Table of Contents
Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
The two factor theory of emotion was proposed by William James in his 1890 treatise The Principles of Psychology, and revised over the next few years leading up to its publication in 1904. According to James, emotion experienced by an individual is created through both physiological arousal and psychological interpretation of that arousal. In other words, emotional experience is the result of both what you feel and how you feel about what you feel. In simple terms, your feelings are responsible for the arousal, and your beliefs are responsible for how you interpret it. James summarized this theory with the following example: Suppose I see a bear in the woods.
What is the two factor theory of emotion?
In particular, the theory states that physiological arousal is cognitively interpreted in the context of each situation, ultimately leading to emotional experience. Notably, Schachter and Singer argue that physiological arousal is very similar to the different types of emotions we experience, so a cognitive assessment of the situation is critical to the actual emotions experienced.
It could be argued that men mislabeled their emotions, but only because their physiological arousal and cognitive interpretation were performed in two separate processes. This suggests that participants who were cognitively informed attributed their feelings to the physiological effects of adrenaline, while uninformed or uninformed groups could not make such an attribution and thus interpreted feelings as emotions.
In both cases, neither theory is fully supported because physiological arousal does not appear to be required for emotional experience, but such arousal appears to be associated with an increase in the intensity of emotional experience. Thus, contrary to the James-Lange theory that states that emotions arise from physiological arousal, the theory states that bodily changes can support conscious emotional experiences, but do not necessarily lead to them. In support of the James-Lange theory, there is at least some evidence that arousal is necessary for the experience of emotions and that arousal patterns are different for different emotions.
On the other hand, as predicted by the James-Lange theory, without arousal, our emotional experiences are weaker. In other words, just feeling aroused is not enough; we also have to define arousal in order to feel an emotion.
This is notable in that emotion is a cognitive (albeit subconscious) act rather than a deeper state (it is the seat of arousal). In other words, the experience of an emotion first involves some physiological response, which the mind then identifies.
Both of these processes affect the emotions we feel and express to others. We experience emotional arousal, but it is accompanied by a more complex cognitive appraisal that produces more subtle emotions and behavioral responses. In short, this cognitive labeling is responsible for experiencing the right emotion.
When a person experiences an emotion, they often experience an ambiguous state of physiological arousal, to which the person then assigns a cognitive label that is highly dependent on factors in the person’s environment. When a person experiences a state of arousal for which he has a seemingly plausible explanation, he is unlikely to look for an alternative explanation in the environment. If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have a suitable explanation (for example, if a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate explanation, they will name the state and describe their feelings in terms of their own cognition of disposition at the time.
The idea is that because cognition is a powerful determinant of emotional state, the same physiological arousal state can be labeled in many different ways, depending entirely on the label given by the social context. The James-Lange theory states that each emotion has a different pattern of arousal, whereas the two-factor theory of emotion takes the opposite approach, stating that the arousal we experience is essentially the same for each emotion, and that all emotions (including the base emotion) ) differs only from our cognitive assessment of the source of arousal.
Stanley Schachter, a famous psychologist, proposed a two-factor theory of emotions, according to which people label their emotions depending on the environment and their physiological signals. On the other hand, they argued that people who already have a clear label for their arousal need not look for an appropriate label and therefore should not experience emotion. Schacter and Singer suggested that if people experience an emotion for which they have no explanation, they will label those feelings using their feelings at the time. Schachter and Singer believed that people experience emotions when they feel aroused and have context or stimuli that help them identify and label their feelings.
While there may be more to be explored in terms of identifying the mental and physical processes involved in emotion, Schachter and Singers’ theory brings us closer to the earlier simple explanation. Schachter-Singer theory has been criticized for its reliance on the autonomic nervous system, which suggests that cognitive factors play a role in emotion formation, but does not provide an informative description of the process, especially the role of the central nervous system in this process . However, in contrast to James-Lange theory and Cannon-Bard theory, Schechter-Singer theory states that different emotions can have similar patterns of physiological responses.
In their study of the cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states, Schachter and Singer (1962) demonstrated that cognitive processes play an important role in the development of emotional states” General model of the experimental results of this study This experiment by Schachter and Singer (1962) consistently supports the general formulation of emotion as a function of the state of physiological arousal and associated cognition.
Schechter and Singer believed that the cognitive part of emotions is fundamental, and in fact they believed that the arousal we experience can be interpreted as any emotion, if we have the right name for it. He developed his “cognitive theory” in the 1960s, which indicated that the first step to experiencing an emotion is to assess the situation. Psychologist Magda Arnold made early advances in appraisal theory by suggesting that initial appraisal initiates an emotional sequence, eliciting both appropriate physiological responses and the emotional experience itself. In contrast to the Schachter-Singer theory of emotion, which sees emotion as the result of an interaction between physiological arousal and cognition, Lazarus argued that evaluation precedes cognitive labeling, simultaneously stimulating both physiological arousal and the emotional experience itself.
Lazarus (1991) developed the cognitive media theory that our emotions are determined by our evaluation of a stimulus. This theory still claims that our emotions are determined by our evaluation of a stimulus, but suggests that immediate and unconscious evaluations mediate between stimulus and emotional response. Thus, Miner’s Cognitive Labeling Theory identifies “cognitive attribution”, minds attempting to associate the sensation of arousal with its (inferred) causal pattern in the environment, as the second factor in the two-factor theory of emotion.
The Theory Explained
The Schachter two factor theory of emotion states that our reactions to stimuli are composed of both a primary response, which is fast and instinctive, and a secondary response, which is slower and reasoned. A person who is punched in the face may react instinctively by swinging back at their assailant. This reaction will occur very quickly due to it being an example of a primary response. However, someone who is more thoughtful or learned may respond in different way; they may remember that retaliating will just make things worse. That considered, calculated decision making is an example of a secondary response.
