Moral Reasoning: Impact of Affect Conditions on Practical Reasoning

This study examines the impact of different affect conditions on practical reasoning and moral argument. The findings suggest that positive emotions increase the possibility of a functional outcome while negative emotions raise the probability of a deontological result. The study also analyses the mental architecture in which positive emotions have an impact on system 1 or system 2.

Running head: MORAL REASONING 1
Moral Reasoning
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Table of Contents

MORAL REASONING 2
Moral Reasoning..............................................................................................................................2
1.0 Abstract....................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
3.0 Methods....................................................................................................................................5
4.0 Results.......................................................................................................................................6
4.1 Load Item Participants........................................................................................................6
4.2 No load Item Participants....................................................................................................6
5.0 Analysis.....................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................9
Appendix........................................................................................................................................10

MORAL REASONING 3
Moral Reasoning
1.0 Abstract
In this experiment, the Qualtrics software was used to analyse the impact of different
affect conditions on participants. The responses allowed the researcher to identify the effects of
positive, negative or neutral emotions on practical reasoning. The participants were divided into
three groups and examined under load and no load condition. Twelve moral dilemmas were
presented and the responses obtained. The neutral affect condition had no impact on the
practical reasoning. The group under the favourable affect condition showed more practical
rationale compared to that under the adverse affect condition. The approach was shown to be an
effective way of analysing affect conditions concerning moral argument.
2.0 Introduction
Moral reasoning is the thought process which aims at assessing whether an idea is right
or wrong. The concept describes the behaviour suitable for human beings. Moral rationale begins
in children at a young age. As the children grow, their thinking evolves allowing them to identify
what is right or wrong using logic. Psychologists explain that the concept affects a person’s daily
process. That is every day an individual faces dilemmas such as whether to lie about an issue or
not. In most cases, the person making decisions based on the potential consequences of their
actions or their moral obligation.
The primary role of moral reasoning is to choose the most suitable choice; however,
harmful outcomes may occur. A moral choice maximises the benefits for all parties – this type of
thinking is the utilitarian judgment. The concept serves the greater majority and may have
negative implications for the few minorities. A different kind of moral argument is the

MORAL REASONING 4
deontological judgment. The experience differs from utilitarian in that it upholds a person's
rights and duties. Notably, the practical understanding relies on the information-general process
from working memory. Some moral dilemmas create conflict between two types of moral
reasoning. In such cases, the argument depends on the strength of each source.
In a scientific study, various methods allow psychologists to manipulate the output
strength of each system. For practical reasoning (System 1), psychologists introduce a
simultaneous task to gain resources from the normal reasoning process. The two mental
functions reduce the possibility of a functional outcome – this is the load item situation. The
three articles taken for this study are Greene et al. (2008), Conway and Gawronski (2013) and
Greene (2007)
According to (Conway and Gawronski, 2013) negative feelings raise the probability of a
deontological result.
On the other hand, positive emotions increase the possibility of a functional outcome.
Dual-process theories related to moral judgment explain that responses to dilemma rely on two
moral values: the principle of utilitarianism and the law of deontology. The principle of
deontology suggests that the morality of a behaviour or action relies on intrinsic factors within
the person. In contrast, the principle of utilitarianism explains that the extent of an act depends
on its consequences. For instance, a lot of people avoid actions which may harm them or others.
The practical relevance of this study is vast. In recent years, moral decisions have
increasingly gained prominence in the field of science and technology. For instance, software
engineers must instruct a robot if there is a choice between the patient's safety and damage to

