SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION PDF

Preview

Summary

two factor theory of emotion: psychological arousal and cognitive label...

Description

Running head: SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION

The article aims to describe and evaluate the Schacter singer theory of emotion (SST), proposed by Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer [ CITATION Che193 \l 2057 ]. SST contributed to the cognitive revolution in psychology as it aimed to provide an explanation for the cognitive structure, emotion. It’s also referred to as the two-factor theory of emotion (TFTE). TFTE presents two factors which determine emotion, these are; physiological arousal (PA) and cognitive label [ CITATION Eli19 \l 2057 ]. The theory was put to test in the Schachter Singer experiment which resulted in findings that provided empirical evidence for the study’s hypothesis. We will explore more of the theory, its two factors and describe its experiment including the 3 hypothesis (prepositions). It is important to note that the theory is not without any criticisms and so these criticisms will be evaluated.

2 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION There are two other main theories explaining how our emotions come about; JamesLange theory proposes the idea that PA in the body stimulates our emotions whereas the Cannon-Bard theory suggests that the PA occurs at the same time as the emotional responses [ CITATION Eli19 \l 2057 ]. It is evident from this that both theories believe PA are an integral part of our experience of emotion. Now that we have spoken about these two theories of emotion, we can see how the TFTE differs. Firstly, SST also believes that PA play a determining role in emotions, but it takes a different viewpoint as it suggests that different emotions can share similar patterns of PA. It points out that physical arousal alone can’t be responsible for emotional response hence our environment plays a significant role in defining the emotion we are feeling [ CITATION Che193 \l 2057 ]. We will now take a deeper look into this idea as it pretty much sums up the two main factors of the theory. SST says that we label our emotions based on two factors, the first is PA (involves the activation of the sympathetic nervous system). This refers to what type of arousal is going on in our body; are we sweating, whether we have increased heart rate all of a sudden or if we begin to tremble. Second is our “cognitive appraisal” which means we are appraising our environment to identify what could be causing us to feel this way and therefore interpreting the PA, meaning we end up giving that emotion a label (Manstead & Wagner, 1981). Here's an example; You're in school and you walk into your class and your heart automatically drops so instantly you're looking around and everyone is revising; you forgot that there was a test today, consequently you're going to go ahead and label this PA as anxiety or stress. Now let's take that same PA and assume you walk into your class and your heart drops but this time you look around and your crush is sitting in the seat next to you so now it's not anxiety and stress in a way that you forgot about a test but maybe there's a little lust and anxiety. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration that we may have the same PA and be labelling those

3 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION emotions differently depending on our environment. We have summarised the key points of the theory and will now move on to look at the experiment. The Schacter and Singer experiment was conducted in order to put the theory to test. The study used 184 white male college students which led to criticism as it indicated ethnic bias and gender bias. The methodology of the study included a laboratory experiment, selfreports, behavioural observations through a one-way mirror and questionnaires. It was an independent groups design, possessing two independent variables (IV) which we will describe in greater detail as knowing them will help you identify the factors and hypothesis (prepositions) of the theory being put to test. Now let’s take a look at the 3 propositions of the TFTE: 1. If a person is physiologically aroused with no explanation as to why then they will label the emotion and describe their feelings by observing their environment. For example, if you experience a PA which makes your heart race and you don't have an explanation as to why then you're going to observe your surrounding and say you are whatever you're surrounding is making you feel. So how we label the emotion is highly dependent on the cognitive aspect of the situation.

2. If a person is physiologically aroused for which he has a completely appropriate explanation, then there is no need to seek further information. For example, if you just got done running a race and you know that your heart is beating as a result of that then you won’t look for external reasons to explain your PA.

3. If there is no PA, then any cognition (appraisal) is dismissed and there will be no emotional experience.

4 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION The two IV include a physiological aspect and a psychological aspect. In the experiment the participants were given an injection of either epinephrine (Epi) or saline (placebo), however they were told that it was a drug (Suproxine) to test their vision (physiological aspect) (Erdmann, Janke, 1978). The psychological aspect was either placing those participants in a euphoric classroom or an anger classroom (Sinclair, Hoffman, Martin & Pickering, 1994). A confederate (stooge) joined the participant and engaged in scripted displays of euphoric or angry behaviour [ CITATION Han \l 2057 ] in order to see if the participants would become susceptible to the stooge’s (cognitive appraisal). The study can be questioned on ethical grounds because although debriefing and health checks were given prior to the study, the participants were considerably deceived. However, it is important to note that deception was part of the study to begin with. In total there were 7 conditions of the IV which will be described further for a deeper understanding of the experiment; Epi- informed group were given the shot and were informed of the symptoms the drug would naturally elicit. This tested the second preposition. It was not expected that these individuals would say they are the most euphoric or the angriest as they already knew they were feeling the arousals because of the drug. Epi-misinformed were told false symptoms not even related to what they would actually be experiencing, so when they felt the unexpected symptoms, individuals were expected to look at their environment for cues as to why they feel this way. For example, the participant would look around the classroom and if it was a euphoric environment then they would say they are feeling the PA because they are happy. The ignorant group were told they wouldn’t feel any symptoms, so this group was expected to look to their environment to label their emotions.

