The Cognitive, Social and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State
Background of the Research
The Psychology Being Investigated:
The Two-Factor Theory Of Emotion:
Aim:
Hypothesis:
Prerequisites For The Research:
Design:
Sampling Of Participants:
Procedure:
Manipulating Explanations:
Conditions:
Inducing Cognition via Production Of Emotions:
| Euphoria Situation | Anger Situation |
- Right after the subject had been administered with the injection, the physician left the room and the experimenter came back with a stooge/actor who he introduced as merely another subject. − They were told: → How both of them had been given the Suproxin shot and how they both would be taking the same tests of vision. The experimenter then asked them to wait 20 minutes. The reason being that the administered drug takes 20 minutes at a minimum to take its course into the blood via the bloodstream. At the conclusion of 20 mins the researchers will be certain that the epinephrine has been circulated and then the tests will begin. − The room in which the participants had been put was deliberately in a state of mild disorder and mess, at which the experimenter added how he was apologetic about the state of the room. − He continued by informing the participants of the material available to them which were; scratch papers, rubber bands, hula hoops, folders and pencils. − He then said to “help themselves” and how he will return in 20 minutes’ time. − As the experimenter left, the stooge/actor gained more ground for conversation, introducing himself and making icebreaker conversation, finally easing into his routine. − The “routine” was completely standardized which comprised of interacting with and entertaining the subject. With the stooge asking the subject to come and join with him in the “fun” activities which consisted in playing with the rough papers, pencils and rubber bands (apparatus). − The only variation was how the stooge had to fluctuate pace of the act according to the participants’ mood, reaction, interactivity and etc. − Furthermore, the other type of variation was at the subject’s part where if he wanted to initiate any act of his own in the routine. This would usually be intercepted by the stooge and they would collaborate. − The subject never knew that this was an act all along, keep the exposure to demand characteristics tightly controlled. | - Right after the subject had been administered with the injection, the experimenter brought the stooge/actor into the room, introduced the two and explained the need for a 20-minute interval for the “Suproxin to circulate into the bloodstream”. − They then were handed out questionnaires by the experimenters and were told to fill them, in 20 minutes when they will return and the vision tests will commence. − Before even starting the questionnaire and before even looking at it (stooge’s prompt) the stooge aggravated the subject by saying how he just wanted to come here for an experiment and how its unethical of them to give us shots/injections. He added how they could have been informed about the injections when they had been selected for the study as one doesn’t refuse once you’re already in. − This questionnaire was 5 pages long and tedious to fill. − It was also intrusive of one’s privacy. Asking deeply personal and offensive questions. − For example, Question7 was about foods eaten in a normal day whereas Question34 asked about family matters.) − The stooge sat directly opposite to the subject so that he could keep up with the pace, working on the questions that the subject was working on. (standardization) − The stooge listed a sequence of standardized comments about the questions. His comments progressively got angrier. − For example: → Before starting, he goes through and flips through the questionnaire saying “Boy, this is a long one.” → Question 17 asked “What is your father’s annual income? To which the stooge responds: “This is really none of their business, I'm irritated and I’m leaving that blank.” → Questions were present that intruded on a very personal level such as: “How many times each week do you have sexual intercourse?” On which the stooge bites out: “To hell with it! I'm not telling them this.” → The concluding question was “With how many men (other than your father) has your mother had extramarital relationships?” On a scale from 1-10. |
| Euphoria | Anger |
Epi Inf Epi Ign Epi Mis Placebo | Epi Inf Epi Ign - Placebo |
Measurement:
Two Types Of Measurements Of Emotional State Were Obtained:
Observation:
| Euphoria Situation | Anger Situation |
- For each of the first 14 units of the stooge’s standardized routine an observer kept a running record of what the subject did and said (operationalization). − The behaviour was coded into 4 categories of observation: 1. Joins in activity 2. Initiates new activity 3. Ignores or watches stooge. − It was possible that one behaviour could be put into 2 or more of the above-mentioned categories. − Inter-rater reliability was high as the observed agreed on the coding 88% of the units. | - For each of the units of the stooge’s behaviour, an observed documented and coded them into a categorical scheme: 1. Agrees - +2 2. Disagrees - -2 3. Neutral – 0 4. Starts agreement or disagreement - +2 0r –2 5. Watches – 0 6. Ignores - -1 − In order to get a behavioural index of anger, observational protocol was scored according to the values mentioned above. − Inter-rater reliability was high as the observers unanimously agreed on 71% of the units observed. − Only differed by 1% or less for 88% of the units checked. |
Self-Report Of Physical Condition And Mood:
When the subject’s session with the stooge was completed, the experimenter returned to the room and gave the participants another questionnaire.
