Schachter & Singer (1962) - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Schachter & Singer (1962)

Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional statePsychological Review, 69, 379-99Slide2

Situation 1

One dark damp night you are walking home from town alone and you have to go along a fairly narrow alleyway which is dimly lit. You are late and walking along the alley will save you quite a bit of time. As you walk you hear footsteps behind you and turn to see a dark silhouette of a man illuminated by the street light. You start to walk faster . Your heart is beating so fast you can almost hear it. You are breathing faster and your mouth is becoming dry. You feel….

2Slide3

Situation 2You are at a party and the music is excellent, the atmosphere is charged and you feel that you look really good tonight. Across the room you see someone who seems to be looking at you. What’s more this person is absolutely amazing looking. You turn back and realize they are still looking at you and smiling. They walk over to you and you can immediately feel the electricity between you. As the night goes on you feel yourself becoming more and more infatuated with the person that stands in front of you. You feel your heart beating so fast you can almost hear it. You are breathing faster and your mouth is getting dry. In fact you feel…

3Slide4

In both of the above situations you experienced the same physical reaction yet the emotion you “felt” was probably very different. Therefore we must ask what is an emotion?

Do we simply interpret our body’s physical response to a situation as an emotionDoes what we thing about the situation (our cognitions) constitute an emotion, irrespective of our body’s physical responseOr are emotions actually a mixture of the two?

4Slide5

I. Theories of Emotion

A. Emotion = A response of the whole organism, involving (1) physiological arousal, (2) expressive behaviors, and (3) conscious experience

5Slide6

B. The James-Lange and Cannon-Bard theories

1. James-Lange theory states that our experience of emotion is our awareness of our physiological responses to emotion-arousing stimuli

6Slide7

I. Theories of emotion

2. Study done by Hohmann-a. Interviewed 25 soldiers who suffered injuries to the spinal cord

b. Divided into 5 groups based on how high the injury, the higher the less feedback they get from their body

c. Those with the highest injuries reported that they had the least strong emotions during emotion provoking events.

d. They reported having mental emotions but not physical ones

7

“It’s a sort of cold anger. Sometimes I act angry…I yell and cuss and raise hell…but it doesn’t have the heat to it that it used to. It’s a mental kind of anger”Slide8

b. Those who suffered injuries that left them paralyzed from the neck down responded that their emotions were much less intense which would seem to support the James-Lange Theory

3. Cannon-Bard Theory = the theory that an emotion arousing stimulus simultaneously triggers (1) physiological responses and (2) the subjective experiences of emotion

8Slide9

a. Believed that the thalamus

played a key role as it gathered sensory input and sent it “down” to the sympathetic nervous system and “up” to the cerebral cortex at the same time. Thus it is sometimes referred to as the Thalamic theory of emotions

9Slide10

b. Marañon

(1924) injected adrenaline (causes sympathetic arousal)29% described physiological changes in ‘emotional overtones’ but mostly ‘as if…’ – Does this support James or Cannon?If an emotional topic was discussed before the injection, the same topic after injection triggered emotional behaviour, e.g. upset

Thus

to produce a genuinely emotional reaction to adrenalin,

Marañon

had to provide subjects with an appropriate cognition.

10Slide11

C. Cognition and Emotion1.

Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotiona. Two factor theory = the theory that to experience emotion one must (1) be physically aroused and (2) cognitively label the arousal

11Slide12

12Slide13

II. Expressing Emotion

A. Nonverbal Communication1. In a study by Rosenthal and Hall they showed film clips of an emotionally expressive women. They found that some people are better at reading emotions in others. They found introverts tend read others better while extroverts are easier to read.

13Slide14

2. Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

a. Surveys reveal that women are much more empathetic than males, however when monitored electronically the gap between men and women is much smaller.b. Coats and Feldman demonstrated that women are also more expressive of their emotions.

14Slide15

B. Detecting and Computing Emotion

1. Ekman and O’Sullivan on detecting liesa. Some students watched nature films while others watched a gruesome filmb. All of the students were asked to talk about the movie as if they were watching a nature film (in other words they were to lie.)

15Slide16

c. They found that people are not very good lie detectors. They tried, students, psychiatrist, judges and police officers. They all performed at the level of chance. Only Secret Service Agents performed better.

2. In a follow-up study Ekman found that Government Agents (CIA), trained psychologist and special trained street smart interrogators from LA were able to detect liars.

16Slide17

C. Culture and Emotional Expression

1. The Ekman and Friesen study on Emotional Expression studied people from around the world and their ability to identify emotions through facial expressions across cultures. They found that this ability seemed to transcend culture.

2. One other study on blind and deaf children showed they made the same facial expressions as we all do. This shows the universality of emotional expression because it would have been impossible for them to have learned to express emotions in this way.

