Talk:Misattribution of arousal

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details are available on the course page.

This is really poorly written and explained.

This theory and the experiment is explained quite differently in a Yale Lecture posted online.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.31.138.238 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Our class is working on updating this page so that it has more (and more accurate) information. Here is our current plan: 1.There is no reference at all to the first study done about misattribution of arousal on this Wikipedia page. We will add in information about Schachter and Singer’s (1962) study and use other studies to show how this original one has influenced more research. Schachter and Singer found that physiological arousal, when not known why one is aroused, would be misattributed to something else, such as a cognition, if they were not aware of what initiated the arousal.

2. The Wikipedia page on misattribution of arousal currently only discusses one model of this phenomenon, therefore, it is important that we include the other models that we found during our research. We will discuss how Allen et al. (1989) tested two other models related to misattribution of arousal and found that the response-facilitation model actually explains the phenomenon better. The response facilitation model demonstrates that regardless of if the true cause of arousal is salient or not, people who are in higher states of arousal will be more attracted to targets than those who were not in high arousal states.

3. The introduction to the article is currently only one sentence long and provides a very broad overview of the topic. We believe the introduction portion of the article on misattribution of arousal could benefit from being expanded and reworded to place a heavier stress on physiological arousal being misattributed to cognitive functions. We will also stress the importance of the physiological arousal being from an ambiguous stimuli. The final addition we would like to add to the introduction is an example of how misattribution can function in real situations. The study by White et al. (1981) analyzed how misattribution of arousal can affect the process of romantic attraction. Participants in the study were put in varying conditions of arousal and these conditions ended up influencing the perceived attractiveness of a potential partner. In order to provide evidence for this expanded introduction we will draw from the original study of misattribution of arousal, Schachter and Singer (1962) and the previously mentioned study by White et al. (1981). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdinuoscio (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thumbs up if Love Lab sent you here.--141.255.96.249 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic