Schachter-Singer s Study

The Schacter and Singer experiment was designed to put the theory to the test. The study s use of 184 white male college students drew criticism because it revealed ethnic and gender bias. A laboratory experiment, self-reports, behavioral observations through a one-way mirror, and questionnaires were all part of the study s methodology. It was an independent group design with two independent variables (IV) that we will describe in greater detail because understanding them will help you identify the factors and hypothesis (prepositions) of the theory being tested.

The two IVs have physiological and psychological components. The participants in the experiment were given an injection of either epinephrine (Epi) or sapne (placebo). However, they were told it was a drug (Suproxine) to test their vision (physiological aspect). The psychological aspect involved placing those participants in either a euphoric or an angry classroom. A confederate (stooge) joined the participant and performed scripted displays of euphoric or angry behavior to see if the participants would succumb to the stooge (. The study is ethically questionable because the participants were duped significantly despite receiving debriefing and health checks before the study. It is important to note, however, that deception was a part of the plan.

Participants in the euphoric classroom who were not informed of the symptoms reported higher levels of euphoria than those who were. In the Anger condition, the ignorant group was the most enraged, followed by the placebo group. The informed group was the least angry, demonstrating that participants were more susceptible to the stooge because they had no explanation for the PA. Because there was significant data in the results, Schachter and Singer argue that all three prepositions were supported.

Results of the Study

According to the Schachter-Singer theory, if participants were unaware of the drug s effects, they would feel happy (or angry). They would assume that the social environment was the cause of their illnesses because they had no explanation.

Schachter and Singer s theory was confirmed in the rendition of the study in which respondents were intentionally made to feel euphoric: those who were not informed of the drug s true effects showed higher rates of euphoria (i.e., increased percentages of happiness and decreased rates of rage) than those who were. Although the results of the study in which participants were made to feel angry were less conclusive (participants did not feel particularly angry regardless of how the confederate behaved), the researchers did find that participants who were unaware of the potential side effects of the drug were more pkely to exhibit the confederate s aggressive behavior (for example, by accepting his views that the questionnaire was irritating). In other words, participants looked to the confederate s conduct to determine how they felt when they experienced unexplainable physical sensations (such as a racing heart and shaking).

Criticism

Critics have questioned the empirical evidence for Schachter s theory and the theory itself. Zajonc argued that cognition is not a necessary cause of emotions, as Schachter claimed. Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc demonstrated that mere (repeated) exposure to stimup increased pking for those stimup, even when the stimup were presented subpminally, preventing conscious identification. This and other arguments led Zajonc to conclude that cognition is not required for effect.

Conclusion

According to the Schachter-Singer theory, both physiological and cognitive processes contribute to emotions. Schachter and Singer famously tested in 1962 whether subjects would react differently to an adrenapne dose based on their situation. Even if the subsequent research has only sometimes corroborated Schachter and Singer s conclusions, their idea has had a significant impact and served as an inspiration for numerous other researchers.