5 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION The placebo group received the saline injection, but they were not told anything because saline would not elicit any types of PA. This group was expected not to say that they were feeling super euphoric or super angry. We will now look at what role the two distinctive classrooms played in this study. The euphoric classroom had rubber bands, baskets and paper all over the place and the stooge tried to get the participants to be active and happy. The stooge was completely objective in the matter as it was a double-blind study meaning, the participants and the observers/stooge were unaware of which groups the individuals belonged to, this ensured that the results were objective. On the contrary, in the anger classroom the participants were told to wait an extra 20 minutes during which they had to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire included invasive questions, trying to hit a boiling point with the individuals. For example, one of the questions was: “with how many men other than your father has your mother had extra marital relations?” (Schacter & Singer, 1962). Participants in the euphoric classroom who were not informed of the symptoms reported higher levels of euphoria than those who were informed. In the Anger condition the angriest group was the ignorant group followed by the placebo group. The least angry group were those who were informed, and this demonstrates that participants were more susceptible to the stooge because they had no explanation for the PA. Schachter and Singer argue that all three prepositions were supported as there was significant data in the results. Moving on, one of the main strengths of the method is the amount of control Schachter and Singer had of their procedure. For instance, random allocation of participants to different conditions was easily accomplished and the procedure was standardised as much as possible. A major support for the theory comes from the misattribution of arousal study conducted by Donald G. Dutton and Arthur P. The study used a natural setting to induce PA. Male participants were asked to walk across either a scary (arousing) bridge or a safe, less scary

6 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION bridge. At the end of each bridge an attractive female experimenter met the participants and handed them a questionnaire which included a picture to describe, she also gave them her phone number. It was found that men who walked the scary bridge called the woman and their stories had more sexual content (Cotton, 1981). TFTE would say this is due to the fact that arousal of fear or anxiety from the scary bridge was misattributed to higher levels of sexual feelings towards the female experimenter. As a result, this study provided empirical evidence for the TFTE as the males looked to their environment for cues to explain their PA. Another support comes from the replication of TFTE conducted by Erdmann and Janke however it employed a very different procedure and drug (ephedrine) (Erdmann, Janke, 1978). However, numerous methodological criticisms have been made (Erdmann, Janke, 1978). One of which was regarding the production of arousal (via epi) and the measures of arousal and emotion. As reported by the findings, the misinformed group experienced the target emotion more intensely than the informed group in the euphoria conditions. The criticism here is that an adequate physiological manipulation check was not used; only pulse rate was examined which is referred to as a poor measure of arousal. Pulse rate was checked before and after the manipulation, so it is not certain if the epinephrine produced the desired effect or if the effect even lasted long enough to affect the subject’s emotional judgement (Mezzacappa, Katkin & Palmer, 1999). This concludes the findings of the study to lack confirmation of the SST as there is limited evidence to show whether the epinephrine increased arousal. Another criticism bought up was the lack of significant difference between the placebo and the epinephrine conditions. If PA led to the perception of emotion, then the placebo group should have shown less emotion, but this did not occur and leads to contradiction of the SST (Plutchik, Ax, 1967).

7 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION Furthermore, conceptual replications have failed to support the findings of the study. Marshall & Zimbardo’s replication included only the euphoric condition. Contrary to what the SST predicts (epinephrine induced subjects are expected to show higher levels of positive effect compared to those of the placebo group), the epinephrine group expressed fewer positive emotions compared to the placebo group (Manstead & Wagner, 1981). Consequently, the results concluded that unexplained PA was more likely to lead to negative emotions regardless of the confederate condition participants were placed in. Overall SST suggests that emotions are a result of both physiological and cognitive processes. The 1962 study conducted by Schachter and Singer investigated this claim by inducing arousal via epinephrine. With the help of a stooge, it was tested whether people were susceptible to their environment. Schachter and Singer argued that all three prepositions of the study were supported with their findings and regardless its criticisms, it still remains as the primary support for the TFTE. Another major support for theory is evident from the misattribution of arousal study. We can conclude that while later research has failed to support Schacter and Singer’s findings, their theory has initiated further researches on emotions, and has been incredibly influential regardless.

Reference

Cotton, J. L. (1981). European Journal of Social Psychology, 11(4), 365–397. https://doiorg.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/10.1002/ejsp.2420110403

Sinclair, R., Hoffman, C., Mark, M., Martin, L., & Pickering, T. (1994). Construct Accessibility and the Misattribution of Arousal: Schachter and Singer

8 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION Revisited. Psychological Science, 5(1), 15-19. Retrieved October 29, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062335

Mezzacappa, E. S., Katkin, E. S., & Palmer, S. N. (1999). Epinephrine, Arousal, and Emotion: A New Look at Two-factor Theory. Cognition & Emotion, 13(2), 181–199. https://doi-org.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/10.1080/026999399379320

Plutchik, R., & Ax, A. F. (1967). A Critique of Determinants of Emotional State by Schachter and Singer (1962). Psychophysiology, 4(1), 79-82. Retrieved from: https://doiorg.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1967.tb02740.x

Manstead, A.S.R & Wagner, H.L (1981). Arousal, cognition and emotion: an appraisal of two-factor theory. Current Psychological Reviews, 35-54. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02979253

Cherry, K. (2019). The Schachter-Singer Two-Factor Theory of Emotion. Retrieved from verywellmind: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-two-factor-theory-of-emotion-2795718

Green, H. (n.d.). Theories of Emotion. Retrieved from lumen: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/emotion/

Hopper, E. (2019). What Is the Schachter-Singer Theory of Emotion? Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/schachter-singer-theory-4691140

9 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION Schacter, S & Singer, J.E (1962). Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological Review , 379-399. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dadc/18cbea42880ec23c03a47b9728546b3d2bd7.pdf

Erdmann, G. & Janke, W. (1978). Interaction between physiological and cognitive determinants of emotions: Experimental studies on Schachter’s theory of emotions. Biological Psychology, 6, 61–74. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301051178900078

10 SCHACHTER SINGER THEORY OF EMOTION...