登録は簡単!. 無料です
または 登録 あなたのEメールアドレスで登録
Core Study Breakdown により Mind Map: Core Study Breakdown

1. Apparatus

1.1. The materials from the eophoria situation

1.2. Paper questionnaries

1.3. the injections

2. Participant Group

2.1. Epi informed

2.2. Epi Ignorant

2.3. Epi misinformed

2.4. Saline

3. Name of the study

3.1. Cognitive,Social, and Physiological Determinats of Emotional State

4. Category

4.1. Biology

5. Author(s) and year

5.1. Stanley Schachter (19) and Jerome E. Singer(

6. Background of study

6.1. Why was it done?

6.1.1. This study was done to prove the two-factor theory which is ( for an emotion to be experienced, a physiological state of arousal is necessary and situational factors will determine how we interpret this arousal)

6.2. The assumtion taht every emtoion has a distinct physoiological state created psychologist to assess the role of psychological factors and how we experience them.

7. Aims of Study and Hypothesis

7.1. Hypothesis: In any case it is our basic asumption that emotional states are a function of the interaction of such cognitive fcators with a state of physiological arousal

7.2. Aim 1: Given a state of phsiological arousal for which an individual has no immidiate explaination, he will "label" this sate and describe his feelings in terms of conitions available to him

7.3. Aim 2:Given a state of physiological arousal for which an individual has a completely appropriate explanation (e.g.," I feel this way because I have just received an injection of adrenalin") no evaluative needs will arise and the individual is unlikely to label his feelings in terms of the alternative conditions available.

7.4. Aime 3: Given the same cognitive circumstances, the individual will react emotionally or describe his feelings as emotions only to the extent that he experiences a state if physiological arousal.

8. Resarch Method

8.1. Type of experiment: Lab experiment with independent measures

8.1.1. There were two independent variables:

8.1.1.1. The information about the injection given to the subject

8.1.1.2. The situation they are put in (euphoria and anger sitation

8.1.2. The dependent variable

8.1.2.1. Particapants emotinal state

8.2. Sampling of participants: voluntary

8.3. Ethics: Informed consent

8.4. Correlations:

8.5. Self-reports

8.5.1. questionaries:closed questions

9. Data collection process

9.1. Resarchers gathered quantatative data with the closed questionnaires and self-reports that they gave out

10. Procedure

10.1. As soon as a subect has arrived, he was taken to a private room and told by the experimentor that the aim of the experiment was "to look at the effects of vitamin injections on visual skill' and asked if he would mind having an injection of 'Surproxin'

10.1.1. 184 out of 196 suject agreed

10.2. The experimenter then leaves the room and in a few minutes a pysician enters the room briefly repeats the experimenters instructions, takes the subject' pulse and then in jects him with Suproxin.

10.2.1. Depending upon condition, the subject receives one of two surproxin-epinephrine or placebo.

10.2.1.1. As far as the suject is concerned the major subjective symtoms are palpitation, tremor, and sometimes a feeling of flushing and accelerated breathing( epinephrine/ adrenalin)

10.2.1.1.1. Begin in three minutes and last from ten minutes to an hour

10.2.1.2. Placebo had no side effects

10.3. Subject were then put in one of four experimental conditions: Adrenalin ignorant, Adrenalin informed, control groupand adrenalin misinformed.

10.3.1. 1.Adrenalin ignorant- subjects were given an adrenalin injection and not told of the effects

10.3.2. 2. Adrenalin informed- Subjects were given an adrenalin injection and warned of the "side effects"( your hand will start to shake, your heart will start to pound, and your face may get warm and flushed)

10.3.3. 3. Adrenalin misinformed- sunhjects were given an adrenalin injection and told to expect side effects but were told these (what will probally happen is that your feet will feel numb, you will have an itching sensation over parts of your body, and you may get an slight headache.)

10.3.4. 4.Control Group- Placebo- Subjects were given an injection that would have no side effects and were given no instructions of what to expect

10.3.5. Adrenalin misinformed- Subjects were given an adrenalin injection and told to expect side effects

10.4. Subjects put in th Euphoria condition

10.4.1. The room was not tidy and as the reasarcher left he apologized and told them that they could use the paper, rubber bands and pencils that were lying around the room. When the expirimentor left the stooge introduced himself and then began his routine by playing with the items while encouraging for the participants to join.

10.5. Subjects put in the Anger condition.

10.5.1. Participants were also with a stooge and they were asked to spend 20 minutes to complete a questionarie. The questionaries started inoccently enough but then grew increasingly personal and insulting , while they were answering these the stooge routine comensed

10.6. Mesurment: Two types of measurment were collected

10.6.1. Self-reports

10.6.1.1. Prticipants were asked to take a questionnarie rating how the felt

10.6.2. Observation

10.6.2.1. Althought they doid not know it particaipants were being c=watched

11. G..R.A.V.E

11.1. G- Low because it did not include woman and did not include people from outside of the school/ from around the world( basically did not have a high variety of people)

11.2. R- High because the study was taken place in a lab experiment and because it had high controls such as the treatement that was given to different groups

11.3. A- Mediumto high because only psychologist or medical would use this for learning purposesand not many people would use this however I think that this is something really valuable because I now know that I/we can have control over life and describe feelings better

11.4. V- Low because the study was taken in a lab experiment which has low ecological validity, therefore it is not really realistic. Also because the study did not have a variety participants which lacked ecological validity

11.5. E- Medium because conset about the injection was used however they were not told about certain things in the experiment like being injected with an unknown "drug"

12. Results

12.1. Euphoria situation

12.1.1. Misinformed: Happiest

12.1.2. Ignorant:second happiest

12.1.3. Informed: least happiest

12.2. Anger situation

12.2.1. Ignorant: not so angry

12.2.2. Informed: angriest

13. Conclusions

13.1. Schacter and Singer argue that their findings support their two-factor theory of emotion which states that the phsiological arousal in diffent emotion is entirly the same and we label it according to the cognitions we have available. Also that all three propositions were supported

14. Strengths

14.1. The amount of control in their procedure such as how the stooge behaved

14.2. Large number of participants

15. Weakness

15.1. Lacked ecological validity

15.2. Had bad sampling because the particapants were all male college students, taking classes in introductory psychology at Minisota University

15.3. 5 subjects were excluded because they experienced no physiological symtoms

15.4. No assessments was made of subjects' mood before injection

15.5. Results were not impressive as expected

16. Ethnical Considerations

16.1. Consent was given but was not told about the surproxin

17. Application to everyday life

17.1. When people have no immediate explaination for the physiological arousal they experience.This could be used in hospitals when patients (espesiaclly children) are given drugs that might have some side effcts that are not desiralble.

17.2. Its is uesful to know waht people describe

18. Individual and Situational explainantions

18.1. The individual explanation is

19. Nature VS. Nurture

19.1. Nature:cognitive coponents

19.2. Nurture: physiological mechanisms

19.3. Although the study did not focus on the nature vs. nurture it show sthat their would be an interaction between the two

20. Ethnics/cuse of children or animal consideration

20.1. None