Two factor theory of emotion
By Mr Daniel Hansson
Questions
1. What would be your subjective experience and
bodily changes (heart beat, breathing) if you:
a) Heard that your best friend is in a hospital
because of a car accident?
b) Learn that you have been accepted to a top
university?
c) Are attacked by a vicious dog in a dark soi?
2. In what way are the cognitive and biological
reactions similar for these scenarios? In what
way are they different?
Schachter & Singer’s two factor
theory of emotion
• We need two factors
to feel emotional.
One is physiological
arousal, the other is
attribution (appraisal,
cues in the
environment of how
we should feel)
• Without arousal or
attributions we will not
experience any
emotion
The order of the emotional
components in two factor theory of
emotion
External stimulus = General physiological
arousal = Cognitive appraisal of arousal
(attribution) = Subjective experience of
emotion = Behaviour
Hypotheses in the Schachter &
Singer experiment
• The labelling of
arousal will depend
on the situation if
there is no other
explanation
• If a reason for arousal
is known the
participant will not
look for another
reason
• No arousal will result
in no emotion
Sample
• 184 male college
psychology students
• Received credits
towards finals
• Health records
checked
Method
• Controlled experiment
• At the start of the experiment, all
participants had an injection of
epinephrine (causes shaky hands,
pounding heart, increased breathing)
• Experimenter pretended that they were
investigating “side effects of “Suproxin”
(pretend vitamin)
Information of effects conditions
• EPI informed: Participants were informed of the
real effects of epinephrine
• EPI misinformed: Participants were misinformed
of the effects of epinephrine (instead were told
that there would be itching, numb feet,
headaches)
• EPI ignorant: Participants were told that there
would be no side effects
• Control group: Participants were injected a
placebo (a saline solution with no side effects)
Condition - Euphoric
• Participants from the different information
of effect conditions were put in a waiting
room with a stooge, one at a time for 20
minutes (EPI effects last 15-20 minutes)
• Stooge was friendly, played with paper
(basketball, aeroplanes)
Condition - Angry
• Same but had to complete questionnaire
during 20 mins
• Stooge moaned about injections
• Personal; questions, e.g. “Do you bathe
and wash regularly?”
• Stooge angry, ripped up questionnaire, left
Question
• Which group should be most affected by
the stooge’s behaviour? Based on
Schachter & Singer’s theory and
hypotheses, order the groups from most
angry/happy to least angry/happy: EPI
informed, EPI misinformed, EPI ignorant,
Control group
Procedure for both
• Experimenter returns,
takes pulse
• Participants are
asked to complete a
questionnaire
• Participants are
debriefed
Crucial questions on the
questionnaire
• Euphoric condition: 5 point scale – 0=“I
don’t feel happy at all or good” – 4=“I feel
extremely happy and good”
• Angry condition: 5 point scale – 0=“I don’t
feel at all irritated or angry” – 4=“I feel
extremely irritated and angry”
• The measure of emotion was decided by
deducting the self rating of anger from the
self raing of happiness
Question
1. If you were very happy in this
experiment, would you get a low or a
high score?
2. If you were very angry in this experiment,
would get a low or a high score?
Results table- Euphoric
Condition
Number of P’s
Informed
25
Self report
Happiness
minus anger
.98
Misinformed
25
1.9
Ignorant
25
1.78
Control
25
1.61
Results table – Anger
Condition
Number of P’s
Self-report
(happiness
minus anger)
Informed
22
1.91
Misinformed
0
Ignorant
23
1.39
Control
23
1.63
Question
• Compare the results with your predictions.
To what extent do the results support the
two factor theory of emotion?
Controls
• Double blind – stooge did not know what
condition the participant was in
• Data questionnaire included irrelevant
questions, e.g. current mental health.
Some questions open-ended
• 11 participants expressed suspicion – data
was taken out
Methodological evaluation
+ Participants were
randomly allocated to
different conditions
+ Procedure was
standardized
+ Stooge did not know
which condition the
participant was in
Methodological evaluation
- No assessment of the subjects’
emotional state before the
experiment, or the emotional
effect of receiving an injection
- Experiment lacked ecological
validity. Injection of
epinephrine does not produce
the experience of a true
emotion
- Sample might not be
representative
(male college students taking
introductory psychology at the
university of Minnesota)
Ethical evaluation
-Participants were not
informed about the
purpose of the
experiment
- Participants were
injected epinephrine
without consent
Ethical evaluation
+ Participants were
given health checks
before the experiment
+ Participants were
debriefed after the
experiment
Activity
• Do the multi-choice quiz
and matching quizzes of
the study on:
http://www.holah.karoo
.net/schachter.htm