Hockenbury Discovering Psychology 5th txtbk

358 CHAPTER 8 Motivation and EmotionSay “Cheese!” Here’s a simple test of thefacial feedback hypothesis. In a cleverstudy by Fritz Strack and his colleagues(1988), participants who held a pen betweentheir teeth (left) thought that cartoonswere funnier than participants whoheld a pen between their lips (right). Howdoes this finding support the facial feedbackhypothesis?Research on the facial feedback hypothesis also supports the notion that ourbodily responses affect our subjective experience. The facial feedback hypothesisstates that expressing a specific emotion, especially facially, causes us to subjectivelyexperience that emotion. Supporting this are studies showing that when peoplemimic the facial expressions characteristic of a given emotion, such as anger or fear,they tend to report feeling the emotion (Duclos & others, 1989; Flack & others,1999; Schnall & Laird, 2003).The basic explanation for this phenomenon is that the facial muscles send feedbacksignals to the brain. In turn, the brain uses this information to activate and regulateemotional experience, intensifying or lessening emotion (Izard, 1990a,1990b). In line with this explanation, Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson (1993)demonstrated that deliberately creating a “happy” smile produces brain-activitychanges similar to those caused by spontaneously producing a happy smile inresponse to a real event. Collectively, the evidence for the facial feedback hypothesisadds support for aspects of the James–Lange theory.facial feedback hypothesisThe view that expressing a specific emotion,especially facially, causes the subjective experienceof that emotion.two-factor theory of emotionSchachter and Singer’s theory that emotionis the interaction of physiological arousaland the cognitive label that we apply to explainthe arousal.cognitive appraisal theory of emotionThe theory that emotional responses aretriggered by a cognitive evaluation.Cognitive Theories of EmotionA second theory of emotion, proposed by Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer, wasinfluential for a short time. Schachter and Singer (1962) agreed with James thatphysiological arousal is a central element in emotion. But they also agreed with Cannonthat physiological arousal is very similar for different emotions. Thus, arousalalone would not produce an emotional response.Instead, Schachter and Singer proposed that we cognitively label physiologicalarousal as a given emotion based on our appraisal of a situation. Thus, according tothe two-factor theory of emotion, illustrated in Figure 8.12, emotion is the resultof the interaction of physiological arousal and the cognitive label we use to explainour stirred-up state.Schachter and Singer (1962) tested their theory in a clever, but flawed, experiment.Male volunteers were injected with epinephrine, which produces sympatheticnervous system arousal: accelerated heartbeat, rapid breathing, trembling, and soforth. One group was informed that their symptoms were caused by the injection,but the other group was not given this explanation.One at a time, the volunteers experienced a situation that was designed to beeither irritating or humorous. Schachter and Singer predicted that the subjects whowere informed that their physical symptoms were caused by the drug injectionwould be less likely to attribute their symptoms to an emotion caused by the situation.Conversely, the subjects who were not informed that their physical symptomswere caused by the drug injection would label their symptoms as an emotion producedby the situation.