1. Schacter and Singer (1962)

2. Announcements Pop Quiz! This will be worth an EXAM GRADE. There should be NO TALKING.

3. 1. Physiologically, how do you feel? If you are experiencing a fast heart rate or are tense, write that. 2. What emotion best describes your current state?

5. Bellringer Actual competition! Label as many parts of the brain as you can.

6. Schachter & Singer (1962) Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state Psychological Review, 69, 379-99

7. Background: Theories of Emotion A. Emotion = A response of the whole organism, involving (1) physiological arousal, (2) expressive behaviors, and (3) conscious experience 7

8. Cognitive Theory of Emotion: James –Lange Theory EXAMPLE: You are walking down a dark alley late at night. You hear footsteps behind you and you begin to tremble, your heart beats faster, and your breathing deepens. You notice these physiological changes and interpret them as your body’s preparation for a fearful situation. You then experience fear.

9. Background: Theories of emotion Study done by Hohmann- a. Interviewed 25 soldiers who suffered injuries to the spinal cord b. Divided into 5 groups based on how high the injury, the higher the less feedback they get from their body c. Those with the highest injuries reported that they had the least strong emotions during emotion provoking events. d. They reported having mental emotions but not physical ones 9 “It’s a sort of cold anger. Sometimes I act angry…I yell and cuss and raise hell…but it doesn’t have the heat to it that it used to. It’s a mental kind of anger”

10. b. Those who suffered injuries that left them paralyzed from the neck down responded that their emotions were much less intense, which would seem to support the James-Lange Theory 10

11. Cognitive Theory of Emotion: Cannon – Bard Theory EXAMPLE: You are walking down a dark alley late at night. You hear footsteps behind you and you begin to tremble, your heart beats faster, and your breathing deepens. At the same time as these physiological changes occur you also experience the emotion of fear

12. Background: Thalamic Theory a. Believed that the thalamus played a key role as it gathered sensory input and sent it “down” to the sympathetic nervous system and “up” to the cerebral cortex at the same time. Thus it is sometimes referred to as the Thalamic theory of emotions 12

14. III. Aim/Hypotheses This study consisted of 3 major hypotheses 1. Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has no immediate explanation, they will "label” this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available Physiological arousal + no rational explanation + an appropriate cognition → (a describable) emotion 14

15. 15 Physiological Arousal No logical Explanation Appropriate Cognition + + = Describable Emotion (fear)

16. III. Aim/Hypothesis Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has a completely appropriate explanation, the individual is unlikely to label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognitions available a. Physiological arousal + a rational explanation → NO emotion an appropriate cognition does not have an impact 16

17. 3. Given no physiological arousal, even if emotion- inducing cognitive circumstances are present the subject will not create emotions. a. No Physiological arousal + an appropriate cognition → No emotion 17 III. Aim/Hypothesis

18. IV. Methodology - Sample A. The Sample – 1. Began with 185 Ps – – 2. All male and white in their 1 st year at the University of Minnesota studying psychology – 3. 1 dropped in initial phase because of refusal to receive an injection – 4. Students offered 2pts extra credit on final exam for each hour participating in a psych study on campus 18

19. IV. Methodology - Variables B. Variables – 1. 3 IVs a. Physiological arousal (epinephrine vs saline) b. Explanations of arousal (Informed of side effects, Ignorant of side effects, Misinformed of side effects) c. Emotion-inducing situations w/ explanatory cognitions (Euphoric stooge vs Angry stooge) – 2. DV: Emotions – self-feedback & observations C. Design – 1. Laboratory Experiment – 2. Snapshot study 19

20. IV. Methodology - Procedure D. Set-up of the experiment 1. Told they were studying the impact of a vitamin “Suproxin” (really epinephrine) on vision. 2. Asked, “would you mind having an injection of Suproxin (made up name) to look at the effects of vitamins on vision?” (1 person of 185 declined) 20

22. What does adrenaline do? Causes similar effects to the arousal of the autonomic nervous system (ANS – “fight or flight”). Starts after 3-5 mins, lasts 15-30 mins. Increases blood pressure Increases heart rate Increases blood sugar Increases respiration Increases blood flow to muscles & brain Decreases blood flow to skin (feels cold) Palpitations Tremors Flushing 22

