Schachter & Singer 1962 Part 2

okay. I was trying to stay under the time limit,

but I didn't Didn't work.

Um, so I'm just gonna pick up where I left

off in the second video.

Um, with the procedure.

Like I said, if you want to go into this

in more detail, you're welcome to refer back to my

slides. Um, I posted videos yesterday.

Ah, YouTube videos.

Straight from like a Cambridge approved teacher.

That kind of goes into a little bit more detail

that I'm going into about the procedure.

But I just wanted to kind of give you the

basics, Um, so that this didn't seem like a really

over the top review.

So, um oh, are you know, to in depth to

where it's like, not even to review its a separate

lecture. So, like I said, injection, they were taken to

a room, you know, professional injected them with either epinephrine

or the saline solution.

And then they were, um, led to a room where

there was a stooge.

Remember? The stooges kind of work with the researchers there

in on it.

Um, and in the euphoria condition, it was all happy

go lucky there.

Like you playing games and stuff in the anger condition.

The Stooge was instructed to ask really personal questions to

kind of get the participant worked up and upset.

They asked Really personal odd questions like, Has your dad

cheated on your mom?

You know, things like that.

And then they were given the opportunity to fill out

a self report about their physiological state.

How they felt, Um, you know, giving the researchers all

of that information.

And in the meantime, in the stooge stage, I'll go

back for just a second in the stooge stage.

They were being watched through a mirror to a mirror.

So there were observers in the background who were kind

of keeping track of what the participants were doing and

kind of keeping track of how many thing, you know

in the anger condition in particular, like where these things

actually upsetting them?

Were they getting physically irritated?

Could you tell with their body language were they throwing

things that type of thing?

So there was actually a lot of different methods of

data collection here because they had remember they had collected

physiological evidence or physiological data about their heart rate and

things like that, and then they have the observational data,

and then they have the self report data.

So it wasn't really all in all a very thorough

study. Um, when all was said and done, they did

a lot to go over this, um, and their results.

So after all that, they hand all the data, they

they got all their results and all of their hypotheses

were supported.

They basically said everything we thought was true.

Um, everything that we had proposed actually is the way

that it is.

So when you don't have an explanation for something, So

that would be the people who didn't have an explanation

for what was going on would be people who were

in, um, like the ignorant group.

They weren't told about any side effects that they would

have. So when they were feeling something, um, it wasn't

because they knew what was going on.

It was because they didn't know.

And that was their true and honest reaction.

Um, so they were using some cognition there to determine

how they were feeling.

Whereas Thean formed group on dhe, they knew, Hey, I

might be feeling this way because I had an injection

and one of the side effects of the injection Waas.

You know, what was this heart rate or was this,

you know, trembling.

So that's why I'm feeling what I'm feeling.

They were able to, um, you know, label it differently.

They're still using cognition because they're still saying it's because

of the injection, but they had an explanation for it,

whereas the misinform group had no explanation for it.

Um, and then kind of that third hypothesis of you

have to have some kind of physiological reaction to feel

an emotion.

Um, if you don't have a physiological reaction, there can't

be an emotion.

So they're saying You have to have that increased heart

rate or you have to have that trembling.

You have to have something to indicate that your body

is feeling something, which again, when with the research we

have now really makes sense.

That's one of the things that we've found through.

Like depression research is that it's very difficult for people

with depression to feel any emotion.

Usually, um, because they're not having the same, like physiological

reaction and ah, lot of medications, Um, that that kind

of, you know, one of the side effects.

I'm sure you've heard on medication commercials, drug commercials, side

effects could include thoughts of suicide depression.

That's because what it's doing is it's kind of giving

people a flat affect, meaning that they're not feeling emotion

anymore because they're not having the same highs and lows

of physiological reaction, which leads to less emotional reaction.

So Tractor and singer say everything was supported.

All of our ideas were correct.

And like I said today, we still pretty much agree

with their theory.

Uhm, you know, people have tweaked it and they've said

While you know, these are the only emotions that count

or thes air, the emotions that have these physiological reactions

tied to them there's more emotions than that.

You know, that's not the point here.

The point is that shock turned singer in 1962 came

up with the most widely accepted theory of how emotion

works. Still to this day.

So, um, that was what they found.

And then what does all this mean?

What does it mean to you guys?

What do you have to know, really?

For this kind of with all the s level studies?

Um, the big things is understanding the sample understanding the

not just understanding, but knowing those numbers, how many were

in their sample?

