positive situations like a form of therapy -Anxious people could understand effects of adrenaline on the body. Not Useful: -Understanding why emotions are contagious isn't answered, so we can't necessarily manipulate them. -Artificial setting and inability to completely generalized to real world situations.

Sampling Technique

Volunteer sampling