On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Gary Peterson wrote:
> 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
>
Here are a few things I know, mostly old stuff. First, replications
("attempts to confirm", according to our recent discussion of this
term?) were carried out by Maslach (1979) and by Marshall and Zimbardo
(1979). Maslach reported a failure to confirm. However, she used
hypnosis to induce arousal, which is a problematic procedure in my
opinion. The results may just have reflected the suggestibility of the
subjects of her experiment.
Marshall and Zimbardo used epinephrine, but their ethics committee
disallowed the use of the anger condition (BTW, it always seemed to me
that the original induction of anger in Schacter's study was more a
joke than a real attempt to create anger: their "insulting
questionnaire" is really funny.)
Marshall and Zimbardo also reported a failure to find. Schacter and
Singer (1979) criticized both studies. They particularly complained
about the dose of epinephrine used by M & Z, finding it much too high.
But for me the curious thing was that M&Z had actually reported
results very close to those of S&S: same results, different
interpretation. The original S&S theory was so beautiful that everyone
wanted it to be true, and so ignored the data. But as the post from
Marty Bourgeois points out, which just came through as I'm typing
this, their own evidence was always tenuous. If you look at the
original, you can see that they never demonstrated their primary
point, which was that a state of arousal is necessary in order to
experience an emotion.
They knew this, which is why they tried again with the Schacter and
Wheeler study which Marty referred to (and which is also
unsatisfactory, in my opinion). But everyone else conveniently forgot.
Stephen
References
Marshall, G., & Zimbardo, P. (1979) Affective consequences of
inadequately explained physiological arousal. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 970-98.
Maslach, C. (1979). Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 953-969.
Schacter, S., & Singer, J. (1979). Comments on the Maslach and
Marshall-Zimbardo experiments. JPSP, 37, 989-995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