23. IV. Methodology - Procedure E. Assignment of participants 23 Epi Ign (ignorant) The Ps were given epinephrine, were told no side effects – tests first hypothesis as they had no explanation for their physical arousal Epi Inf (informed) The Ps were given epinephrine and were told of the true side effects – tests 2 nd hypothesis – as they have a reasonable explanation for their arousal. Placebo The Ps were given saline which would not cause arousal - tests 3rd hypothesis as they had no arousal so it would show if cognition alone caused the emotion. Epi Mis (misinformed) The Ps were given epinephrine, were told wrong effects – this was a control against people forming expectations that the shot caused their reaction

24. IV. Methodology - Procedure – 1. 2 IVs covered in 4 experimental conditions: Epi Ign – physio. arousal without explanation, only current situation Epi Inf – physio. arousal with explanation Epi Mis – physio. arousal with inappropriate explanation Placebo – no physio. arousal, cognitions (thoughts) are the only influence 24

25. IV. Methodology -Procedure – 2. 3 rd IV - Produce an emotion-inducing cognition: After receiving the shot, the Ps were taken to a room with either a euphoric or angry stooge and told to fill out a survey and wait. In the Euphoria condition they were placed with a happy stooge – This was created by having a happy stooge – Roll up paper and play basketball – trying to get the Ps involved – Making paper airplanes and trying to get the Ps involved 25 Please read the scripts found in the study

26. IV. Methods - Design In the Anger condition they were placed with an angry stooge. – This was created by having the stooge – React in an angry manner about a survey they were asked to fill out. – Survey filled with personal questions about the Ps and even one about their mother – For example- “With how many men other than your father has your mother had extramarital relationships? » 4 and under; 5 -9; 10 and over 26

27. IV. Methodology - Procedure DV – 1. Emotional response – 2. Measured in two ways: a. Researcher’s observations b. Self-report questionnaires divided into Likert type scales (quantitative data) and Open-ended questions (qualitative data) 27

28. IV. Methodology - Procedure G. Debriefing – 1. After the exp was over subjects were told the true purpose of the exp and all deceptions were revealed – 2. Subjects were sworn to secrecy. 28

29. IV. Methodology - Procedure – 3. Subjects given a questionnaire about prior knowledge of adrenalin or this experiment 11 subjects reported that they were “extremely suspicious” about the true nature of the experiment so their results were excluded. 29

30. IV. Methodology –Data Collection G. Data Collection – 1. Observation through 1 way mirror this was considered a “semiprivate” index of mood as the subject was unaware that he was being observed. a. In Euphoric condition coded in 3 categories – Joins activity – Initiates activity – Ignores activity b. 88% level of interrater reliability 30

31. IV. Methodology –Data Collection b. In Anger condition 6 categories – Agrees – Disagrees – Neutral – Initiates agree/disagree – Watches – Ignores c. Two raters for inter-rater reliability 71% inter-rater agreement. Differed by 1 or less on 88% of the ratings 31

32. IV. Methodology –Data Collection – 2. Self-Report a. Likert Scale items on how happy or angry they felt which was viewed as a “public” index of emotion as these comments would be available to the experimenters. b. Very few people self-reported anger even when they showed anger type reactions when with the stooge. It is believed that they felt afraid to reveal their anger because they might forfeit their bonus points) 32 How good or happy would you say you feel at present? I don’t feel happy or good at all. 0 I feel a little happy and good. 1 I feel quite happy and good. 2 I fell very happy and good. 3 I feel extremely happy and good. 4

33. IV. Methodology –Data Collection c. To measure possible effects of the instructions in the Epi Mis condition the following questions were asked – 1. Did you feel any numbness in your feet? – 2. Did you feel any itching sensations? – 3. Did you experience any feelings of headache? – 4. These were responded to on a similar Likert Scale. 33

34. IV. Methodology –Data Collection – Questions about the Mis(informed) condition – These questions were about the opposite symptoms that were explained in the misinformed group d. Two open-ended questions about physical and emotional experiences during the experiment – This would be considered qualitative data but it was not reported or summarized in the study. – 3. Physical reaction = Pulse was taken immediately before the injection and immediately after the interaction with the stooge 34

35. Study Alternatives (Re-Creation) WHAT HOW WHO WHERE

36. Bellringer

37. Why no “Epi Mis / Anger” condition? – “This was originally conceived as a control condition and it was felt that its inclusion in the Euphoria condition alone would suffice.” 37

