Abstract:
Background: The affectivity system is a complex dynamic system, thus, it needs to be seen as a whole-system unit that is best studied by analyzing four profiles: self-destructive (low positive affect, high negative affect), low affective (low positive affect, low negative affect), high affective (high positive affect, high negative affect), and self-fulfilling (high positive affect, low negative affect). Our purpose was to examine individual differences in psychological well-being and self-regulatory strategies (assessment/locomotion). Additionally, we investigated if the effect of psychological well-being on self-regulatory strategies was moderated by the individual’s type of profile. Method: Participants (N = 567) answered the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule, Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-being, and the Regulatory Mode Questionnaire. We conducted a Multivariate Analysis of Variance using age as covariate and Structural Equation Modeling in a multi-group for moderation analysis. Result: Individuals with a self-fulfilling profile scored highest in all psychological well-being constructs and locomotion and lowest in assessment. Nevertheless, matched comparisons showed that increases in certain psychological resources might lead to profile changes. Moreover, while some psychological well-being constructs (e.g., self-acceptance) had an effect of self-regulatory mode independently of the individual’s profile, other constructs’ (e.g., personal growth) effect on self-regulation was moderated by the person’s unique type of profile. Conclusions: Although only theoretical, these results give an idea of how leaps/changes might be extreme (i.e., from one profile at the extreme of the model to the other extreme), while other might be serial (i.e., from one profile to another depending on matching affective dimensions).
Machine summary:
Questions of Self-regulation and Affect: Affectivity, Locomotion, Assessment, and Psychological Well-Being Danilo Garcia1-5*, Ali Al Nima1, 3, Erik Lindskär1,3, Alexander Jimmefors2, 3, Trevor Archer2, 3, Shane MacDonald3 Abstract Background: The affectivity system is a complex dynamic system, thus, it needs to be seen as a whole-system unit that is best studied by analyzing four profiles: self-destructive (low positive affect, high negative affect), low affective (low positive affect, low negative affect), high affective (high positive affect, high negative affect), and self-fulfilling (high positive affect, low negative affect).
Affective Profiles Model, Assessment, Cluster Analyses, Locomotion, Person-Centered Methods, Psychological Well-Being, Self-regulatory Mode Introduction Positive affect and negative affect are indicators of well-being (Diener, 1984) and are not only related to different behavior (see Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988), but are also influenced by genes and the environment 1- Blekinge Centre of Competence, Blekinge County Council, Karlskrona, Sweden 2- Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 3- Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, Sweden 4- Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden 5- Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden * Corresponding author: D.
e. , different of high/low positive/ negative affect), for example, report different levels of psychological well-being—a multidimensional construct consisting of six different constructs or psychological resources: positive relations with others, environmental mastery, self-acceptance, autonomy, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989).
Results Differences in psychological well-being and regulatory mode One Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed using positive relations, environmental mastery, self-acceptance, autonomy, personal growth, purpose in life, locomotion, and assessment as the dependent variables.