1. Head in the clouds
Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
Schachter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
= the experience of emotion is based on two factors:
1. Physiological arousal (does not differentiate among emotions)
Person must experience the symptoms of physiological arousal; racing heart and rapid
breathing
2. Cognitive interpretation of that arousal (cognitions label the arousal and determine which
emotion is experienced)
Peron must make a cognitive interpretation that explains the source of the arousal
Experiment Schachter:
Conducted an experiment in which they injected male volunteers with epinephrine, a drug that
heightens physiological arousal.
Group 1: arousing injection, informed
Group 2: injection, not informed
Group 3: placebo
Confederate in waiting room, trying to provoke positive or negative emotions.
Results:
Drug-uninformed: reported feeling relatively happy or angry depending on the confederate’s
performance
Drug-informed and placebo: less influenced by the social cues of the confederate, as they did
not need to search for an explanation of their physiological symptoms that were caused by
the drug.
Conclusion:
When people are unclear about their own emotional states, they sometimes interpret how they
feel by watching others.
Two requirements:
For other people to influence your emotion, your level of physiological arousal cannot be too
intense or else it will be experienced as aversive, regardless of the situation.
Other people must be present as a possible explanation for arousal before its onset. Once
people are aroused, they turn for an explanation to events that preceded the change in their
physiological state.
Excitation-Transfer Model
Excitation-Transfer Model (Zillmann)
= the expression of any emotion [aggression] is a function of…
1) A learned behavior [aggressive behavior]
2) Arousal or excitation from another source [an annoying driver earlier on the day]
3) The person’s interpretation of the arousal state [an aggressive response seems appropriate]
Excitation transfer = the process whereby arousal caused by one stimulus is added to arousal from a
second stimulus, and the combined arousal is attributed to the second stimulus.
Dutton & Aron (1974): bridge experiment
Two locations: 1) a high, unstable, unsafe bridge. 2) low, rather stable and safe bridge
Men experience arousal caused by the height of the bridge (first stimulus) and arousal caused by the
attractive female interviewer (second stimulus). Both feeling of arousal are then added, and as a
result, this combined arousal is only attributed to the attractive female interviewer (second stimulus).
,Result: the arousal from the first stimulus is misattributed to the second stimulus.
Residual excitation = arousal caused by a first stimulus that is transferred to a later moment:
Residual excitement from previous arousing stimulus intensifies later emotional state
Example: student went to the gym, which has caused a high level of excitation (increased
heart rate, blood pressure and muscle tremor). Later, in the supermarket, another
customer’s car sneaks forward into the targeted parking space of the student. Although this
event might ordinarily be mildly annoying, this time the residual excitation from the gym
session triggers verbal abuse from the student.
Emotional Lability
Schachter has suggested that emotions may be labile = sometimes cognitions precede arousal, but at
other times arousal may occur that prompts a search of the immediate environment for possible
causes.
Emotional liability is particularly high when people are seeking for an explanation of the arousal
they experience (see drug-experiment).
Misattribution paradigm (Valins, 1966)
= emotions depend on what cognitive label the arousal is assigned to (interpretation).
Physiological arousal can be perceived to stem from a source that is not actually the cause of the
arousal, which may have implications for the emotions one experiences.
If emotions depend on what cognitive label is assigned, then it might be possible to transform
emotions by reattributing arousal.
People who feel anxious and bad about themselves because they attribute arousal internally are
encouraged to attribute arousal to external factors.
Example: a shy person can be encouraged to attribute the arousal associated with meeting
new people to ordinary environmental causes, rather than to personality deficiencies and
thus no longer feel shy.
Self-perception Theory (Bem, 1967)
= the idea that we gain knowledge of ourselves only by making self-attributions: for example, we
infer our own attitudes from our own behavior.
Emotion Models
James-Lange Theory of emotion
= The theory that the subjective experience of emotion is the awareness of one’s own bodily
reactions in the presence of certain arousing stimuli.
Why emotions feel different form one another subjectively: we sense the different
physiological patterns produced by each emotion.
Emotion begins when we perceive a situation of an appropriate sort:
o Our perception of these events is “purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute
of emotional warmth”.
o Our awareness of the bodily changes produced by the arousing stimuli, turns this
perception into genuine emotion.
o From cold appraisal, to emotional feeling.
We feel fear because we are experiencing the pattern of bodily changes associated with fear.
Behavior and physiology are crucial for emotional experience.
Cannon-Bard Theory of emotion
,= The theory that a stimulus elicits an emotion by triggering a particular response in the brain (in the
thalamus) which then causes both the physiological changes associated with the emotion and the
emotional experience itself.
Our physiological responses are quite general.
It’s not easy to distinguish the bodily changes associated with different emotions: the bodily
changes associated with anger are actually rather similar to the changes associated with
happy excitement.
Schachter-Singer Theory of emotion
= The theory that emotional experience results from the interpretation of bodily responses in the
context of situational cues.
Emotion depends on a person’s judgments about why her body and physiology have
changed.
Emotion models:
, 2. Whodunnit?
Learning goals:
1. Why do people help/not help?
2. How does being in a group affect decision making?
3. How do characteristics of people affect helping behavior?
Factors that inhibit helping behavior:
Helping behavior is influenced by the factors of our personalities, our social environment and
situational factors
People fail to analyze/interpret ambiguous situations the right way, which leads to failure in
helping
Cultural differences: individualistic cultures are less likely to help than collectivistic cultures
Types of behavior:
Prosocial behavior = acts that are positively valued by society.
Helping behavior = acts that intentionally benefit someone else.
Altruism = a special form of helping behavior, sometimes costly, that shows concern for
fellow human beings and is performed without expectation of personal gain.
The Bystander Effect
The Bystander Effect
= The tendency for people to help less when they know others are present and capable of helping.
People are less likely to help when in groups, rather than alone.
Bystander intervention = an individual breaks out of the bystander’s role and helps another
person in an emergency situation
Bystander apathy = an individual remains in his role of the bystander and does not help
another person in an emergency situation
Latané and Darley: smoke experiment
Participants were asked to make a questionnaire, but during this time, the room filled with white
smoke.
Situation 1: participant was alone in the room
Situation 2: three-person group; one participant and two confederates who ignored the smoke
Situation 3: three-person group; three participants
Results:
Situation 1: alone, 75% of the participants left the room within the time limit of 6 minutes
Situation 2: only 10% of the participants reported the smoke
Situation 3: only 15% of the participants reported the smoke
Explanations Bystander effect:
1) Pluralistic ignorance (social ignorance)
o Misunderstanding in groups, where people do not realize that others share their
perception of a situation (share uncertainty of how to react)
o Leads to inaction (taking others inactivity as cue to do nothing)
2) Audience inhibition/fear of social blunders
Normative influence does not enjoin bystanders to help strangers:
o In most cultures it is not “normal” to interact with others whom you do not know.
o People actively avoid doing anything that may lead to embarrassment (afraid to look
foolish).