17

Detecting emotions testSlide18

3. Charles Darwin points to the adaptive purpose of reading emotions. It was probably important to our survival to read the emotions of others. We would want to stay away from angry people and move closer to people who are attracted to us.

4. Display Rules = learned ways of controlling displays of emotion in social settings.

5. The effects of facial expressions on emotions = a study done by Laird found that when people are forced to smile they feel happy, when they scowl they feel angry and when

(

facial feedback hypothesis

)

18Slide19

III. Aim/Hypotheses

A. This study consisted of 3 major hypotheses 1. Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has no immediate explanation, they will "label” this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available Physiological arousal + no rational explanation + an appropriate cognition → (a describable) emotion

19Slide20

20

Physiological Arousal

No logical Explanation

Appropriate Cognition

+

+

=

Describable Emotion

(fear)Slide21

III. Aim/Hypothsis

2. Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has a completely appropriate explanation, the individual is unlikely to label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognitions availablea. Physiological arousal + a rational explanation → NO emotion an appropriate cognition does not have an impact

21Slide22

3. Given no physiological arousal, even if emotion-inducing cognitive circumstances are present the subject will not create emotions.

a. No Physiological arousal + an appropriate cognition → No emotion

22Slide23

IV. Methods - Sample

A. The Sample1. Began with 185 Ps – 2. All male and white in their 1

st

year at the University of Minnesota studying psychology

3. 1 dropped in initial phase because of refusal to receive an injection

4. Students offered 2pts extra credit on final exam for each hour participating in a psych study on campus

23Slide24

IV. Methods - Variables

B. Variables1. 3 IVsa. Physiological arousal (epinephrine vs saline)

b. Explanations

of arousal (Informed of side effects, Ignorant of side effects, Misinformed of side

effects)

c. Emotion-inducing situations w/ explanatory cognitions (Euphoric stooge vs Angry stooge)

2. DV: Emotions – self-feedback &

observations

C. Design

1. Laboratory Experiment

2. Snapshot study

24Slide25

IV. Methods - DesignD. Set-up of the experiment

1. Told they were studying the impact of a vitamin “Suproxin” (really epinephrine) on vision.2. Asked, “would you mind having an injection of Suproxin (made up name) to look at the effects of vitamins on vision?” (1 person

of 185 declined)

25Slide26

What does adrenaline do?Causes similar effects to the arousal of the autonomic nervous system (ANS – “fight or flight”). Starts after 3-5 mins, lasts 15-30 mins.

Increases blood pressureIncreases heart rateIncreases blood sugarIncreases respiration

Increases blood flow to muscles & brain

Decreases blood flow to skin (feels cold)

Palpitations

Tremors

Flushing

26Slide27

IV. Methods - Design

E. Assignment of participants27

Epi

Ign

(ignorant)

The Ps

were given epinephrine, were told no side effects – tests first hypothesis as they had no explanation for their physical arousal

Epi

Inf

(informed)

The

Ps were given epinephrine and were told of the true side effects – tests 2

nd

hypothesis – as they have a reasonable explanation for their arousal.

Placebo

The Ps

were given saline which would not cause arousal - tests 3rd hypothesis as they had no arousal so it would show if cognition alone caused the emotion.

Epi

Mis

(misinformed)

The Ps

were given epinephrine, were told wrong effects – this was a control against people forming expectations that the shot caused their reactionSlide28

IV. Methods - Design

1. 2 IVs covered in 4 experimental conditions:Epi Ign – physio. arousal without explanation, only current situation

Epi

Inf

–

physio

. arousal with explanation

Epi

Mis

–

physio

. arousal with inappropriate explanation

Placebo

– no

physio

. arousal, cognitions (thoughts) are the only influence

28Slide29

IV. Methods - Design

2. 3rd IV - Produce an emotion-inducing cognition:After receiving the shot, the Ps were taken to a room with either a euphoric or angry stooge and told to fill out a survey and wait.

In the

Euphoria

condition they were placed with a happy stooge – This was created by having a happy stooge

Roll up paper and play basketball – trying to get the Ps involved

Making paper airplanes and trying to get the Ps involved

29

Please read the scripts found in the studySlide30

IV. Methods - DesignIn the Anger

condition they were placed with an angry stooge. – This was created by having the stoogeReact in an angry manner about a survey they were asked to fill out.Survey filled with personal questions about the Ps and even one about their mother

For example- “With how many men other than your father has your mother had extramarital relationships?

4 and under; 5 -9; 10 and over

30Slide31

IV. Methods - Design

F. DV1. Emotional response2. Measured in two ways:a. Researcher’s observationsb. Self-report questionnaires divided into Likert

type scales (quantitative data) and Open-ended questions (qualitative data)

31Slide32

IV. Methods - DesignG. Debriefing1. After the exp was over subjects were told the true purpose of the exp and all deceptions were revealed

2. Subjects were sworn to secrecy.32Slide33

IV. Methods - Design3. Subjects given a questionnaire about prior knowledge of adrenalin or this experiment

11 subjects reported that they were “extremely suspicious” about the true nature of the experiment so their results were excluded.