MORAL REASONING 5
electrical appliances in a surgery room. The nature and frequency of such occurrences are likely
to increase in the future.
Green et al. (2008) suggest that different accounts of reasoning have been developed over
the years. Examples include the analytical system (system 2: information-general processing)
and the emotionally intuitive system (information-specific). According to Green et al. (2008), the
system 1 supports the processing domain for deontological reasoning while system 2 provides
the area responsible for utilitarian judgment. At times, conflicts occur in the functionality of
order 1 and 2. In such cases, the outcome depends on the stronger system. Mode 1 is automatic,
and the output is intuitive. However, it relies on emotional information, especially negative
feelings. The study explains that the cognitive load interferes with the practical reasoning.
However, the cognitive load applied in the Greene et al. (2008) study was a constant recognition
activity. That is, it involves pressing a button every time the number "5" appeared on display. In
this case, system two directly relates to controlled processing.
Additionally, the unit produces the deontological judgment and upholds the person's
rights. That is, it involves monitored attention and current intentionality. The group is resource
demanding and analytical. Notably, system 1 produces practical reasoning and can be applied for
moral judgment and any other type of thinking.
Greene et al. (2007) provide clinical examples which support the dual-process theory.
The study obtains the findings from observing the functional responses of VMPFC patients. One
of the results is that the cognitive load interferes with the utilitarian moral judgment. For
instance, negative emotions may influence a patient to disapprove of suicide. On the other hand,
inducing a positive feeling may inspire the patient to give a more useful response. According to
Greene et al. (2008) VMPFC patients provide more possible reactions because their actions are

MORAL REASONING 6
self-serving – this explains why they mainly experience positive emotions. However, VMPFC
patients who lack the emotional responses, require utilitarian moral control.
This study aims at examining earlier findings on the reduction in deontological resources
and implications of the adverse effect. Further, it identifies the mental architecture in which
positive emotions have an impact on system 1 or system two by analysing theoretical and
empirical information related to the experiment.
3.0 Methods
The study was practical. An online test was conducted using the Qualtrics software. The
research involves 60 participants divided into three groups depending on the effect condition;
that is neutral, positive or negative. Depending on the effect group, the participants underwent
different affect conditions. For instance, 20 individuals participated in the positive affect
condition experiment. Additionally, each group faced two load conditions and the outcomes
collected. The responses were obtained from each group and between groups.
Initially, the participants underwent a test to identify how they respond to affect
conditions; and the overall accuracy of the load task. The researcher also created a means of
manipulating the cognitive load. That is, the study only enlisted participants who were accurate
in recalling four digits on the five or six trials. The research also collected the patient’s
demographic information such as age and sex. The study employed twelve moral dilemmas, with
six involving a secondary activity (load items) and six involving no secondary task (no load).
Each dilemma situation required a Yes or No response, depending on the participant’s
deontological or utilitarian judgments.

MORAL REASONING 7
The participants completed the pre - PANAS before undergoing the stages enlisted for
each dilemma. The researcher randomised the difficulties for each participant. The first stage
was the effect condition. At this stage, each group reviewed a short audio-visual presentation
depending on the effect condition; positive, negative or neutral. The Sudoku represented a
neutral affect level, with a Mr Bean picture denoting a positive emotion level. In the second
stage, the six load items participants memorised four numbers. At the third stage, the dilemmas
were presented on a screen, and the participants asked to report their judgment as a Yes or No.
The responses resembling a practical choice were taken for each load level. In the last stage, the
six load items participants were asked to recall the four digits in serial order. The researcher
recorded the accuracy of their responses to estimate the load manipulation.
4.0 Results
The experimental study was accurate; that is, only participants who could recall the digits
on five of six trials were included. The findings were recorded for each affect groups, and
comparisons on the load and no load participants conducted. The pre-PANAS helped identify the
participants who were responsive to affect conditions – this increased the accuracy of the
findings. The table, Table 1 enlists the conclusions of the experimental study.
4.1 Load Item Participants
From Table 1, participants in the neutral affect condition showed no response to positive
or negative emotions during the study; that is, the mean utilitarian reactions was zero (0.00
units). At the adverse affect condition, 20 participants showed a decrease in positive emotions (-
7.15 units) and an increase in negative emotions (9.00 units). The 20 participants in the
favourable affect condition displayed an increase in positive emotions and a significant decrease
in negative emotions – that is, the utilitarian responses were 5.90 units.