In keeping with the line, the questionnaire that the experimenter passed out contained filler/mock questions as well; about hunger, fatigue, etc.
But the questions were actually present to measure the following:
1. To measure mood or emotional state.
2. To measure the physiological influence/effects of epinephrine
3. To measure possible effects of the instructions in the Epi Mis Condition
● To measure mood or emotional state, various questions were asked, here are two essential ones:
1. How irritated, angry or annoyed would you say you feel at present?
i. I don’t feel angry at all (0)
ii. I feel a little irritated and angry (1)
iii. I feel quite irritated and angry (2)
iv. I feel very irritated and angry (3)
v. I feel extremely irritated and angry (4)
2. How good or happy would you say you feel?
i. I don’t feel happy at all (0)
ii. I feel a little good and happy (1)
iii. I feel quite good and happy (2)
iv. I feel very good and happy (3)
v. I feel extremely good and happy (4)
● To measure the physiological effects of epinephrine and to examine if the dose had the desired effect on the bodily state, the following questions were asked:
1. Have you experienced any palpitation?
i. Not at all (0)
ii. A slight amount (1)
iii. A moderate amount (2)
iv. An intense amount (3)
2. Did you feel any tremor?
i. Not at all (0)
ii. A slight amount (1)
iii. A moderate amount (2)
iv. An intense amount (3)
● To measure possible effects of the instructions given in the Epi Mis condition, these questions were asked:
1. Did you feel numbness in the feet?
2. Did you feel an itching sensation?
3. Did you experience any feeling of a headache?
This was measured on a 4-point scale (Not at all to an intense amount). (Quantitative Data)
In addition to these the subjects were asked to answer:
→ Two-open ended questions on other physical or emotional sensations that they may have experienced during the experimental session.
→ A conclusive measure of bodily state was the pulse-rate, taken by the physician or the experimenter twice – immediately after the injection had been administered and immediately after the session with the stooge.
Debriefing and Confidentiality:
− After the experiment was over, the deception was explained in detail and with regards to its importance. (Quantitative Data)
− The subjects were sworn to secrecy.
− They also answered a questionnaire regarding their experience, if any, with adrenalin and their knowledge or suspicion of their experimental setup.
− 11 subjects had been so suspicious of some integral parts of the study that their results had to be discarded as a consequence.
Results:
The data obtained from the above-mentioned table portrays that on all items subjects who were in the epinephrine condition showed considerably more evidence of sympathetic activation that do subjects who were placed in the placebo condition.
It is evident on the scale that epinephrine subjects experience more palpitation and tremor than do placebo subjects.
In all of the comprehensive cross-analysis on these symptoms, the mean/average scores of subjects in any of the epinephrine conditions were higher than the corresponding scores in the placebo conditions.
Subjects in epinephrine conditions were, indeed, in state of physiological arousal, while most subjects in placebo conditions were in a relative state of physiological dormancy as closer examinations proved.
In the condition of; euphoria the misinformed group were feeling the happiest out of all groups, the following happiest group (2nd) was the ignored group, the informed group felt the least happy/good because they were able to explain why they had a reason. This demonstrates how participants were more likely to fall for the stooge’s act because they had no reasoning of why they felt the way they did.
In the anger group, the Epi ignorant group was the most angry, with the following group being the placebo group, second angriest. The informed group was the slightest angry. Again, demonstrating why and how the participants were more likely to fall for the stooge’s antics.
The epinephrine injection did not work with equal efficacy on all subjects though – as they were no reports of physiological arousal from some subjects at all.
Conclusions:
Schacter and Singer debate that their results do indeed support the two-factor theory of emotion, which states that the physiological in different, varying emotions is grossly the same and we label/tag arousals according to the cognitions we have present at that moment in time.
They also argued that all of their hypothesis were supported and concluded that if a person experiences an arousal state which they cannot explain, they will label or designate this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions present and available to them.
Evaluation:
Application and Usefulness:
− This study enables us to understand how people take different environmental hints to help them understand and interpret their physiological state.
− This could be useful in treating people who suffer from anxiety disorders as it will enable them to have more control and identify triggers such as environmental cues.
Evaluation:
− The procedure was highly controlled and structured (standardized).
− Thye were able to assign participants randomly to different conditions and were even able to deceive the participants regarding the aim and nature of the experiments.
− High in reliability.
− It however lacked ecological validity, given how every condition was artificially manipulated.
− The sample was not generalizable in terms of age or gender. Nonn-representative sample.
− It was androcentric (184 males).
− Some variables might not have been considered such as the predominant