33Slide34

Cue

1: D

raw

a picture to

explain aims 2 & 3.

Cue

2

: Justify the use of deception in this experiment

Cue

3

: Give one example from the script (use the study) to show the difference between the

Epi

Mis

and

Epi

Inf

groups

Cue 4: In what ways is this similar to the Bandura Study?

Cue 5: Give 2 examples of the stooges behavior in the Euphoric condition and 2 examples in the Anger condition.

34Slide35

IV. Methods –Data Collection

G. Data Collection1. Observation through 1 way mirror this was considered a “semiprivate” index of mood as the subject was unaware that he was being observed.a. In Euphoric condition coded in 3 categories

Joins activity

Initiates activity

Ignores activity

b. 88% level of

interrater

reliability

35Slide36

IV. Methods –Data Collectionb. In Anger condition 6 categories

AgreesDisagreesNeutralInitiates agree/disagreeWatchesIgnores

c. Two raters for inter-rater

reliability 71% inter-rater agreement. Differed by 1 or less on 88% of the ratings

36Slide37

IV. Methods –Data Collection2. Self-Report

a. Likert Scale items on how happy or angry they felt which was viewed as a “public” index of emotion as these comments would be available to the experimenters.b. Very few people self-reported anger

even when they showed anger type reactions

when with the stooge. It is believed that they felt afraid to reveal their anger because they might forfeit their bonus points)

37

How good or happy would you say you feel at present?

I don’t feel happy or good at all.

0

I feel a little happy and good.

1

I feel quite happy and good.

2

I fell very happy and good.

3

I feel extremely happy and good.

4Slide38

IV. Methods –Data Collectionc. To measure possible effects of the instructions in the

Epi Mis condition the following questions were asked1. Did you feel any numbness in your feet?2. Did you feel any itching sensations?3. Did you experience any feelings of headache?

4. These were responded to on a similar Likert Scale.

38Slide39

IV. Methods –Data CollectionQuestions about the

Mis(informed) conditionThese questions were about the opposite symptoms that were explained in the misinformed groupd. Two open-ended questions about physical and emotional experiences during the experiment

This would be considered qualitative data but it was not reported or summarized in the study

.

3. Physical

reaction = Pulse was taken immediately before the injection and immediately after the interaction with the stooge

39Slide40

Why no “Epi

Mis / Anger” condition?“This was originally conceived as a control condition and it was felt that its inclusion in the Euphoria condition alone would suffice.”

40Slide41

V. Results – impact of adrenaline

A. Results of Epinephrine injections1. All Ps who received injections reported higher levels of arousal than the placebo Ps (see table 1)2. Some subjects who did not physically respond to the epinephrine were removed from the experiment (4 in Eup 1 in Anger)

41Slide42

V. Results – impact of adrenaline

3. Those in the misinformed condition did not differ from the others so this condition was only used in the Euphoric condition4. When asked open-ended questions in which subjects described their own mood and state, 28% of the subjects in the Epi

Ign

made a connection between the shot and their mood compared to only 16% of the

Epi

Mis

5. Placebo Ps reported that the were less euphoric/angry than either

Epi

Mis

or

Epi

Ign

but more so than

Epi

Inf.

42Slide43

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

B. Euphoric Condition1. In the Euphoria condition both the Epi Ign

&

Epi

Mis groups

reported more happiness and less

anger

2. Those in the Anger condition who were

Epi

Ign

reported less

happiness

and greater anger as predicted

43Slide44

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

3. Results of the observationsa. Score represents both the nature “wildness” of the action and the time spent in the actionb. Thus using the Hula Hoop was weighted as a 5 and doing nothing was a zero. c. This score was multiplied by an estimate of how much time the Ps spent on that activity, this was scored across all activities.

44Slide45

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

d. The weightings were created based on the results of a “pre-test” using 15 college students.e. Based on these ratings Epi Mis>

Epi

Ign

>Epi

Inf

f. Using these behavioral indices the

Epi

Ign

and

Epi

Mis

subjects are somewhat more euphoric than the placebo subjects but NOT SIGNIFICANTLY SO.

45Slide46

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

C. Anger Condition1. In the anger conditions the Ps were reluctant to express anger toward the experimenter by publicly “blowing up” or by “spoiling” the survey.2. However in “semi-private” observations when the Ps thought they were alone with the stooge they were more willing to display anger.

