Final answer:
The correct result of Schachter and Singer's experiment is that an emotion is the outcome of both physiological arousal and cognitive appraisal of the situation; our emotional experiences are influenced by the labels we assign to our physiological states within specific contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The experiment conducted by Schachter and Singer led to the conclusion that physiological arousal does not automatically lead to a specific emotion; rather, it is the cognitive interpretation or labeling of the arousal in the context of the situation that results in the experience of emotion. This was demonstrated when participants injected with epinephrine experienced different emotions depending on the cognitive appraisal of their environment. Therefore, the answer related to their experiment would be that emotions result from a combination of physiological arousal and the cognitive interpretation of that arousal within a context.
To clarify one of the findings, the participants who were not informed about the true effects of the injection were more likely to adopt the emotion implied by the context (either euphoric or angry mood) presented by the experimenters, compared to those who were told about the injection's effects. This supports the idea that cognitive factors play a crucial role, alongside physiological responses, in determining our emotional experience.
One of the possible answers to the question '(C) The intensity of an emotional experience is irrelevant to the labeling of the emotion' could be misconstrued because while the intensity of physiological arousal does play a role, it is not solely responsible for the emotional label that is attributed to it. Instead, the context or the appraisal of the situation matters significantly in labeling the arousal as a particular emotion.