1. Two factor theory of emotion By Mr Daniel Hansson

2. Questions 1. What would be your subjective experience and bodily changes (heart beat, breathing) if you: a)Heard that your best friend is in a hospital because of a car accident? b)Learn that you have been accepted to a top university? c)Are attacked by a vicious dog in a dark soi? 2. In what way are the cognitive and biological reactions similar for these scenarios? In what way are they different?

3. Schachter & Singer’s two factor theory of emotion We need two factors to feel emotional. One is physiological arousal, the other is attribution (appraisal, cues in the environment of how we should feel) Without arousal or attributions we will not experience any emotion

4. The order of the emotional components in two factor theory of emotion External stimulus = General physiological arousal = Cognitive appraisal of arousal (attribution) = Subjective experience of emotion = Behaviour

5. Hypotheses in the Schachter & Singer experiment The labelling of arousal will depend on the situation if there is no other explanation If a reason for arousal is known the participant will not look for another reason No arousal will result in no emotion

6. Sample 184 male college psychology students Received credits towards finals Health records checked

7. Method Controlled experiment At the start of the experiment, all participants had an injection of epinephrine (causes shaky hands, pounding heart, increased breathing) Experimenter pretended that they were investigating “side effects of “Suproxin” (pretend vitamin)

8. Information of effects - conditions EPI informed: Participants were informed of the real effects of epinephrine EPI misinformed: Participants were misinformed of the effects of epinephrine (instead were told that there would be itching, numb feet, headaches) EPI ignorant: Participants were told that there would be no side effects Control group: Participants were injected a placebo (a saline solution with no side effects)

9. Condition - Euphoric Participants from the different information of effect conditions were put in a waiting room with a stooge, one at a time for 20 minutes (EPI effects last 15-20 minutes) Stooge was friendly, played with paper (basketball, aeroplanes)

10. Condition - Angry Same but had to complete questionnaire during 20 mins Stooge moaned about injections Personal; questions, e.g. “Do you bathe and wash regularly?” Stooge angry, ripped up questionnaire, left

11. Question Which group should be most affected by the stooge’s behaviour? Based on Schachter & Singer’s theory and hypotheses, order the groups from most angry/happy to least angry/happy: EPI informed, EPI misinformed, EPI ignorant, Control group

12. Procedure for both Experimenter returns, takes pulse Participants are asked to complete a questionnaire Participants are debriefed

13. Crucial questions on the questionnaire Euphoric condition: 5 point scale – 0=“I don’t feel happy at all or good” – 4=“I feel extremely happy and good” Angry condition: 5 point scale – 0=“I don’t feel at all irritated or angry” – 4=“I feel extremely irritated and angry” The measure of emotion was decided by deducting the self rating of anger from the self raing of happiness

14. Question 1.If you were very happy in this experiment, would you get a low or a high score? 2.If you were very angry in this experiment, would get a low or a high score?

15. Results table- Euphoric Condition Number of P’s Self report Happiness minus anger Informed25.98 Misinformed251.9 Ignorant251.78 Control251.61

16. Results table – Anger Condition Number of P’s Self-report (happiness minus anger) Informed221.91 Misinformed0 Ignorant231.39 Control231.63

17. Question Compare the results with your predictions. To what extent do the results support the two factor theory of emotion?

18. Controls Double blind – stooge did not know what condition the participant was in Data questionnaire included irrelevant questions, e.g. current mental health. Some questions open-ended 11 participants expressed suspicion – data was taken out

19. Methodological evaluation + Participants were randomly allocated to different conditions + Procedure was standardized + Stooge did not know which condition the participant was in

20. Methodological evaluation - No assessment of the subjects’ emotional state before the experiment, or the emotional effect of receiving an injection - Experiment lacked ecological validity. Injection of epinephrine does not produce the experience of a true emotion -Sample might not be representative (male college students taking introductory psychology at the university of Minnesota)

21. Ethical evaluation -Participants were not informed about the purpose of the experiment - Participants were injected epinephrine without consent

22. Ethical evaluation + Participants were given health checks before the experiment + Participants were debriefed after the experiment

23. Activity Do the multi-choice quiz and matching quizzes of the study on: http://www.holah.karo o.net/schachter.htm