biological approach of psychology

1. The Biological
Approach

2. Biological Psychology
Physiological psychologists are interested in how our Biology affects our psychology. They
look , for example, at the role that genetics, brain functions, hormones and
neurotransmitters have on our behaviour.
Many psychological psychologists believe that our behaviour can be explained via biological
mechanisms.
However, others ,; believe that there may be an interaction between the two.
Areas of interest include origins of mental disorders, treatments of mental disorders, sleep,
circadian rhythms and localisation of brain function (that is, which parts of the brain are
responsible for different behaviours).

3. The Core studies we are going to go through to illustrate and explain the Biological
Approach of psychology are :
Canli et al (Brain scans and emotions) 2000
Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) 1957
Schachter and Singer (two factor in emotion)1962
The main research methods in this Biological approach are laboratory experiments and
brain scanning techniques.
These are the two assumptions that you are expected to know :
1. Behaviour, cognitions and emotions can be explained in terms of the working of the brain
and the effect of hormones.
2. Similarities and differences between people can be understood in terms of biological
factors.

4. Assumptions ● Emotions, behaviours and cognitions are
controlled by the biological system and
processes such as evolution, genes, the
nervous system and hormones
● Emotions, behaviours and cognitions can be
investigated by manipulating and measuring
biological responses, such as eye
movements, brain activity and pulse rate

5. Turhan Canli, William Dement,
Stanley Schachter, Jerome
Singer

6. Schachter and Singer (1962)
Two factor theory of Emotion

7. What is emotion?
Subjective experience
Set of physiological changes involving the nervous system and the
endocrine system
Associated behaviour

8. Ideas have changed
over time ..
● Emotion is possible without
cognitive appraisal, Zajonc (1980)
● Emotion is possible without
physiological arousal, Valins
(1966)
● It is possible without facial
expression, Leventhal (1980)

9. The Psychology being
investigated
The Two Factor Theory of Emotion
● When someone experiences an emotion - physiological arousal occurs
● The person uses the environment to search for cues to label the physiological
arousal
● An emotional experience is a combination of physiological arousal and
cognitive interpretation

10. The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
Physiological
Arousal
Cognitive
Interpretation
Emotional
Experience

11. The Background
Cognition – mental processes of acquiring and processing knowledge.
Emotion – the body’s adaptive response to a particular situation.
Metacognition – thinking about thinking.
Cognition interprets our physiological state so that we can label our emotional responses.
During physiological arousal, your heart and respiration rate increases, pupils dilate, and adrenaline is
released.
Schachter & Singer developed the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion.
They suggest that emotional experiences come from a combination of physical arousal and cognition
that makes the best sense of the person's situation.

12. Schachter and
Singer’s Two
Factor Theory

13. Capilano Bridge -
have you been
there?
The bridge

14. Love on a
Suspension
Bridge

15. Dutton & Aron (1974)
another study …
● Male Ps interviewed on a high suspension bridge OR low
footbridge by an attractive female
● Asked about scenic attractions, one Q asked them to describe
a picture
● Descriptions analyzed for sexual content (sexual content
would reflect level of sexual arousal)
● What are the findings of the classic misattribution of arousal
studies (Dutton and Aron, 1974)? — Brain Stuff

16. Dutton & Aron findings..
● Ps interviewed on high
footbridge showed more
sexual arousal than
comparison groups
● Conclusion
● Arousal created by fear
was misinterpreted as
sexual arousal because
of the situational cue
provided by female
interviewer

17. Schachter and Singer - The Aim
To test the Two Factor Theory of Emotion
They wanted to research if
● given a state of physiological arousal for which the individual has no
adequate explanation
● cognitive factors can lead the individual to label their feelings

18. Research Method, Design and Variables
It was a highly standardised laboratory experiment. Participants were exposed to the
same environment with scripted responses from the stooge.
The research design used was the independent measures design.
Independent variable:
1. Knowledge about the injection symptoms (informed, misinformed, or ignorant)
2. The emotional situation following the injection (euphoria or anger). There was a
control group that was injected with a saline solution rather than epinephrine.
Dependent variable:
1. Observational data was recorded by two observers through a one-way mirror during
the emotional arousal. The observer had to measure to what extent the participant
acted in a euphoric or angry way.

19. The self-report that
participants
completed following
the emotional arousal.
Sample
The 185 participants were male college students taking introductory psychology at the
University of Minnesota. They received coarse credit. Their health records were checked in
prior to ensure that no harmful effects would result from the injection. The sampling method
employed was self-selecting sampling.

20. Procedure
When participants arrived at the lab, they were told that the aim was to test the effects of the vitamin
supplement ‘Suproxin’ on vision. Participants were asked for informed consent to injecting the vitamin.
Participants were actually injected with either adrenaline or a placebo (saline solution). They would experience
side effects within 3 to 5 minutes which would last for an hour.
Participants in the informed conditions were told the right-side effects of the injection, ‘your hand will start to
shake’.
Participants would have an explanation for any feelings.
Participants in the misinformed condition were told the wrong side effects of the injection, your feet will feel
numb’.
Participants would not have any explanation for the actual side effects they would
experience. This group was introduced as control.
Participants in the ignorant condition were told that they would experience no side effects.
They would not have an explanation for the actual side effects they would experience.