MORAL REASONING 8
4.2 No load Item Participants
Table 1 indicates that the participants in the neutral affect condition (mean = 3.55)
produced more utilitarian responses compared to those at the adverse affect condition (2.45),
with t (38) = 2.31 and p = 0.05. Another observation is that under the favourable affect
conditions (4.50), the utilitarian responses were higher than under the neutral affect conditions
(3.55). At the neutral affect conditions, the number of functional reactions at load (2.35) is lower
than at no load (3.55).
5.0 Analysis
The study results indicate that the experiment worked – based on the affect manipulations
and data recorded. The primary role of the pre-PANAS test is to determine whether the effect
conditions influenced the participants (Conway and Gawronski, 2013). In this way, the test
ensured it recorded accurate data. During the study, the participants under the neutral affect
conditions showed minimal change for the pre- to post-PANAS tests. However, a significant
change occurred for affect groups exposed to positive or negative emotions. The load accuracy
for the neutral condition is also higher compared to other states – this is because the number of
utilitarian responses was zero.
From Table 1, participants exposed to the adverse affect condition showed a maximum
increase in the negative PANAS measure and a low change in the positive test – this is because
the number of positive responses obtained when a person undergoes a negative experience is low
(Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006). Notably, participants undergoing the positive affect displayed a
maximum increase in the practical measures with a small change in negative emotions.

MORAL REASONING 9
From Figure 1, the neutral, negative or positive emotions were higher for the load item
participants than for the no-load item participants – this is because the load participants a
secondary task interrupted the ordinary moral reasoning. And therefore, the load manipulation
was low. Figure 1 supports the validity of this study in that it comprehends previous literature on
the subject. From the chart, the mean utilitarian responses to the adverse affect condition are
higher compared to the neutral affect condition.
Another analysis tool is the t-test value. According to (Green, 2007) the t-test for
independent samples allows researchers to compare responses of one group to another. From
calculation, the t-test for no-load neutral effect is t (38) = 2.31. Under no load, the utilitarian
responses for negative affect conditions (2.45) are lower compared to those under the neutral
affect condition (3.55). In this case, the t-test for the independent samples compares to those
generated by the effect groups.
For the no-load item participants, the neutral affect condition generated more responses
compared to the adverse affect condition, with t (38) = 2.31 and p <0.05. In this case, p indicates
the likelihood of a null hypothesis. The value of p = 0.05 means that the study rejects the null
hypothesis and accepts the difference between the two conditions. The t value, in this case, is
2.31, and the extent of freedom is 38. From calculations, the critical importance of the t-test
when p = 0.05 is 2.02. In both cases, the p-value is acceptable.
Under the positive affect condition, the number of useful responses (4.50) was higher
than those under the neutral affect conditions (3.55) – this is because positive affect creates
happiness. Psychologists argue that happiness is a situation of pleasure and absence of pain. In
this case, the t-test value, t (38) = 2.25 and the p statistic, p = 0.31. Notably, the difference
between the positive and negative affect conditions is significant. Greene (2007) explains that the

MORAL REASONING 10
primary role of practical reasoning is to make life better by increasing happiness and pleasure
while reducing pain and unhappiness. The number of utilitarian responses at no load (3.55) is
higher compared to the load items (2.35) – this is because, at no load, there is one reasoning task
and no secondary activity. In this case, the practical reasoning focusses on which action best
suits the individual or the group.
One of the assumptions is that altering cognitive load does not increase or reduce the
likelihood of creating a utilitarian response. Greene et al. (2008) denote that changing the
cognitive load creates an interference on the practical reasoning; however, the impact is small. I
do not see any problem with the design or materials – this is because the responses rely on the
effect condition. Using a range of moral dilemmas was a good idea because it improves the
accuracy of the research. No other uncontrolled values favour S1 or S2 reasoning.

MORAL REASONING 11
References
Valdesolo, P., and DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral
judgment. Psychological Science, 17(6), 476-477.
Conway, P., and Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral
decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104(2), 216-235.
Green, J. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322-323.
Green, J. et al. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.
Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154.

MORAL REASONING 12
Appendix A
List of tables and figures collected from the research study
Number 1: Utilitarian reasoning
Table 1: Mean utilitarian responses for the three groups