THE LAW OF SELF-REFLEXION: A Possible Unified Explanation for the Three Different Psychological Phenomena

Lefebvre, Vladimir A. (2002) THE LAW OF SELF-REFLEXION: A Possible Unified Explanation for the Three Different Psychological Phenomena. [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:



The centuries-old philosophical idea that man has an image of the self containing an image of the self (of the second order) obtains a new life in the mathematical model of the subject possessing reflexion. One assumption underlying the model is that the subject tends to generate patterns of behavior such that some kind of similarity is established between the subject himself and his second order image of the self. We demonstrate that this model allows a single explanation for three diverse, experimentally observed phenomena: (a) the nonlinear relation between magnitude estimation and categorization of identical stimuli (Parducci, Stevens, Galanter), (b) the avoidance of the value of 0.5 in estimating stimuli equidistant from two samples on a psychological scale (Poulton, Simmonds), and (c) the formal correspondence between, on the one hand, frequency of choice for particular alternatives and, on the other, reinforcement rate, found in some experiments with animals and people (Herrnstein, Baum). The results obtained allow us to hypothesize that the reflexive metaphor represents a general principle for regulation of both human and animal behavior.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Additional Information:This paper might be of interest to psychophysicists, philosophers, researchers of animal behaviour, and those studying mental processes.
Keywords:law of self-reflexion, magnitude estimation, categorization, matching law, homunculus, mentality
Subjects:Psychology > Psychophysics
Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
Psychology > Behavioral Analysis
ID Code:2927
Deposited By: Lefebvre, Vladimir A.
Deposited On:06 May 2003
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. J. Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). Amherst: Prometeus Books (1995).

2. E. Cassirer. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press (1951).

3. P. S. Churchland. Self-Representation in Nervous Systems. Science, 296, 308 (2002).

4. V. A. Lefebvre. A Formal Approach to the Problems of Good and Evil. General Systems, 22, 183 (1977).

5. V. A. Lefebvre. An Algebraic Model of Ethical Cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 22, 83 (1980).

6. V. A. Lefebvre. Algebra of Conscience, Dordrecht: D.Reidel (1982). Second enlarged edition, Dordrecht: Kluwer (2001).

7. J. Adams-Webber. Comment on Lefebvre’s Model from the Perspective of Personal Construct Theory. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 10, 177 (1987).

8. J. A. Schreider. Fuzzy Sets and the Structure of Human Reflexion. Applied Ergonomics, 1, 19 (1994).

9. V. Yu. Krylov. On One Model of Reflexive Behavior Distinct from Lefebvre’s Model. Applied Ergonomics, 1, 21 (1994).

10. J. Adams-Webber. Self-Reflexion in Evaluating Others. American Journal of Psychology, 110, 527 (1997).

11. L. D. Miller & M. F. Sulkoski. Reflexive Model of Human Behavior. Proceedings of Workshop on Multi-Reflexive Models of Agent Behavior, Los Alamos: Army Research Laboratory (1998).

12. T. A. Taran. Many-Valued Boolean Model of the Reflexive Agent. Multi-Valued Logic, 7, 97 (2001).

13. V. A. Lefebvre. The Golden Section and an Algebraic Model of Ethical Cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 289 (1985).

14. G. A. Kelly. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton (1955).

15. C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, & P. H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press (1957).

16. V. A. Lefebvre. A Psychological Theory of Bipolarity and Reflexivity, Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press (1992).

17. S. S. Stevens & E. H. Galanter. Ratio Scales and Category Scales for a Dozen Perceptual Continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377 (1957).

18. A. Parducci. Direction of Shift in the Judgment of Single Stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 169 (1956).

19. A. Parducci. Category Judgment: A Range-Frequency Model. Psychological Review, 72, 407 (1965).

20. E. C. Poulton, D. C. V. Simmonds, R. M. Warren. Response Bias in Very First Judgments of the Reflectance of Grays. Perception & Psychophysics, 3(2A), 112 (1968).

21. E. C. Poulton & D. C. V. Simmonds. Subjective Zeros, Subjectively Equal Stimulus Spacing, and Contraction Biases in Very First Judgments of Lightness. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 420 (1985).

22. E. C. Poulton. Bias in Quantifying Judgments, NJ: Erlbaum (1989).

23. R. J. Herrnstein. Relative and Absolute Strength of Response as a Function of Frequency Reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267 (1961).

24. G. M. Heyman & R. J. Herrnstein. More on Concurrent Interval-Ratio Schedule: A Replication and Review. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 331 (1986).

25. B. A. Williams. Reinforcement, Choice, and Response Strength. In: R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Steven’s Handbook of Experimental Psychology (Vol.2), New York: John Wiley & Sons (1988).

26. W. M. Baum. On Two Types of Deviation from the Matching Law: Bias and Undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231 (1974).

27. W. M. Baum. Matching, Undermatching, and Overmatching in Studies of Choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269 (1979).

28. V. A. Lefebvre. Categorization, Operant Matching, and Moral Choice. Institute for Mathematical and Behavioral Sciences, MBS, 99-14, UCI (1999).

29. G. M. Heyman & R. D. Luce. Operant Matching Is Not a Logical Consequence of Maximizing Reinforcement Rate. Animal Learning Behavior, 7, 133 (1979).

30. D. W. Stephens & J. R. Krebs. Foraging Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1986).

31 W. M. Baum & C. F. Aparicio. Optimality and Concurrent Variable-Interval Variable-Ratio Schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 75 (1999).

32. G. M. Heyman. Optimization Theory: A Too Narrow Path. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 136 (1988).


Repository Staff Only: item control page