38. V. Results – impact of adrenaline A. Results of Epinephrine injections – 1. All Ps who received injections reported higher levels of arousal than the placebo Ps (see table 1) – 2. Some subjects who did not physically respond to the epinephrine were removed from the experiment (4 in Eup 1 in Anger) 38

39. V. Results – impact of adrenaline – 3. Those in the misinformed condition did not differ from the others so this condition was only used in the Euphoric condition – 4. When asked open-ended questions in which subjects described their own mood and state, 28% of the subjects in the Epi Ign made a connection between the shot and their mood compared to only 16% of the Epi Mis 5. Placebo Ps reported that the were less euphoric/angry than either Epi Mis or Epi Ign but more so than Epi Inf. 39

40. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations B. Euphoric Condition – 1. In the Euphoria condition both the Epi Ign & Epi Mis groups reported more happiness and less anger – 2. Those in the Anger condition who were Epi Ign reported less happiness and greater anger as predicted 40

41. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations – 3. Results of the observations a. Score represents both the nature “wildness” of the action and the time spent in the action b. Thus using the Hula Hoop was weighted as a 5 and doing nothing was a zero. c. This score was multiplied by an estimate of how much time the Ps spent on that activity, this was scored across all activities. 41

42. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations d. The weightings were created based on the results of a “pre-test” using 15 college students. e. Based on these ratings Epi Mis>Epi Ign>Epi Inf f. Using these behavioral indices the Epi Ign and Epi Mis subjects are somewhat more euphoric than the placebo subjects but NOT SIGNIFICANTLY SO. 42

43. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations C. Anger Condition – 1. In the anger conditions the Ps were reluctant to express anger toward the experimenter by publicly “blowing up” or by “spoiling” the survey. – 2. However in “semi-private” observations when the Ps thought they were alone with the stooge they were more willing to display anger. 43

44. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations – 3. Epi Inf rated themselves as happier than Epi Ign – 4. Epi Ign are less happy than placebo, but not significant. – 5. When looking at behavior (Table 5) we see that the Epi Ign Ps show significantly more anger units 2.28 to -.18 as compared to the Epi Inf Ps – 6. Same findings extend to Epi Ign vs Placebo 44

45. V. Results – Effect of the Manipulations  6. Therefore the authors chose to rely on the behavioral observation indices but they still present the self-report data in Table 4. 45

46. VI. Analysis of results A. Hypotheses – 1. Euphoria = Epi Mis≥ Epi Ign>Epi Inf = Placebo – 2. Anger = Epi Ign>Epi Inf = Placebo – 3. In both conditions Epi Ign is greater than Epi Inf. – 4. However Placebo results consistently fell between the Epi Ign an Epi Inf – 5. When the subjects in the Epi Ign group who guessed that the shot had caused their arousal were eliminated, the difference between the Epi Ign and Placebo group became significant to the point.01 level (very significant). 46

47. VI. Analysis of Results – 6. Why then would the Placebo Ps show both greater self report and behavioral emotional responses than the Epi Inf group. a. Lack of epinephrine does not mean that they will not experience some arousal b. The shot itself could have caused some arousal 47

48. VI. Analysis of Results – summary B. In regards to Aim 1 where the subjects experienced arousal w/o cognition both the Epi Ign & Epi Mis Ps showed the most emotion C. In conditions where the subjects experienced arousal w/ cognition (=Inf) they experienced no emotion in other words, the environment didn’t affect them (AIM 2) D. For those with no arousal (placebo), Aim 3 doesn’t seem to be supported as they did show more emotional responses than the EPI Inf group. However a possible explanation for this was provided by the authors. 48

49. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues A. Over-all Ethical – 1. all participants were psychology students – 2. health checked in advance – 3. consent received – 4. no long-term harm – 5. However, shots are painful. – 6. Deception was used 49

50. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues B. Validity of the results – 1. Not all results were statistically significant unless certain subject’s data points were removed from consideration – 2. Using an injection is not ideal a. Would be better to deliver unbeknownst to the Ps b. Could injection have caused Placebo Ps to have heightened arousal. 50

51. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues – 3. Some Ps in the Mis & Ign also linked injection to arousal (design: to exp arousal w/o obvious cause!?!) these self- informers were excluded from the results possibly impacting the findings. – 4. This is referred to as Experimental artifacts. a. Artifacts refer to variables that should have been systematically varied, either within or across studies, but that were accidentally held constant. b. Artifacts are thus threats to external validity.external validity 51

52. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues – 5. As two different methods were used for measuring behavior between the Anger and Euphoria conditions no direct test of hypothesis 1 is possible. (Hilgard 1979) – 6. Other problems identified by Hilgard a. Epinephrine doesn’t effect all the same way b. No mood check before injection c. Is synthetic arousal similar to real life arousal? 52

53. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues – 7. Self-report presented as [happiness or anger] a. all Ps’ self-reports were on happy side b. Thus the self-report alone shows that S&S failed to produce any anger with the questionnaire. c. However S&S argued that it could be seen behaviorally 53

54. VII. Evaluation – Methodological issues – 8. Lab studies as always tend to be “artificial” and thus may lack ecological validity. a. Certainly in the case of this study it can be argued that the experiment lacked mundane realism as stated by S&S themselves b. Only male subjects so lacks generalizability 54

55. VII. Evaluation – Theoretical issues A. James-Lange is not supported as there is no evidence that all emotions have a distinctly different pattern of autonomic responses B. Cannon Bard is not supported as it cannot be said that all emotions have the exact same autonomic response. 55

56. VIII. Applications A. Emotions are malleable but not as much as proposed by S&S B. False-feedback can influence your cognitive appraisal – 1. One study showed men pictures from Playboy magazine while playing their heart rate back for them as they looked at the picture. – 2. Some pictures were given “false-feedback” where the heart rate played back was artificially high – 3. The result was that the Ss later rated these pictures as more attractive or arousing than other pictures even though the heart rate increase was a deception. 56

57. VIII. Applications C. Usefulness = Clinical application: reattribute anxiety arousal to less threatening sources (e.g. from ‘hostile world’ to ‘just my heart racing’) 57

58. Cue 10: List 3 ways subjects were deceived in this experiment Cue 11: From the reading describe the alternative to injection described by S&S 58

59. The Big Question Which cues, internal or external, permit a person to label and identify his own emotional state? Mental/Physical states Environment 59

60. Historical background 141 Willam James (1890) and Carl Lange James-Lange theory: "the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion” We’re afraid because we run; we’re angry because we hit 60

61. James –Lange Theory EXAMPLE: You are walking down a dark alley late at night. You hear footsteps behind you and you begin to tremble, your heart beats faster, and your breathing deepens. You notice these physiological changes and interpret them as your body’s preparation for a fearful situation. You then experience fear.

62. What is ‘emotion’ exactly? Possible alternative views: Emotion without cognitive appraisal Emotion without physiological arousal Two-factor theory – cognitive and physiological are necessary and sufficient 62

63. Cannon – Bard Theory EXAMPLE: You are walking down a dark alley late at night. You hear footsteps behind you and you begin to tremble, your heart beats faster, and your breathing deepens. At the same time as these physiological changes occur you also experience the emotion of fear

65. Historical background Marañon (1924) injected adrenaline 29% described physiological changes in ‘emotional overtones’ but mostly ‘as if…’ If an emotional topic was discussed before the injection, the same topic after injection triggered emotional behaviour, e.g. upset 65

66. Historical background So…? To produce a genuinely emotional reaction to adrenalin, Marañon had to provide subjects with an appropriate cognition (things to think about). 66

67. Schachter & Singer’s hypotheses Physiological arousal + an appropriate cognition → (a describable) emotion (Two-factors necessary and sufficient) 67

68. Schachter & Singer’s 1 st hypothesis 142 Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has no immediate explanation, they will "label” this state and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions available. It could be anticipated that precisely the same state of physiological arousal could be labelled “joy” or “fury” or “jealousy”, etc. depending on the cognitive aspects of the situation. 68

69. Schachter & Singer’s 2 nd hypothesis 142 Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has a completely appropriate explanation, the individual is unlikely to label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognitions available. i.e. will describe physiological changes without emotional terms 69

70. Schachter & Singer’s 3 rd hypothesis 142 Given emotion-inducing cognitive circumstances, e.g. danger, the individual will react emotionally or describe their feelings as emotions only to the extent that they experience a state of physiological arousal. 70

