Page 1 of 6
6
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.10
Publication Date: October 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.710.9070.
Jones, I. T., O’Lansen, C. C., Baker, M., Thackerson, E., Horvath, S., Maupin, K., McDaniel-Johnson, H., & Grice, J. W. (2020). The Effects
and Implications of Mood on Moral Judgements. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 1-11.
The Effects and Implications of Mood on Moral Judgements
Ian T. Jones, Christopher C. O’Lansen, Megan Baker, Emery Thackerson, Samantha Horvath,
Katie Maupin, Hailey McDaniel-Johnson & James W. Grice
Oklahoma State University
ABSTRACT
Vladimir A. Lefebvre [1, 2] proposed an algebraic model of self- reflection that predicts individuals will judge ambiguous stimuli
positively with a proportional frequency of .618. While a number of
studies have empirically supported this prediction [3, 4], Anderson and
colleagues [5] found only partial support for Lefebvre’s model. They
moreover suggested that Schwartz and Garmoni’s States of Mind (SOM;
[7]) model could potentially explain the disparate findings as well as the
variability of positive judgements seen across individuals.
Consequently, this study explored whether ratios of psychological
functioning posited by the SOM model correspond with proportions of
positive judgements of ambiguous stimuli (viz., pairs of pinto beans).
Results revealed that, while Lefebvre’s predicted proportion of positive
judgments was again replicated, individuals with relatively high
positive affect were not more likely to rate greater proportions of the
ambiguous stimuli positively.
Keywords: Judgements, Self-Reflection, Mood, States of Mind, Psychological
Functioning
INTRODUCTION
Vladimir A. Lefebvre [1, 2] proposed an algebraic model of conscious reflection that explains how
individuals view themselves, others, and the world. His model more specifically posits that each
person has an internal ‘computer’ that regulates the evaluative processes involved in dichotomous
choice tasks. When applied to judgments of ambiguous stimuli, Lefebvre’s model predicts that
people will judge such stimuli as ‘good’ (positive) for 61.8% of the choices and ‘bad’ (negative) for
the remaining 38.2% of choices. Empirical support for this particular prediction has been published
in a number of studies in which participants were asked to evaluate pairs of ambiguous stimuli (e.g.,
pinto beans, tiles, wooden balls) as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ [3,4]. Anderson and colleagues [5], however,
found only partial support for Lefebvre’s model and suggested in their conclusions that the States
of Mind (SOM, [6]) model could be used to account for the inconsistent results. They moreover
suggested that the SOM model could potentially explain the variability in participants’ proportions
of ‘good’ judgments, as individual proportions ranged in value from .14 to 1.0 across different
stimuli.
In their original explication of the SOM model Schwartz and Garamoni [7] argued that a functionally
optimal state of mind consists of a ratio of positive (P) and negative (N) cognitions and/or affects
that approximates the golden proportion of .618 when computed as P/(P+N). Using Lefebvre’s
Page 2 of 6
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9070 7
Jones, I. T., O’Lansen, C. C., Baker, M., Thackerson, E., Horvath, S., Maupin, K., McDaniel-Johnson, H., & Grice, J. W. (2020). The Effects and Implications of
Mood on Moral Judgements. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 1-11.
algebraic model, Schwartz [6] later revised this optimal balance point to .813 and moreover created
ranges of values to delineate eleven different levels of psychological functioning (e.g., optimal range
= .78 - .84). Successful clinical interventions were shown by Schwartz and his colleagues to result in
individuals moving from sub-optimal to optimal states of psychological functioning [6-8]. Most
recently, Schwartz and Grice [9] revised the ranges of psychological functioning and reduced the
number of levels from eleven down to seven (see Table 1).
Table 1: Categorizations of Positive Ratio Ranges and the Corresponding SOM categories
SOM category Category range
Extreme Positive
Deep Optimal
Optimal
Normal
Subnormal/Coping
Conflicted
Extreme Negative
.901 – 1.00
.845 – .900
.767 – .844
.673 – .766
.564 – .672
.438 – .563
.000 – .437
Following the suggestion of Anderson and colleagues [5], will these different levels of psychological
functioning correspond to varying proportions of ‘good’ judgments of ambiguous stimuli? For
example, will individuals in a negative state of mind tend to judge ambiguous stimuli negatively?
The primary purpose of this study was to answer these questions while also attempting yet another
replication of Lefebvre’s original prediction regarding aggregate judgments of ambiguous stimuli.
The seven levels of functioning for the SOM model were assessed using ratios of positive and
negative ratings from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and pairs of pinto beans were again
used as the ambiguous stimuli to be judged as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Individual P/(P+N) ratios from the
PANAS were then compared to the proportions of beans judged as ‘good.’
METHOD
Participants
The current study included 111 undergraduate students (30 men, 81 women; 18 to 24 years
of age, M = 18.82, SD = 1.25) who were given course credit for their participation. The majority of
participants identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (n = 86), with the remaining participants
identifying as African American (n = 7), multi-racial (n = 8), Hispanic/Latinx (n = 5), Native
American (n = 3), Asian American (n = 1) , and other (n = 1).
