Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state Psychological Review, 69,

 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…. 2

 You 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… 3

 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 emotion  Does what we thing about the situation (our cognitions) constitute an emotion, irrespective of our body’s physical response  Or are emotions actually a mixture of the two? 4

A. Emotion = A response of the whole organism, involving (1) physiological arousal, (2) expressive behaviors, and (3) conscious experience 5

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 6

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”

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 8

▪ 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 9

▪ 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. 10

 C. Cognition and Emotion  1. Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion ▪ a. Two factor theory = the theory that to experience emotion one must (1) be physically aroused and (2) cognitively label the arousal 11

12

A. Nonverbal Communication 1. 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. 13

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. 14

 B. Detecting and Computing Emotion  1. Ekman and O’Sullivan on detecting lies ▪ a. Some students watched nature films while others watched a gruesome film ▪ b. 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.) 15

▪ 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. 16

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 test

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) 18

This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Schacter & Singer (1962) Schacter & Singer (1962) Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 1 Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 1 19

 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 20

21 Physiological Arousal No logical Explanation Appropriate Cognition + + = Describable Emotion (fear)

 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 available ▪ a. Physiological arousal + a rational explanation → NO emotion an appropriate cognition does not have an impact 22

 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 23

 A. The Sample  1. 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 24

 B. Variables  1. 3 IVs ▪ a. 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 25

 D. 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) 26

 Causes similar effects to the arousal of the autonomic nervous system (ANS – “fight or flight”). Starts after 3-5 mins, lasts mins.  Increases blood pressure  Increases heart rate  Increases blood sugar  Increases respiration  Increases blood flow to muscles & brain  Decreases blood flow to skin (feels cold)  Palpitations  Tremors  Flushing 27

 E. Assignment of participants 28 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 reaction

 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 29

 2. 3 rd 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 30 Please read the scripts found in the study

▪ In the Anger condition they were placed with an angry stooge. – This was created by having the stooge ▪ React 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 31

 F. DV  1. Emotional response  2. Measured in two ways: ▪ a. Researcher’s observations ▪ b. Self-report questionnaires divided into Likert type scales (quantitative data) and Open-ended questions (qualitative data) 32

 G. Debriefing  1. 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. 33

 3. 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. 34

 Cue 1: Draw 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. 35

This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Schacter & Singer (1962) Schacter & Singer (1962) Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 2 Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 2 36

 G. Data Collection  1. 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 37

▪ b. In Anger condition 6 categories ▪ Agrees ▪ Disagrees ▪ Neutral ▪ Initiates agree/disagree ▪ Watches ▪ Ignores ▪ c. Two raters for inter-rater reliability 71% inter-rater agreement. Differed by 1 or less on 88% of the ratings 38

 2. 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) 39 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. 4

▪ c. To measure possible effects of the instructions in the Epi Mis condition the following questions were asked ▪ 1. 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. 40

▪ Questions about the Mis(informed) condition ▪ These questions were about the opposite symptoms that were explained in the misinformed group ▪ d. 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 41

 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.” 42

 A. Results of Epinephrine injections  1. 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) 43

 3. Those in the misinformed condition did not differ from the others so this condition was only used in the Euphoric condition  4. 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. 44

 B. Euphoric Condition  1. 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 45

 3. Results of the observations ▪ a. Score represents both the nature “wildness” of the action and the time spent in the action ▪ b. 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. 46

▪ 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. 47

 C. Anger Condition  1. 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. 48

 3. Epi Inf rated themselves as happier than Epi Ign  4. 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 49

 6. Therefore the authors chose to rely on the behavioral observation indices but they still present the self-report data in Table 4. 50

 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 51

This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Schacter & Singer (1962) Schacter & Singer (1962) Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 3 Study on Emotions AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 3 52

 A. Hypotheses  1. 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). 53

 6. 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 arousal ▪ b. The shot itself could have caused some arousal 54

 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. 55

 A. Over-all Ethical  1. all participants were psychology students  2. health checked in advance  3. consent received  4. no long-term harm  5. However, shots are painful.  6. Deception was used 56

 B. Validity of the results  1. Not all results were statistically significant unless certain subject’s data points were removed from consideration  2. Using an injection is not ideal ▪ a. Would be better to deliver unbeknownst to the Ps ▪ b. Could injection have caused Placebo Ps to have heightened arousal. 57

 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.external validity 58

 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? 59

 7. Self-report presented as [happiness or anger] ▪ a. all Ps’ self-reports were on happy side ▪ b. 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 60

 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 themselves ▪ b. Only male subjects so lacks generalizability 61

 A. 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. 62

 A. Emotions are malleable but not as much as proposed by S&S  B. False-feedback can influence your cognitive appraisal  1. 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. 63

 C. Usefulness = Clinical application: reattribute anxiety arousal to less threatening sources (e.g. from ‘hostile world’ to ‘just my heart racing’) 64

 Cue 10: List 3 ways subjects were deceived in this experiment  Cue 11: From the reading describe the alternative to injection described by S&S 65