Study Summary
Schachter, S. and Singer, J.E. (1962), Cognitive, social and physiological
determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review. 69(5). pp. 379–399
Aim
To test the two-factor theory of emotion that suggests that emotion comes from a combination
of a state of arousal and a cognition that makes best sense of the situation a person is in.
Method

Laboratory Experiment

Self-report method

Observational method
Independent measures design
Procedure
The sample consisted of Minnesota University college students who agreed to be injected with
a vitamin injection with a fake name ‘suproxin’ and made to believe that the researchers were
interested in looking at the function of vitamin injections on visual skills.
The participants were divided into four different experimental groups:
1. Adrenalin Ignorant - not told of the effects of the adrenalin injection.
2. Adrenalin Informed - warned of the correct effects of the adrenalin injection.
3. Adrenalin Misinformed – warned of the incorrect symptoms of the adrenalin injection.
4. Placebo Group – injected with a placebo solution and not told what to expect.
The participants were then exposed to two different conditions where there was always a
confederate or stooge to excite the participants into acting either angrily or happily. The
participants were not aware that the stooge was part of the experiment. After being injected
with adrenalin they were placed in a room with a stooge whom they thought was also waiting
for the experiment to start, when actually the experiment had already began.
The two conditions the participants were placed into were:
1. The euphoria condition: the room contained items such as paper, rubber bands,
pencils and manila folders which the stooge would begin to play with and invite the
participant to join in.
2. The anger condition: they are given a five-page questionnaire to fill in while they
‘waited for the experiment to begin’. The stooge made rehearsed comments about the
questions which were mild at first and then they become increasingly irritating to the
point of throwing a tantrum and walking out of the room. The stooge was always
making attempts to make the participants agree with him.
The researchers use both observations and self-report questionnaires to collect data.
Observations are done through a one way mirror on a series of categorised events (event
sampling) and the questionnaires are given at the end of the study for feedback about the
emotions and moods they have experienced in the study.
Results

In the euphoria condition the happiest group was the misinformed group, followed by
the ignorant group, the placebo group and lastly the informed group.

In the anger condition, the angriest group was the ignorant group, then the placebo
group, followed by the misinformed group and lastly the informed group.
Evaluation

The study has a high amount of control which helps reduce the confounding variables,
standardise the procedures for all participants and show clear cause and effect.

The researchers use a large number of students but the sample contains only male
participants which makes it biased and unrepresentative. The findings can be
generalised to a similar population of students and not to a wider population.

The researchers attempt to uphold ethics by checking the medical records of the
students before the adrenalin injections are given. They however violate other ethics
such as informed consent, deception and physical harm. The participants are not aware
that they are being injected with adrenalin and are deceived to think the stooge is a
participant in the study.

The study is also reductionist because it focuses mainly on the two-factor theory of
emotion and ignores other theories and factors that arouse emotions.

There is low ecological validity because the study is conducted in an artificial
environment and uses adrenalin injections to create arousal.

The face validity of the items used to measure euphoria are questionable because
these are college students being invited to play games with rubber bands, hula hoops
and manila folders.
Must Know!!!
Refer to the original study for accurate and detailed responses.
1. Describe two-factor theory of emotion.
2. Describe earlier theories on emotion and how they differed from the twofactor theory on emotion.
3. How was each of these factors manipulated in the study?
4. Describe the participants in the study and why attrition may have occurred
in the study.
5. What three hypotheses were tested in the study and were they proven in
the results?
6. Describe how the subjects were divided into groups based on the
information given to them.
7. Describe in detail both the euphoria and the anger situations.
8. There is a lot of deception in the study. Explain.
9. What is the usefulness of the stooge in this research? Describe step by
step what the stooge was required to do in the euphoria situation.
10. Give four examples of questions asked on the questionnaire given in the
anger situation.
11. Why was the Epi misinformed group not included in the anger situation?
12. Describe the self-reports (likert scale and open-ended questions) used to
collect data about mood and they physiological effects of adrenaline.
13. Describe the observational categories in both the euphoria and anger
situations.
14. What was the amount of adrenalin given and what are the effects of
adrenalin to a human being.
15. Describe the quantitative results of the observations and self-reports in the
study (see tables in original study).
16. The study is highly questioned in terms of its ecological validity. Explain.
17. Provide the strengths and weaknesses of using your students as subjects in
a study.