Materials
Research assistants sorted 100 pinto beans into 50 pairs and eliminated any bean with a visible
defect or marking (e.g., discoloration, crack, disproportionate size, etc.) that might skew the
participants’ ambiguous judgements. Each of the 50 pairs was then placed in a separate clear, small,
plastic bag, similar to those used by coin collectors, to allow participants to easily inspect and judge
each pair.
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS).
The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; see [10]) is a 20-item self-report inventory that
assesses the current feelings and emotions (mood) of each participant. The PANAS contains two
subscales, with 10 items in each subscale: Positive Affect (α = 0.87) and Negative Affect (α = 0.75).
Participants are instructed to rate their current feelings (e.g., distressed, guilty, strong) on each item
Page 3 of 6
8
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). As recommended by Schwartz and Garamoni
[11], the responses were recoded to range from 0 (very slightly or not at all) to 4 (extremely).
Procedures
Participants signed an informed consent form and then completed a basic demographic
questionnaire that assessed age, ethnicity, and biological sex. Upon completion of the demographic
questionnaire participants were seated at a desk with a tray of pinto beans and two brown bags
labeled ‘+’ and ‘–’ indicating good and bad, respectively. To control for potential bag placement
confounds (e.g., handedness), the bag positions were alternated so that for approximately half of
the participants the ‘+’ bag was placed to the left of the ‘–’ bag. In line with past research,
participants were asked to judge the 50 pairs of pinto beans as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based upon their own
reasoning [3-5]. Pairs of beans that were judged as good were placed by the participant into the
brown bag labeled ‘+’ whereas pairs of beans that were deemed bad were placed into the ‘–’ bag. To
control for potential questionnaire variation confounds, approximately half of the participants
completed the PANAS after the bean sorting task, while the remaining participants completed the
PANAS prior to the sorting task.
RESULTS
Seven participants were excluded from the analyses because they violated the given instructions
(e.g., they placed all beans into one of the bags without evaluating each individual pair). Consistent
with prior research [2, 4-5], analyses of the remaining responses indicated that, on average,
participants judged the pairs of beans as ‘good’ (M = 30.91, SD = 8.03) more frequently than ‘bad’,
M = 19.07, SD = 8.03. The mean proportion of beans judged as good was found to be consistent with
Lefebvre’s model (M = .618, min = .30, max = 1.00, SD = .16). A two-tailed single-sample t-test
revealed that, as predicted, participants’ good bean judgement proportion did not differ from the
theoretically derived proportion (viz., 31/50 = .62; see [1]), t0.62 = -.11. The 95% confidence interval
[0.52, 0.71] moreover excluded the mean proportion expected from chance judgments of the pairs
of beans (viz., 25/50 = .50).
The positive and negative PANAS scale scores were used to compute the P/(P+N) affect ratios for
the participants, with one case being list-wise deleted due to the participants’ missing data. The
resulting values produced a negatively skewed distribution with a mean equal to 0.87 (mdn = 0.89,
min = .07, max = 1.00) and standard deviation equal to .15. The ratios were then classified into the
SOM model’s seven categories of psychological functioning reported in Table 1. The proportions of
beans judged as ‘good’ were similarly divided into seven categories comprised of ranges of values.
This latter categorization was done solely for the sake of comparing the two variables in a simple
manner, as shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, and contrary to expectation, the relationship between
the P/(P+N) ratio and bean proportion variables was in no way linear or otherwise systematic.
A majority of the P/(P+N) ratios (n = 71, 68%) were observed in the ‘extreme positive’ and ‘deep
optimal’ ranges, whereas the proportions for the beans were less varied and concentrated in the .42
- .55 and .56 - .69 ranges, n = 71, 68%. The median proportions of beans judged as ‘good’ for each of
the seven SOM model categories are also reported in Figure 1, and as can be seen the values ranged
from .54 to .60 (excluding the ‘conflicted’ category with n = 1). Contrary to expectation, the medians
did not decrease monotonically from the ‘extreme positive’ to the ‘extreme negative’ levels of
psychological functioning, although the largest value (mdn = .60) was observed for the highest level.
Page 4 of 6
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9070 9
Jones, I. T., O’Lansen, C. C., Baker, M., Thackerson, E., Horvath, S., Maupin, K., McDaniel-Johnson, H., & Grice, J. W. (2020). The Effects and Implications of
Mood on Moral Judgements. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 1-11.
Finally, the Pearson (r = .18) and rank-order (ρ = .25) correlations between the ratios from the
PANAS and the proportions of beans judged as ‘good’ were very low, consistent with the lack of a
discernable relationship between the variables in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Ratios from the PANAS and proportions of beans judged as ‘good.’