Um, they're sampling.

Method was volunteer.

Um, you know, it was a laboratory study.

They did it in the lab.

They didn't do it on the field.

You know, this was an experiment, a true experiment.

But the features of that they did include a questionnaire

in it.

Like a survey self report survey.

They had observation where they had Raiders who were observing

and collecting data.

Um, they collected quantitative and qualitative data because the observers

were collecting information about what the participants were saying and

doing. Um, the ethics involved here is one big thing

t hit on with Shah, actor and singer.

Um, you know, they were deceived.

You know, they weren't told the true, um, aims of

the study going into it.

They thought it was a vision study.

They were deceived, but they were debrief.

They were told afterwards you know what?

They were really here for, why they were here.

So not that that makes up for it.

Because we should always get informed consent when we can.

It's just in a study like this.

They couldn't.

So you know they couldn't get informed consent and let

the parties but know everything that was going to happen

because that would kind of ruin this study.

So in some cases, we've talked about how studies like

that would get approved even today, sometimes because, um, sometimes

deception is necessary.

So we kind of argued back and forth.

I remember in class because we were discussing while they

got all of their health records through student records, so

they were able to tell like nobody was allergic to

anything like they weren't gonna be harmed, but also is

that an invasion of privacy?

But I believe they actually got permission to get their

health records.

They just said they needed their vision records, so that

might not be so much an invasion of privacy.

Um, but anyway, just understanding the ethics behind this, you

know, hitting on those those key points of ethics, deception,

debriefing, psychological harm.

Well, I'm missing one informed him, son.

Did I say that?

Um, so knowing the ethics of of the study is

something you'd have to know for this for this one.

And also being able to address strengths and weaknesses, so

we haven't done that in a while, but because we've

been focused on a level on a level is less

focused on strengths and weaknesses and more focused on those,

um, issues like, um, cultural bias and direction is, um,

and things like that.

But the equivalent of that is focusing on strengths and

weaknesses and understanding the research methodology.

So is it a strength or weakness that they had

184 participants?

I would say that the strength, that's quite a few

participants. But when we look at their sample, we see

that they're all male.

So not generalize herbal weakness.

Um, we see that they're all from University of Minnesota.

You know, they're all at least currently living in the

same area.

You know, that's not very representative of the United States

or the world.

Um, what else did it say about them?

Oh, they were all in intro to psychology, which means

they all had some kind of interest in psychology to

begin with.

Um, you know, we're not getting a representative sample of

maybe engineering majors or bio majors or whatever.

We're really probably looking at Sykes students or people who

are interested in social sciences.

So things like that are what you'd want to address

with strengths and weaknesses.

You can also address ethics.

You could talk about lab studies, lab studies air.

Good, because they're reliable.

Um, you know, lab studies are not so good because

they're not very realistic.

They don't have that Monday in realism where it's, like

the real world.

Um, you know, they knew they were in a lab,

the participants, so they probably weren't having the most authentic

physiological and emotional reactions.

So these are all things you could address?

Um, in something like the strengths and weaknesses of this

study, another thing that I think you guys should know

is or understand at least, is those seven different conditions

that they were in that the participants could have been

placed in.

I would understand the difference between the mis informed, informed

and ignorant Understand the difference between those who got injected

with the epinephrine and those who got injected with wth

e um, saline, and then understanding the euphoria, condition and

the anger condition And what all those differences are, Um,

other than that, you know, the basics of the procedure.

Like I said, um, what I had talked about is

kind of just the basic outline of the procedure.

You might want to go back and just refresh your

memory of some of those little details.

But for the most part, I don't think that comes

up too often.

Um, and then the results that their hypotheses were all

supported and what that means.

So I kind of already explained that.

But those are the big points from Schachter and Singer.

Those of the key things to know from tractor and

Singer. Hopefully this brought back flooded back.

A lot of those memories from when we actually talked

about this in class.

Um, and hopefully this has been helpful.

If you guys like this Prezi.

King, let me know if you hate this president thing,

let me know.

Um, I might do a couple of these for the

other studies.

I was going to really try to keep it under

that limit, that 15 minute limit so that I wasn't

rambling. But I want to make sure that I thoroughly

explain it enough to where you guys air getting it,

and it's it's worth our time.

So, um, that's what I have for you guys.

Let me know your thoughts on this, Um, and we'll

try later.

Schachter & Singer 1962 Part 2

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated