Schachter+and+Singer+-+Period+2

This is the space for information on Schachter and Singer's Study on Adrenaline and Emotion.

Schachter's Cognition-Plus Feedback Theory - A stimulating event happens - Cognitions are used to interpret the meaning of our physiological reactions to the events - We experience feelings and then decide what they mean To test the two-factor theory on emotion Hypothesis: 1. If a person is physiologically aroused & does not know the cause of this arousal, then he will try to find a reason for that feeling. He will label the feelings according to the cognitions available to him at the time. 2. If a person experiences a state of arousal for which he has an explanation then he has no need to label his feelings. 3. If a person is in a situation which should make him feel a certain way, but is not physiologically aroused, he will not feel any emotion. - 184 male college students taking introductory psychology classes at Minnesota University - They received extra credit for participating in the study Independent Variable- Injected adrenaline or placebo, information given, the situation the subjects were placed in Dependent Variable- Emotions (Observed & Reported) What type of data was collected? Qualitative and Quantitative Procedure: 1. The participants were told they would be injected with suproxin, a vitamin that effects vision, although no such thing exists. The participants were actually being injected with a placebo saline solution or adrenaline. 2. There were three different groups in the experiment that were given three different types of information - The first group was told the correct side-effects they would experience - The second group was told misinformed and told they would experience a dull headache and numbness - And the third group received no information at all 3. After the injections the participants waited in another room with one other subject. This subject was actually a confederate or stooge, who behaved in a certain manner (angrily or euphorically) 4. Two independent observers observed the participants from a one way mirror. The categorized the behavior into four categories. 1. Joins in 2. Initiates new activity 3. & 4. Subject ignores or watches confederate 4. The researchers also gave the participants a self-report questionnaire. They told the participants that the questionnaire was to determine if there were any other factors that could effect vision. There were questions on the questionnaire that asked the participants how happy or irritated they felt, there were also control question to see if the participants experienced - Subjects who were misled or uniformed about the injections side effects behaved similarly to the confederate. However subjects who knew what to expect, did not show emotions mirroring the confederate. Weaknesses Ecological Validity Ethics
 * Relevant Background information:**
 * Aim:**
 * Participant Group:**
 * Research Method:** Lab experiment
 * Variables:**
 * Procedure Method:**
 * The misinformed group was not used in the anger conditions
 * The two independent observers agreed on 88% of the items
 * Results:** The adrenaline misinformed and adrenaline ignorant group reported being happiest. This is because they experience the effects of adrenaline, and having no explanation for the bodily arousal, they attributed the feelings to happiness. The anger self-report failed, most participants reported positive feelings, Schacter and Singer attribute this to the fact that they were students eager to please their professor.
 * Strengths:**