Table of ContentsView AllTable of ContentsDefinitionThe ExperimentExamplesCriticismMore Theories
Table of ContentsView All
View All
Table of Contents
Definition
The Experiment
Examples
Criticism
More Theories
Close
According to the Schachter-Singertheory of emotion, developed in 1962, there are two key components of an emotion: physical arousal and a cognitive label. In other words, the experience of emotion involves first having some kind of physiological response which the mind then identifies.
Verywell / Cindy Chung
What Is the Two-Factor Theory?
The two-factor theory of emotion focuses on the interaction between physicalarousaland how we cognitively label that arousal. In other words, simply feeling arousal is not enough; we also must identify the arousal in order to feel the emotion.
The immediate environment also plays an important role in how physical responses are identified and labeled. In the example above, the dark, lonely setting and the sudden presence of an ominous stranger contributes to the identification of the emotion as fear.
What would happen if you were walking toward your car on a bright sunny day and an elderly woman began to approach you? Rather than feeling fear, you might interpret your physical response as something like curiosity or concern if the woman seemed to be in need of assistance.
Schachter and Singer’s Experiment
In a 1962 experiment, Schachter and Singer put their theory to the test. A group of 184 male participants was injected withepinephrine, a hormone that produces arousal including increased heartbeat, trembling, and rapid breathing.
All of the participants were told that they were being injected with a new drug to test their eyesight. However, one group of participants was informed of the possible side-effects that the injection might cause while the other group of participants was not. Participants were then placed in a room with another participant who was actually a confederate in the experiment.
The confederate either acted in one of two ways: euphoric or angry. Participants who had not been informed about the effects of the injection were more likely to feel either happier or angrier than those who had been informed.
Those who were in a room with the euphoric confederate were more likely to interpret the side effects of the drug as happiness, while those exposed to the angry confederate were more likely to interpret their feelings as anger.
Schacter and Singer had hypothesized that if people experienced an emotion for which they had no explanation, they would then label these feelings using their feelings at the moment.
The results of the experiment suggested that participants who had no explanation for their feelings were more likely to be susceptible to the emotional influences of the confederate.
Examples of the Two-Factor Theory
The following are everyday examples in which the Schachter-Singer theory may be applied:
Each example demonstrates a stimulus (being called into your boss’s office, seeing an old friend, and walking to your car, respectively) that results in a physical response based on your assessment of the situation (sweating, rapid heart rate, and trembling).
Based on your cognitive assessment of the event, you label your feelings (anxious, excited, nervous, or fearful).
As you can see, cognitive labeling is open to interpretation, depending on the context. You might be anxious about speaking with your boss, until you realize they have good news. You might be fearful about hearing footsteps in the parking lot, until you realize you aren’t in danger.
Criticism of the Two-Factor Theory
While Schachter and Singer’s research spawned a great deal of further research, their theory has also been subject to criticism. Other researchers have only partially supported the findings of the original study and have at times shown contradictory results.
The results suggested that unexplained physical arousal was more likely to generate negative emotions no matter which type of confederate condition they were exposed to.
Other criticisms of the two-factor theory include, sometimes emotions are experienced before we think about them. Other researchers have supported James-Lange’s initial suggestion that there are actual physiological differences between emotions.
Other Theories of Emotion
Similar to the Schacter-Singer theory, the James-Lange theory proposes that an emotion occurs as a result of arousal. In other words, if we aren’t physically aroused, our emotional response will be weakened.
William James is quoted as saying, “We feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble.”
However, unlike the Schacter-Singer theory, The James-Lange theory posits that different types of arousal create different emotional experiences.
For instance, many people experience rapid heart rate and sweating when they’re scared. But other physical responses, such as a slowed heart rate and relaxed muscles, indicate other emotions such as peacefulness and relaxation.
The Schacter-Singer theory, on the other hand, maintains that it is not the specific physical response that dictates the emotions that are felt—it is the cognitive label that we put on our response to stimuli that ultimately determines the emotion.
Unlike the Schacter-Singer theory, which proposes that a physical response precedes feeling the emotion, the Cannon-Bard theory suggests we experience physical and emotional responses at precisely the same time.
In other words, if someone cuts you off in traffic and you almost hit them, you’ll experience sweating and a rapid heart rate at the exact same time as you experience the emotion of fear.
5 SourcesVerywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.Dror OE.Deconstructing the “two factors”: The historical origins of the Schachter–Singer theory of emotions.Emotion Review. 2016;9(1):7-16. doi:10.1177/1754073916639663Marshall GD, Zimbardo PG.Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1979;37(6):970-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.970Maslach, C.Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37: 953–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.953D’Hondt F, Lassonde M, Collignon O, et al.Early brain-body impact of emotional arousal.Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:33. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00033James W.What is an emotion? The emotions, Vol 1.:11-30. doi:10.1037/10735-001Additional ReadingSchachter, S. and Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional states.Psychological Review. 1962; 69: 379-399Reisenzein, R. The Schachter theory of emotion: Two decades later.Psychological Bulletin. 1983; 94:239-264.
5 Sources
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.Dror OE.Deconstructing the “two factors”: The historical origins of the Schachter–Singer theory of emotions.Emotion Review. 2016;9(1):7-16. doi:10.1177/1754073916639663Marshall GD, Zimbardo PG.Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1979;37(6):970-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.970Maslach, C.Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37: 953–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.953D’Hondt F, Lassonde M, Collignon O, et al.Early brain-body impact of emotional arousal.Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:33. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00033James W.What is an emotion? The emotions, Vol 1.:11-30. doi:10.1037/10735-001Additional ReadingSchachter, S. and Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional states.Psychological Review. 1962; 69: 379-399Reisenzein, R. The Schachter theory of emotion: Two decades later.Psychological Bulletin. 1983; 94:239-264.
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
Dror OE.Deconstructing the “two factors”: The historical origins of the Schachter–Singer theory of emotions.Emotion Review. 2016;9(1):7-16. doi:10.1177/1754073916639663Marshall GD, Zimbardo PG.Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1979;37(6):970-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.970Maslach, C.Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37: 953–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.953D’Hondt F, Lassonde M, Collignon O, et al.Early brain-body impact of emotional arousal.Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:33. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00033James W.What is an emotion? The emotions, Vol 1.:11-30. doi:10.1037/10735-001
Dror OE.Deconstructing the “two factors”: The historical origins of the Schachter–Singer theory of emotions.Emotion Review. 2016;9(1):7-16. doi:10.1177/1754073916639663
Marshall GD, Zimbardo PG.Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1979;37(6):970-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.970
Maslach, C.Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37: 953–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.953
D’Hondt F, Lassonde M, Collignon O, et al.Early brain-body impact of emotional arousal.Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:33. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00033
James W.What is an emotion? The emotions, Vol 1.:11-30. doi:10.1037/10735-001
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional states.Psychological Review. 1962; 69: 379-399Reisenzein, R. The Schachter theory of emotion: Two decades later.Psychological Bulletin. 1983; 94:239-264.
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional states.Psychological Review. 1962; 69: 379-399
Meet Our Review Board
Share Feedback
Was this page helpful?Thanks for your feedback!What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
Was this page helpful?
Thanks for your feedback!
What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
What is your feedback?