21. Right after the participants' injection, the doctor left, and the experimenter returned with a stooge
who was introduced as another participant. The experimenter said that both had taken the
Suproxin injection and would take 10 minutes for absorption, after which they would both be
given the same tests of vision. Participants were then exposed to one of two emotional states:
euphoria or anger. The stooge never knew which condition any participant was in.
In the euphoria condition, the experimenter added that they could use the stationary if they
needed to. The waiting room had been in a state of disarray and the stooge made ice breaker
comments and played with the items. The stooge suggested that the participant join in, and the
stooge played with the things. In the euphoria condition, the category ‘initiates new activity’ was
operationalized by the criteria that a euphoric behaviour outside the stooge’s routine must be
initiated. the behaviour had to be one the participant had never seen before. Examples of newly
initiated activity: open the window, throw paper basketballs, hula hooped.

22. In the anger condition, the experimenter explained that they had to wait 20 minutes
to absorb the Suproxin. Participants had to complete a questionnaire during this
time. The stooge was instructed to create a feeling of anger in the room. Comment
made: ‘this really irritates me.’ Comments increased in intensity as the questions
became more personal. The stooge crumpled up the questionnaire at the end and
stomped out of the room.
The experimenter returned to the room and told them to complete one final
questionnaire relating to their physical responses to the Suproxin. They were
debriefed and were told the reason for the deception. The experimenter swore
participants to secrecy to protect future runs.

23. Ethics:
All participants gave consent.
The injection was administered by a trained doctor to protect participants.
The participants were deceived, but this was necessary to prevent demand
characteristics therefore, it improves the validity of the study.

24. The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
Physiological
Arousal
Cognitive
Interpretation
Emotional
Experience

25. Hypothesis 1
If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they
have no immediate explanation, they will label this state
and describe their feelings in terms of the cognitions
available to them at the time

26. Hypothesis 2
If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they
have an appropriate explanation then they will be unlikely
to label their feelings in terms of the alternative cognitions
available

27. Hypothesis 3
If a person is put in a situation they will react emotionally or
experience emotions only if they are in a state of physiological
arousal

28. Activity
Read the original study (extension) or
your text book and find the following
1. Research Method
2. Design
3. Participants (3 characteristics)
4. Sampling method
5. IVs (all 3)
6. DV
7. Procedure in bullet points

29. Results and
Findings
Activity
1. Using Table 1 on page 388 in the original
study find evidence that the adrenaline
injection had an effect on bodily state
2. Using Table 2 on page 390 find evidence
that the euphoric stooge influenced the
self report of emotional state in the
euphoric conditions
3. Using Table 4 on page 392 find
evidence that the angry stooge
influenced the self report of emotional
state in the angry conditions

30. Results and Findings
Key Findings
● They supported the 2 Factor Theory and all 3
Hypotheses supported
● The Ps who received adrenalin showed significantly
more sympathetic arousal (measured by pulse rate
and self-ratings on palpitation, tremor, numbness, itching
and headache) in comparison to the placebo Ps.
● The observed behaviour matched the self reports

31. Result
1 participant did not agree to the injection. 11 people had their data excluded due
to suspicion. 5 had no physiological arousal to the injection so their data was
excluded, and in the end, there were 169 participants left.
Participants who received adrenaline were significantly more sympathetically
aroused (showed by pulse rate and self-rating) compared to the placebo
participants. The misinformed condition only ran in the euphoria condition as it
was a control, and the evaluation of the impact is possible from including the one
condition.
In the adrenaline condition, the pulse rate increased, whereas the pulse rate for
the placebo group decreased.

32. Results continued
From the self-report measure, euphoria misinformed condition was the happiest.
Euphoria ignorant group was second happiest.
The informed group was the least happy as they had an explanation for what they were feeling. Anger
ignorant was angriest and the placebo group was second angriest.
They were susceptible to the stooge as they had no explanation. Their behaviour was observed through
a one-way mirror and the behaviour matched their self-report.

33. Euphoria
Condition
● Misinformed - most happy
● Ignorant - second happiest
● They were more susceptible
to the stooge as they had no
explanation for their
symptoms

34. Anger
condition
● Ignorant group - angriest
● Placebo group - second
angriest
● Informed - least angry

35. Conclusion
An aroused person with no explanation for the arousal describes their feelings in terms of the cognition's
available. The study is useful in treating people with anxiety or panic attacks as they can identify the
environmental triggers that cause them to be aroused.
Individuals do not explain arousal by only looking at the behaviour of those around them. They use past
experiences to explain arousal.

36. Strengths and Weaknesses
It was a highly controlled laboratory experiment, as the same experimental rooms were used, and the
stooge had given scripted responses. Participants were randomly allocated to different conditions. All
participants were deceived, and the double-blind technique was used.
The sample consisted of university students so participant variables may distort findings. This makes
results less valid.
The sample only had male participants thus, the study is less generalizable as females may experience
emotions differently.

37. Strengths and Weaknesses continued
Adrenalin does not affect everyone in the same way due to individual differences.
No assessment was made of the participant's mood before the injection; thus, it reduces validity.
Questionnaires helped operationalise the dependent variables, therefore the data is standardised.
Quantitative data collected can be easily analysed and used to compare results across two conditions.
Weakness – > questionnaire does not give participants the same freedom to express feelings as
discussions would. However, other measures such as observation were useful as the results matched
with the data in the self-reports.

38. Issues and debates
Nature vs. Nurture
Our emotional responses can be accounted for by both, differences in nature (hormone levels) and
nurture (experiences).
Individual vs. Situational Explanations
Situational factors do matter in our expression of emotions although, individual differences are present
as well. For example, the extent to which participants were affected by the mood of the stooge.