Differences in Happiness-Increasing Strategies Between and Within Affective ProfilesDanilo Garcia1-5*, Erica Schütz3,6, Shane MacDonald3 and Trevor Archer2,3
- *Corresponding Author:
- Garcia D
Network for Empowerment and Well-Being
Axel W. Anderssons Väg 8A, SE 371 62
Tel: +46 31 7864694
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: August 16, 2016; Accepted date: August 29, 2016; Published date: September 05, 2016
Citation: Garcia D, Schütz E, MacDonald S, Archer T (2016) Differences in Happiness- Increasing Strategies Between and Within Affective Profiles. Clin Exp Psychol 2: 139. doi: 10.4172/2471-2701.1000139
Copyright: © 2016 Garcia D, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: In a recent study, Schütz and colleagues  used the affective profile model (i.e., the combination of peoples’ experience of high/low positive/negative affect) to investigate individual differences in intentional happiness-increasing strategies. Here we used a merged larger sample, a person-centered method to create the profiles, and a recent factor validated happiness-increasing strategies scale, to replicate the original findings. Method: The participants were 1,000 (404 males, 596 females) individuals recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) who answered to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule and the Happiness-Increasing Strategies Scales. Participants were clustered in the four affective profiles using the software RopStat (https://www. ropstat.com). Analyses of variance were conducted to discern differences in how frequently the strategies were used among people with different profiles. Results: Individuals with profiles at the extremes of the model (e.g., self-fulfilling vs. self-destructive) differed the most in their use of strategies. The differences within individuals with profiles that diverge in one affectivity dimension while being similar in the other suggested that, for example, decreases in negative affect while positive affect is low (self-destructive vs. low affective) will lead or might be a function of a decrease in usage of both the mental control and the passive leisure strategies. Conclusion: The self-fulfilling experience, depicted as high positive affect and low negative affect, is a combination of agentic (instrumental goal pursuit, active leisure, direct attempts), communal (social affiliation), and spiritual (religion) strategies. Nevertheless, the affective system showed the characteristics of a complex dynamic adaptive system: the same strategies might lead to different profiles (multi-finality) and different strategies might lead to the same profile (equifinality).