46Slide47

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

3. Epi Inf rated themselves as happier than Epi Ign4.

Epi

Ign

are less happy than placebo, but not significant.5. When looking at behavior (Table 5) we see that the

Epi

Ign

Ps show significantly more anger units 2.28 to -.18 as compared to the

Epi

Inf

Ps

6. Same findings extend to

Epi

Ign

vs Placebo

47Slide48

V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations

6. Therefore the authors chose to rely on the behavioral observation indices but they still present the self-report data in Table 4.

48Slide49

Cue 6: Which of the 3 aims is supported by the fact that both in the

Epi

Ign

and

Epi

Mis

conditions the Euphoric group showed higher happiness?

Cue 7:

Evaluate the pros and cons of S&S’s decision to only use the behavioral cues of anger

.

Cue 8. Select 2 findings (data) which demonstrate a difference between the groups (

EpiMis

/

EpiIgn

/

EpiInf

)

Cue 9 Select 2 findings (data =) which demonstrate a difference between the Euphoric and Anger groups

49Slide50

VI. Analysis of results

A. Hypotheses1. Euphoria = Epi Mis≥

Epi

Ign

>Epi

Inf

= Placebo

2. Anger =

Epi

Ign

>

Epi

Inf

= Placebo

3. In both conditions

Epi

Ign

is greater than

Epi

Inf.

4. However Placebo results consistently fell between the

Epi

Ign

an

Epi

Inf

5. When the subjects in the

Epi

Ign

group who guessed that the shot had caused their arousal were eliminated, the difference between the

Epi

Ign

and Placebo group became significant to the point .01 level (very significant

).

50Slide51

VI. Analysis of Results6. Why then would the Placebo Ps show both greater self report and behavioral emotional responses than the

Epi Inf group.a. Lack of epinephrine does not mean that they will not experience some arousalb. The shot itself could have caused some arousal

51Slide52

VI. Analysis of Results – summary

B. In regards to Aim 1 where the subjects experienced arousal w/o cognition both the Epi Ign

&

Epi

Mis Ps

showed the most emotion

C.

In conditions where the subjects experienced arousal w/ cognition (=

Inf

) they experienced no emotion in other words, the environment didn’t affect them

(AIM 2)

D. For those with no arousal (placebo), Aim 3 doesn’t seem to be supported as they did show more emotional responses than the EPI

Inf

group. However a possible explanation for this was provided by the authors

.

52Slide53

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issuesA. Over-all Ethical

1. all participants were psychology students2. health checked in advance

3. consent received

4. no long-term harm

5. However, shots are painful.

6. Deception was used

53Slide54

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues

B. Validity of the results1. Not all results were statistically significant unless certain subject’s data points were removed from consideration2. Using an injection is not ideala. Would be better to deliver unbeknownst to the Ps

b. Could injection have caused Placebo Ps to have heightened arousal.

54Slide55

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues

3. Some Ps in the Mis & Ign also linked injection to arousal (design: to exp arousal w/o obvious cause!?!) these self- informers

were excluded from the results possibly impacting the findings.

4

.

This is referred to as

Experimental artifacts

.

a. Artifacts

refer to variables that should have been systematically varied, either within or across studies, but that were accidentally held constant.

b. Artifacts

are thus threats to 

external validity

.

55Slide56

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues

5. As two different methods were used for measuring behavior between the Anger and Euphoria conditions no direct test of hypothesis 1 is possible. (Hilgard 1979)6. Other problems identified by Hilgard

a. Epinephrine doesn’t effect all the same way

b. No mood check before injection

c. Is synthetic arousal similar to real life arousal?

56Slide57

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues

7. Self-report presented as [happiness or anger] a. all Ps’ self-reports were on happy sideb. Thus the self-report alone shows that S&S failed to produce any anger with the questionnaire.

c. However S&S argued that it could be seen behaviorally

57Slide58

VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues

8. Lab studies as always tend to be “artificial” and thus may lack ecological validity. a. Certainly in the case of this study it can be argued that the experiment lacked mundane realism as stated by S&S themselvesb. Only male subjects so lacks generalizability

58Slide59

VII. Evaluation – Theoretical issuesA. James-Lange is not supported as there is no evidence that all emotions have a distinctly different pattern of autonomic responses

B. Cannon Bard is not supported as it cannot be said that all emotions have the exact same autonomic response.

59Slide60

VIII. ApplicationsA. Emotions are

malleable but not as much as proposed by S&SB. False-feedback can influence your cognitive appraisal1. One study showed men pictures from Playboy magazine while playing their heart rate back for them as they looked at the picture.

2. Some pictures were given “false-feedback” where the heart rate played back was artificially high

3. The result was that the

Ss

later rated these pictures as more attractive or arousing than other pictures even though the heart rate increase was a deception

.

60Slide61

VIII. ApplicationsC. Usefulness = Clinical application: reattribute anxiety arousal to less threatening sources (e.g. from ‘hostile world’ to ‘just my heart racing’)

61