There are two main types of theories on how our emotions work. The first is what we call Schachter two factor theory and says that both appraisal and physiological arousal are required to create an emotion. It assumes that basic emotions such as fear, joy, sadness, surprise or anger can be attributed to a specific pattern in our body language. So when we feel one way or another it is not just a simple feeling, but rather a reaction composed of multiple factors. The other type of theory is what we call one factor theory which says that only physiological arousal is necessary for emotions to occur. One factor theorists say that a person can interpret any sensation as being angry (for example) because it stimulates an alarm system within us just like if there was a real danger situation happening.
Example & Application
The Schachter two factor theory of emotion states that our subjective experiences are dependent on two factors: physiological arousal and cognitive interpretation. In other words, emotions are determined by how we react to a stimulus (i.e., whether we see it as good or bad) and what physical response we have to that stimulus (i.e., whether we feel like it excites us or scares us). By understanding how these two components interact, you can learn more about your own emotional patterns and put them to use in situations where your actions will affect others (e.g., when giving a presentation). This is particularly helpful in personal relationships; learning how each partner processes their emotions can help you find common ground while also steering clear of hurt feelings.
In a famous 1962 study, Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer tested whether the same type of physiological activation (getting an adrenaline rush) could affect people differently depending on the context of the situation. However, they suggested that this arousal was the same for a wide variety of emotions, so physical arousal alone could not be the cause of emotional responses. The Shakhter-Singer two-factor theory of emotions is another version of the theory of emotions that takes into account both physiological arousal and emotional experience.
The theory is that physiological arousal occurs when an emotion is experienced, and that people use their environment to look for emotional cues that indicate physiological arousal. If a person finds himself in a situation that may have caused his emotions in the past, he will only respond emotionally or experience emotions when he is in a state of physiological arousal. If a person experiences a state of arousal that he cannot immediately explain, he names the state and describes how he feels based on the knowledge he currently has available.
In other words, just feeling aroused is not enough; we also have to define arousal in order to feel an emotion. This is notable in that it presents emotion as a cognitive (albeit subconscious) act rather than as a deeper state (it’s the seat of arousal). On the other hand, as predicted by the James-Lange theory, without arousal, our emotional experiences are weaker.
A fundamental aspect of the James-Lange theory is that different patterns of arousal can produce different emotional experiences. However, in contrast to the James-Lange theory and the Cannon-Bard theory, the Schechter-Singer theory states that different emotions can have similar physiological response patterns. In other words, both a physiological response and the evaluation of that response contribute to the experience of an emotion, according to the theory of Schacter and Singeras, and that physiological arousal and cognition must work together in order for someone to perceive an emotion.
In both cases, neither theory was fully supported because physiological arousal did not appear to be required for emotional experience, but such arousal appeared to be associated with an increase in the intensity of emotional experience. Arguably, men mislabeled their emotions, but only because their physiological arousal and cognitive interpretation took place in two separate processes. This suggests that cognitively informed participants attributed their feelings to the physiological effects of adrenaline, whereas ignorant or uninformed groups were unable to make such attributions and therefore interpreted the feelings as emotions.
RELATED: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
When participants who were told they should expect symptoms of physiological arousal were asked about any emotional changes they experienced with euphoria or anger (depending on how the accomplice behaved), none of them reported . A study by Singer and Schachters of two groups of subjects showed that the adrenaline-treated subjects were indeed in a state of physiological arousal, while the placebo-treated subjects were in a normal physiological or non-aroused state. Those subjects who received an adrenaline injection were more emotional on both measures, showing that the first emotion factor, intensity, was the result of internal arousal.
Schachter and Singer suggest that if people experience an emotion they can’t explain, they label those feelings with how they were feeling at the time. Schachter and Singer argue that people experience emotions when they feel excited, and that helps them identify and label the context or stimuli they are feeling. On the other hand, they argue that those who already have a clear label for their arousal do not need to search for the appropriate label and therefore should not experience emotions. Schachter and Singer argue that the cognitive part of emotion is fundamental, in fact, they argue that the arousal we experience can be interpreted as any emotion, as long as we have the right name.
Maranon’s model preceded Schachters’ two-factor theory of emotion or arousal cognition (Cornelius, 1991). Lazarus (1991) developed the cognitive media theory that our emotions are determined by our evaluation of a stimulus. The key idea of appraisal theory is that you have thoughts (cognitive appraisal) before you feel an emotion, and the emotion you experience depends on the thoughts you had (Frijda, 1988; Lazarus, 1991).
Emotions in constructivist theory are predictions that shape your perception of the world. According to Walter Cannon and Philip Bard’s theory of emotion, the experience of emotion (in this case, “I’m afraid”) goes hand in hand with the experience of excitement (“my heart is beating fast”). Added to this is a cognitive label (which associates physical reactions with fear), which is immediately followed by the conscious experience of emotion (fear).
In the example above, the dark, lonely surroundings and the sudden presence of a threatening stranger contribute to the identification of the emotion as fear. Returning to our example of the venomous snake in your garden, the two-factor theory states that the snake triggers the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which in this context is called fear, and our experience is fear.
One of these criticisms is that the Schachter-Singer theory focuses primarily on the autonomic nervous system and does not provide any description of the emotional process in the central nervous system other than indicating the role of cognitive factors. While the James-Lange theory suggests that each emotion has a different pattern of arousal, the two-factor theory of emotion takes the opposite approach, stating that the arousal we experience is fundamentally the same for every emotion and that all emotions (including basic emotions) differ only our cognitive appraisal of the source of arousal.
This theory suggests that people keep in touch with the emotional and physical reactions happening in their bodies. A cognitive process in which people try to interpret this physiological response by looking at their surroundings to see what makes them feel that way.