71. Procedure Sample: 185 pp – male 1 st year uni (of Minnesota) Ψ students Method: 3 IVs Physiological arousal Cognitive explanations Emotion-inducing situations w/ explanatory cognitions DV: Emotions: self-feedback & observations 71

72. “Would you mind having an injection of Suproxin (made up name) to look at the effects of vitamins on vision?” (1pp of 185 declined) “Suproxin” was actually adrenaline (injection called epinephrine in US) OR a placebo 72 Procedure 142

74. What does adrenaline do? Causes similar effects to the arousal of the autonomic nervous system (ANS – “fight or flight”). Starts after 3-5 mins, lasts 15-30 mins. Increases blood pressure Increases heart rate Increases blood sugar Increases respiration Increases blood flow to muscles & brain Decreases blood flow to skin (feels cold) Palpitations Tremors Flushing 74

75. 2 IVs covered in 4 experimental conditions: Epi Ign(orant) Epi Inf(ormed) Epi Mis(informed) Placebo What would you expect in each condition, in terms of physiological arousal and appropriate explanations? 75 Procedure 142-143

76. Adrenalin Ignorant Condition “We are going to give you an injection of something – don’t worry about it.” [Adrenalin] What would you expect, in terms of physiological arousal and appropriate explanations?

77. Adrenalin Informed Condition “We are going to give you a vitamin injection, but it is safe. Here are the side effects: hand shake, heart pounding, dry mouth etc. It is called “suproxin”. What would you expect, in terms of physiological arousal and appropriate explanations?

78. Adrenalin Misinformed Condition “Here is an injection. The side effects are numb feed and headache”. [Incorrect side effects of adrenalin] What would you expect, in terms of physiological arousal and appropriate explanations?

79. Control Group Condition “Here is an injection – don’t worry about it.” [Placebo] What would you expect, in terms of physiological arousal and appropriate explanations?

80. 2 IVs covered in 4 experimental conditions: Epi Ign – physio. arousal without explanation, only current situation Epi Inf – physio. arousal with explanation Epi Mis – physio. arousal with inappropriate explanation Placebo – no physio. arousal, cognitions (thoughts) are the only influence 80 Procedure / Expectations 142-143

81. Procedure / Two-factor theory 142-143 81 Social and cognitive influences

82. 3 rd IV Produce an emotion-inducing cognition: 143 Euphoria Anger 82 Procedure 143

83. DV Emotional response Measured in two ways: 1. Researcher’s observations 2. Self-report questionnaires 83

84. Results All pp who received injections reported higher levels of arousal (emotions)than the placebo pps Euphoria: Ign & Mis → happiness ↑ anger ↓ (as predicted) Anger: Ign → happiness ↓ anger ↑ (as predicted) 84

85. Results mean… Arousal w/o cognition (i.e. a clear explanation) (Ign & Mis) → most emotion i.e. interpreted from environmental situation Arousal w/ cognition (=Inf) → no emotion i.e. the environment didn’t affect them 85

86. Result ‘problems’ All results non-significant Placebo group: Assumed “placebo = no arousal” BUT any injection is a dramatic event Some Mis & Ign also linked injection to arousal (design: to exp arousal w/o obvious cause!?!) 86

87. Evaluation 1/4 144-145 Ethical all participants were Ψ students, health checked in advance 87

88. Evaluation 2/4  145 Differences were statistically insignificant Differences became sig after discarding some pps: the ‘self-informed’ + no emotion in Mis & Ign. Experimental artefacts Mis & Ign had a reason, not ‘no reason’ as designed 88

89. Evaluation 3/4  145 Results presented as [happiness – anger] but all pps’ self-reports were on happy side  S&S failed to produce any anger with q’aire No account of pps’ mood before exp Mis / anger not reported 89

90. Evaluation 4/4  Adrenaline → diff. people react in diff. ways (S&S discarded 5 pps who received adrenaline but reported no symptoms) How comparable are drugs in the lab to natural real-life emotions? Ethical concerns? 90

91. Independent Practice/ Exit Ticket Create your own theory of emotion. Then, design an experiment to test that theory. Aim: Hypothesis: Independent variables/conditions: Dependent Variable Explain procedure