DISCUSSION
The results of our attempted replication of Lefebvre’s [1] prediction regarding ambiguous stimuli
was successful. The mean proportion of pairs of beans that were judged as ‘good’ was equal to .618,
matching the predicted value to three decimals of precision. This study therefore adds to the work
of Anderson and Grice [4] and Anderson and colleagues [5] in offering support for this particular
prediction of Lefebvre’s algebraic model of conscious reflection as it pertains to ambiguous stimuli.
As with previous studies, however, individuals varied in their proportions of bean pairs judged as
‘good.’ The proportions ranged in value from .30 to 1.0, and it was only in the aggregate that the
predicted .618 value was found. This variation is in need of explanation as Lefebvre’s model is most
applicable to predictions about individuals, which is to say that his model is primarily person- centered.
Schwartz and his colleagues [6-8] showed that ratios of positive cognitions or emotions changed
over the course of therapy in a manner consistent with predictions made from Lefebvre’s model.
Exploring the possibility of mood as a moderator of the proportion of beans judged as ‘good,’ we
administered the PANAS to the participants in our study to assess positive (P) and negative (N)
states of mind. The computed ratio of positive cognitions or affects, P/(P+N), was compared to the
proportion of beans judged as ‘good,’ and contrary to expectation the two variables were not related
in any systematic fashion. More specifically, individuals with relatively high positive affect were not
more likely to judge greater proportions of the ambiguous stimuli (i.e., the pairs of beans) positively.
Why the prediction from Lefebvre’s algebraic model of conscious reflection only holds in the
aggregate for judgments of ambiguous stimuli is still unexplained. Across several studies aggregated
responses of individuals’ judgments demonstrated an asymmetry in which ambiguous stimuli were
judged as ‘good’ with a proportional frequency of approximately .618. Similar asymmetry can be
found in individuals’ self-reflective judgments of their cognitions and emotions, and Lefebvre’s
Page 5 of 6
10
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
model offers one possible explanation for this asymmetry as well [9]. Judgments regarding oneself,
however, are distinct from judgments regarding ambiguous stimuli. While Lefebvre’s model is
flexible enough to be applied to such varying cognitive tasks as completing the PANAS and judging
pinto beans as ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ the underlying processes involved in their completion may be largely
independent. If this is the case, then the two variables compared above would also not be expected
to correlate. Assessing the P/(P+N) ratio using self-report measures is also fraught with difficulties
(see [11]), and other questionnaires and inventories should be explored. Further work on such
methodological issues, as well as the nuances of Lefebvre’s model, are clearly needed to gain a
clearer picture of the relationship between psychological functioning and ambiguous choice tasks.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Robert Schwartz for taking the time to review our paper prior to
submission and for all of the insightful contributions and guidance on this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
1. Lefebvre, V. A. (1985). The golden section and an algebraic model of ethical cognition. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 29, 289-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(85)90010-0Liang, Z., et al., The detection and
quantification of retinopathy using digital angiograms. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 1994. 13(4): p.
619-626.
2. Lefebvre, V. A. (1987). The fundamental structures of human reflexion. Journal of Social and Biological Structures,
10, 129-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(87)90004-2
3. Lefebvre, V. D. (1990). Choice without criteria of preference. In H. Wheeler (Ed.), The structure of human
reflexion: the reflexional psychology of Vladimir Lefebvre. New York: Peter Lang. Pp. 113-114.Heneghan, C., et al.,
Characterization of changes in blood vessel width and tortuosity in retinopathy of prematurity using image
analysis. Medical image analysis, 2002. 6(4): p. 407-429.
4. Anderson, J. A., & Grice, J. W. (2009). Replicating a simple study of asymmetry in human cognition. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 109, 577-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.109.2.577-580
5. Anderson, J. A., Ramirez, D., & Stephenson, D. (2012). Asymmetry in human cognition: further replication and
extension. Perceptual and motor skills, 114(1), 185-188. https://doi.org/10.2466/20.22.PMS.114.1.185-188
6. Schwartz, R. M. (1997). Consider the simple screw: cognitive science, quality improve-ment, and psychotherapy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 970-983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.970.
7. Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1986). A structural model of positive and negative states of mind: Asymmetry
in the internal dialogue. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 5, pp.
1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8. Schwartz, R. M., Reynolds, D. F., Thase, M. E., Frank, E., & Fasiczka, A. L. (2002). Optimal and normal affect balance
in psychotherapy of major depression: Evaluation of the balanced states of mind model. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 30, 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465802004058
Page 6 of 6
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9070 11
Jones, I. T., O’Lansen, C. C., Baker, M., Thackerson, E., Horvath, S., Maupin, K., McDaniel-Johnson, H., & Grice, J. W. (2020). The Effects and Implications of
Mood on Moral Judgements. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 1-11.
9. Schwartz, R. M., & Grice, J. W. (2020). Positive ratios and psychological functioning: Reports of the theory’s death
have been greatly exaggerated. Manuscript under review.
10. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
11. Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and psychopathology: Evaluation of an information
processing model of positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 271-294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(89)90058-5