Well, the whole line of research on misattribution of arousal (sometimes
assumed under the more general term excitation transfer) is based on
Schachter's two-factor model. I don't know about problems with replication,
but descriptions of the study over the years (in textbooks, etc.) have
become quite removed from the original. Results were fairly weak; the effect
only showed up when Schachter did an internal analysis, eliminating all the
Ss who didn't show physiological response to the epinephrine, and even then
the effects were quite small. There was another study that came out about
the same time, authored by Schachter & Ladd Wheeler, that showed stronger
effects and also included a group that got chlorpromazine (in addition to
the epinephrine group) that for some reason hasn't had quite the influence
of the much weaker Schachter & Singer study. If you can't find any newer
refs using misattribution of arousal as a search term, let me know & I'll
include a few references.
Marty Bourgeois
University of Wyoming
> ----------
> From: Gary Peterson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 2:29 PM
> To: tips
> Subject: schacter and singer replications?
>
> Tipsters, is anyone aware of more recent info regarding the status of the
> classical Schacter and Singer study on arousal and attribution? My
> psycinfo
> searches revealed little. I vaguely recall problems with actual
> replication
> of this study. However, while the idea of undifferentiated arousal was
> mistaken, I thought the role of contextually induced attribution for the
> arousal was established. Anyone with more recent references? I want to
> update my coverage of this classic next semester. Thanks for any info.
> Searchingly, Gary Peterson
>
>
> Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
> Professor, Department of Psychology
> Saginaw Valley State University
> University Center, MI 48710
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1-517-790-4491
>
>
>
