Core study 3: Schachter & Singer (Two factors in emotions)

Background to the Study and the psychology being investigated

Early theories of emotion were based on physiological factors only and sugested that physiological
response happens at the same time as we experience emotion.

Schachter and Singer developed the two-factor theory of emotion. The two-factor theory of
emotion is the psychology being investigated. It suggests that emotion comes from a combination of
a state of arousal and a cognition that makes best sense of the situation the person is in. For
example, the two-factor theory of emotion argues that when people become aroused, they look for
cues as to why they feel the way they do from the environment and interpret their arousal in
relation to this. Therefore, any emotional experience is a combination of physiological arousal and a
cognitive interpretation.

To achieve this in the study, Schachter and Singer created a situation where some participants were
physiologically aroused through an epinephrine injection and put into either a ‘happy’ or ‘angry’
situation to investigate if those participants would look to the situation for context cues to explain
their arousal.

Aim

The aim of the study is to test the two-factor theory of emotion.

From the aim three hypotheses were devised:

i) If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they
will label this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available to them at the
time.
ii) If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have an appropriate explanation ( e.g. ‘I
feel this way because I have just received an injection of adrenalin’), then they will be unlikely to
label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognitions available.
iii) If a person is 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

pg. 1
Method

It was a laboratory experiment with self-report and observational methods.

IV: there were two independent variables in this experiment that resulted into seven different
conditions.

IV 1: The information about the adrenalin injection given to the subjects (whether they were
informed, misinformed, or ignorant. There was also a control group that were not injected with
epinephrine but with saline solution).

IV 2: the emotional situation they are put into following the injection (either euphoria situation or
anger situation).

DV- Emotions – (Measured in two ways: Researcher’s observations and Self-report questionnaires).

Observational data was recorded by two observers through a one-way miror during the emotional
arousal element in the study. The observer had to measure to what extent the participant acted in a
euphoric or angry way.

Self report: the participants completed a questionnaire following the emotional arousal element in
the study.

Controls

 All participants were given injection

 All participants in each condition followed the same procedure
 The stooges repeated the same behavior
 Observations were conducted by two observers

Sample and sampling technique

 184 Participants (intially 185, but 1 dropped in initial phase because of refusal to receive an
injection)
 All male and white in their 1st year at the University of Minnesota studying psychology
 90% of them were given 2pts extra credit on final exam for each hour participating in the study.
 The subjects’ health records were checked to make sure that the adrenalin would not have an
adverse effect.

pg. 2
Design and Procedure

Independent groups design was used as participants only took part in one of the seven conditions.

 Each participant was taken to a private room and told that the study was a test of the impact of
a vitamin "Suproxin" (really epinephrine) on vision.
 If the participant agreed to take part in the study, a doctor came in and gave an injection of
Suproxin (made up name).
 Then the participants were placed into one of the four different experimental groups:
i) Adrenalin (Epinephrine) Informed (EPI INF) – subjects were given an adrenalin injection
and told the correct effects of the drug (hand shaking, heart pounding, dry mouth etc).
The subjects were therefore prepared for the effects of the adrenalin (although they
thought they were to do with the suproxin).
ii) Adrenalin (Epinephrine) Misinformed (EPI MIS) – injected with adrenalin and told of
the incorrect symptoms of the adrenalin injection e.g. they were told they would have
numb feet, becoming itchy and headache. These subjects would, therefore, not be
expecting the effects of the adrenalin.
iii) Adrenalin Ignorant (Epinephrine) (EPI IGN) - injected with adrenalin and not told of the
effects of the adrenalin injection.
iv) Placebo (Saline) Group – injected with a saline solution and not told what to expect.

 Immediately after the subject’s injection, the doctor left the room and the experimenter
returned with a stooge. The stooge was introduced as another subject and the experimenter
stated that both had had the Suproxin injection and that they had to wait for 20 minutes while
the Suproxin was absorbed into the bloodstream, after which they would both be given the
same tests of vision.
 The participant was placed in either the euphoria situation or anger situation.
i) The euphoria condition: The waiting room had been deliberately put into a state of
mild disarray and as the experimenter was leaving, he apologetically added that, if they
needed any rough paper, rubber bands or pencils they should help themselves.
As soon as the experimenter left the room the stooge introduced himself again, made a
few icebreaker comments and then began his routine which consisted of playing with
items (paper, rubber bands, pencils, folders and hula hoops) left in the room. The
stooge encouraged the participant to join in while he played with the objects.
The routine was standardised as far as was possible. The stooge never knew which

pg. 3
 condition any particular subject was in.

pg. 4
 ii) The anger condition: The participants in this situation were placed with a stooge and
were asked to spend the 20 minutes waiting time answering questionnaires.
Before looking at the questionnaires, the stooge told the subject that he thought it
unfair to be given injections, and that they should have been told when they first called.
The five-page questionnaire started innocently enough, but then grew increasingly
personal and insulting (e.g. ‘How many times each week do you have sexual
intercourse?’) The stooge, sitting opposite the subject, paced his own answers so that
at all times they were both working on the same question.
At regular points, the stooge made a series of standardised comments about the
questions, starting off innocently enough, but growing increasingly discontented and
finally he ends in a rage.
This routine again was standardised and the stooge never knew which condition any
particular subject was in.
[The adrenalin misinformed condition was not run in the anger sequence because it was
originally conceived as a control condition, and that its inclusion in the euphoria
sequence would suffice as a means of evaluating any artifactual effects of the adrenal
informed instructions]

 The researchers used both observations and self-report questionnaires to collect data.
Observations were done through a one way mirror on a series of categorised events (event
sampling) and the questionnaires are given at the end of the study for feedback about the
emotions and moods they experienced in the study.
 When the subjects had completed the questionnaires, the experimenter announced that the
experiment was over, explained the deception in detail, answered any questions and swore the
subjects to secrecy. Finally, subjects answered a questionnaire about their experiences, if any,
with adrenalin and their suspicion about the experimental set-up. None knew anything about
the experiment beforehand, but 11 were so extremely suspicious that their data was
automatically discarded.
 For the score of self-reported emotion, the anger score was subtracted from the happiness
score.
The scale is a measure of happiness minus anger (i.e. the higher the positive value, the
happier the subject reports himself feeling),

pg. 5
Results

 The subjects who received the injections of adrenalin showed significantly more sympathetic
arousal (as measured by pulse rate and self-ratings on palpitation, tremor, numbness, itching
and headache) in comparison to the placebo subjects.
[However, five subjects showed no relevant symptoms to the adrenalin and thus, were excluded
from the study]
 In the euphoria condition the misinformed participants were feeling happier than all the others.
The second happiest group was the ignorant group.
This demonstrates that these participants were more susceptible to the stooge because they
had no explanation of why their bodies felt as they did.
The informed group felt the least happy because they understood why they felt as they did.
 In the anger condition, the ignorant group felt the angriest. The second angriest group was the
placebo group. The least angry group were those who were informed.
Again this shows that participants were more susceptible to the stooge because they had no
explanation of why their body felt as it did.
 The behavior (which was observed through a one way mirror) matched their self-reports.

Conclusion

Schachter and Singer argue that their findings support their two-factor theory of emotion. The two-
factor theory of emotion states that the physiological arousal in different emotion is entirely the
same and we label our arousal according to the cognitions we have available.

They argue that all three hypotheses were supported.

Evaluation

Strengths

 The study has a high amount of control which helps reduce the confounding variables,
standardise the procedures for all participants and show clear cause and effect. For example,
they were able to randomly allocate different participants to the different conditions, they were
able to deceive the participants of the real nature of the experiment and standardise the
procedure as much as possible. They even ensured that the stooge did not know which
condition the participant was in.

pg. 6
 The researchers attempt to uphold ethics by checking the medical records of the students
before the adrenalin injections are given. Also the participants who refused to be injected were
allowed to withdraw from the study.
 There was high inter-rater reliability between the observers when watching participants’
behavior. Also, as participants were unaware of being observed it is hoped that the behavior
they showed was a valid representation of how they were reacting to the situation they were in.
These aspects increase both reliability and validity of the study.
 Developmental Approach applied to the study.

Weaknesses

 Though the researchers use a large number of students, the sample contains only male
participants which makes it biased and unrepresentative. The sample was all male college
students, taking classes in introductory psychology at Minnesota University. We could criticise
the use of students or males. It could be, for example that males do not always experience
emotions in the same way as females. The findings cannot be generalised to a wider population.
 Even though the participants were given health checks before the experiment began, and were
thoroughly debriefed, other ethics were violated such as informed consent, deception and
physical harm. The participants were not aware that they were being injected with adrenalin
and were deceived to think the stooge was a participant in the study.
 The study is also reductionist because it focuses mainly on the two-factor theory of emotion and
ignores other theories and factors that arouse emotions.
 There is low ecological validity because the study is conducted in an artificial environment and
uses adrenalin injections to create arousal. We do not usually experience emotions in the way in
which Schachter and Singer induced them. We are often aware of events before the onset of
arousal and this gives us information we can use to interpret out physical cues.
 The face validity of the items used to measure euphoria are questionable because these are
college students being invited to play games with rubber bands, hula hoops and manila folders.
 The results were definitely not as impressive as expected. All the participants in the euphoria
and anger situation were not actually angry. If they were angry they would have got minus
scores. It seems that the experimenters were only able to make participants less happy but not
angry.
 We can also question the assumption that all participants would react in the same way to the
adrenaline. Adrenalin does not affect everyone in the same way, for example five of Schachter

pg. 7
 & Singer’s subjects were excluded from analysis because they experienced no physiological
symptoms.
 A further problem with the procedure is that no assessment was made of subjects’ mood before
the injection - presumably, a subject in a better mood to begin with might respond more
positively to a playful stooge.

Issues and debates

 Usefulness/ Application to everyday life: the study is useful to know that people will describe
their feelings in terms of the cognitions available at that time, especially when people have no
immediate explanation for the physiological arousal they experience. This could be used in
hospitals when patients (especially children) are given drugs that might have side effects that are
no desirable.
If patients are engaged in behaviors that might generate euphoria or happiness, this may help
them to get through any short-term negative side effects. For example, the Epi misinformed
group showed the most euphoria when the confiderate was showing euphoria too. However,
there could be ethical and moral issues in deceiving patients about side effects of drugs.
 Individual vs situational debate raised: The study appears to show a situational explanation for
participants’ behavior. They used the situation they were in to try to understand the
physiological reactions they had or thought they were having.
 Nature versus nurture: the nature side is supported by the underlying physiological mechanisms
involved in experiencing different emotions. This could be inbuilt (nature) or changed or
developed via the environment (nurture). The cognitive component of experiencing the
emotions could represent the nurture side of the debate as the environment cues are being
used to understand the current emotion a person is feeling. However, this too could be in-built
in brain neurology (nature) or purely via life experiences (nurture). Overall, it would appear that
both nature and nurture are supported in this study.

pg. 8