Background. The affective profiles model categorizes individuals as self-fulfilling (high positive affect, low negative affect), high affective (high positive affect, high negative affect), low affective (low positive affect, low negative affect), and self-destructive (low positive affect, high negative affect). The model has been used extensively among Swedes to discern differences between profiles regarding happiness, depression, and also life satisfaction. The aim of the present study was to investigate such differences in a sample of residents of the USA. The study also investigated differences between profiles with regard to happiness-increasing strategies.Methods. In Study I, 900 participants reported affect (Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS) and happiness (Happiness-Depression Scale). In Study II, 500 participants self-reported affect (PANAS), life satisfaction (Satisfaction With Life Scale), and how often they used specific strategies to increase their own happiness (Happiness-Increasing Strategies Scales).Results. The results showed that, compared to the other profiles, self-fulfilling individuals were less depressed, happier, and more satisfied with their lives. Nevertheless, self-destructive individuals were more depressed, unhappier, and less satisfied than all other profiles. The self-fulfilling individuals tended to use strategies related to agentic (e.g., instrumental goal-pursuit), communal (e.g., social affiliation), and spiritual (e.g., religion) values when pursuing happiness.Conclusion. These differences suggest that promoting positive emotions can positively influence a depressive-to-happy state as well as increasing life satisfaction. Moreover, the present study shows that pursuing happiness through strategies guided by agency, communion, and spirituality is related to a self-fulfilling experience described as high positive affect and low negative affect.

Positive (PA) and negative affect (NA) are two separate systems markers of subjective well-being and measures of the state depression (low PA combined with high NA). The present study investigated differences in temperament, character, locus of control, and depressive symptoms (sleep quality, stress, and lack of energy) between affective profiles in an adolescent sample. Participants (N = 304) were categorized into four affective profiles: “self-fulfilling” (high PA, low NA), “high affective” (high PA, high NA), “low affective” (low PA, low NA), and “self-destructive” (low PA, high NA). Personality was measured by the Temperament and Character Inventory and affective profiles by the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule. The “self-fulfilling” profile was characterized by, compared to the other affective profiles, higher levels of sleep quality, less stress and more energy and also higher levels of persistence and a mature character (i.e., high scores in self-directedness and cooperativeness). “Self-destructive” adolescents reported higher levels of external locus of control, high scores in harm avoidance and reward dependence combined with less mature character. The results identify the importance of character maturity in well-being and suggest that depressive state can be positively influenced by promoting positive emotions which appears to be achieved by character development.

Background: The Understanding Group and Leader (UGL), provided by the Swedish National Defense College and mentored by UGL-trainers, is one of the most popular management programs among civilians in Sweden. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding the training. We used the affective profile model (i.e., the combination of positive, PA, and negative affect, NA) to mapp important markers of empowerment, self-awareness, adaptive coping skills, and maturity among the UGL-trainers. The aims were: (1) to compare profiles between UGL-trainers and managers/supervisors and (2) to investigate differences in personal characteristics.Method: UGL-trainers (N = 153) and the comparison group (104 Swedish Chiefs of Police) completed an online survey on optimism, self-esteem, locus of control, and affect. The four profiles are: self-fulfilling (high PA, low NA), high affective (high PA, high NA), low affective (high PA, low NA), and self-destructive (low PA, high NA).Results: The self-fulfilling profile was more common among UGL-trainers (25.70%) than among Chiefs of Police (19.20%). UGL-trainers, compared to Chiefs of Police, were more likely to express a self-fulling than a low affective profile (OR = 2.22, p < 0.05) and a high affective than a low affective profile (OR = 1.43, p < 0.001). UGL-trainers with a self-fulfilling profile, compared to those with a self-destructive profile, scored higher in optimism, higher in self-esteem, and lower in external locus of control.Conclusions: The probability of self-fulfillment rather than low affectivity was higher among UGL-trainers. Self-fulfillment was associated to markers of self-awareness and adaptive coping skills. However, the most common profile was the low affective, which is associated to low performance during stress, low degree of personal development, low degree of purpose in life, and low resilience. Hence, it might be important for UGL-trainers to have a continuous training in awareness after certification.

The affective profile model was used to investigate individual differences in police personnel perceptions about the working climate and its influences on motivation. The Positive Affect, Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) was used to assign police personnel, sworn and non-sworn (N = 595), to four affective profiles: self-fulfilling, low affective, high affective, and self-destructive. The work climate was assessed using the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Management Relations and Style, Time, Autonomy and Responsibility, Team Style, Opportunities to Develop, Guidelines on How to do the Job, and Contentedness). Motivation was evaluated using a modified version (to refer specifically to the individual's work situation) of the Situational Motivation Scale (intrinsic motivation, external regulation, identified regulation, and amotivation). Self-fulfilling individuals scored higher on all work climate dimensions compared to the other three groups. Compared to low positive affect profiles, individuals with profiles of high positive affect scored higher in intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. Self-destructive individuals scored higher in amotivation. Different aspects of the work climate were related to each motivation dimension among affective profiles. Police personnel may react to their work environment depending on their affective profile. Moreover, the extent to which the work influences police personnel's motivation is also related to the affective profile of the individual.

No abstract