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.
Background. Previous studies have established a link between how people relate to their past, present, and future (i.e., time perspective) and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, positive and negative affect). Time perspective comprises five dimensions: Past Positive, Past Negative, Present Hedonistic, Present Fatalistic, and Future. Life satisfaction can also be evaluated in relation to different time frames. Moreover, approach related positive affect is associated to a different concept of well-being labeled psychological well-being. In the present study we extend previous findings by investigating the effect of time perspective on the time frame of evaluations of life satisfaction (past, present, future) and by investigating the relationship between time perspective and psychological well-being.Method. Questionnaires on time perspective (Zimbardo’s Time Perspective Inventory), temporal life satisfaction (Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale), affect (Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule), and psychological well-being (Scales of Psychological Well-Being—short version) were answered by 453 individuals. Two different structural equation models were tested, one of the relationship between time perspective and temporal life satisfaction, and the other of the relationship between time perspective, affect and psychological well-being.Results. Time perspective affected life satisfaction depending on the time scale on which it was evaluated—memory of a negative past influenced life satisfaction in all time frames, and a positive view of the past influenced both past and future life satisfaction. Moreover, less rumination about past negative events (i.e., low score on Past Negative), the tendency to take risks in the present to achieve happy feelings and/or avoid boredom (i.e., high scores on Present Hedonistic), and a less hopeless and pessimistic view about the present (low scores on Present Fatalistic) were associated with higher levels of psychological well-being and positive affect. These same time perspective dimensions were associated with lower levels of negative affect. The Future time perspective dimension (i.e., approaching life with self-control, punctuality, and planning for the future) was associated with both psychological well-being and positive affect.Conclusions. High levels of both subjective and psychological well-being are related to a happier and a less sinister past, a more hedonistic and less fatalistic present, as well as to a more structured future.
BackgroundMediation analysis investigates whether a variable (i.e., mediator) changes in regard to an independent variable, in turn, affecting a dependent variable. Moderation analysis, on the other hand, investigates whether the statistical interaction between independent variables predict a dependent variable. Although this difference between these two types of analysis is explicit in current literature, there is still confusion with regard to the mediating and moderating effects of different variables on depression. The purpose of this study was to assess the mediating and moderating effects of anxiety, stress, positive affect, and negative affect on depression.MethodsTwo hundred and two university students (males = 93, females = 113) completed questionnaires assessing anxiety, stress, self-esteem, positive and negative affect, and depression. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted using techniques based on standard multiple regression and hierarchical regression analyses.Main FindingsThe results indicated that (i) anxiety partially mediated the effects of both stress and self-esteem upon depression, (ii) that stress partially mediated the effects of anxiety and positive affect upon depression, (iii) that stress completely mediated the effects of self-esteem on depression, and (iv) that there was a significant interaction between stress and negative affect, and between positive affect and negative affect upon depression.ConclusionThe study highlights different research questions that can be investigated depending on whether researchers decide to use the same variables as mediators and/or moderators.
Background. The dark side of human character has been conceptualized in the Dark Triad Model: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. These three dark traits are often measured using single long instruments for each one of the traits. Nevertheless, there is a necessity of short and valid personality measures in psychological research. As an independent research group, we replicated the factor structure, convergent validity and item response for one of the most recent and widely used short measures to operationalize these malevolent traits, namely, Jonason’s Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. We aimed to expand the understanding of what the Dirty Dozen really captures because the mixed results on construct validity in previous research.Method. We used the largest sample to date to respond to the Dirty Dozen (N = 3,698). We firstly investigated the factor structure using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and an exploratory distribution analysis of the items in the Dirty Dozen. Secondly, using a sub-sample (n = 500) and correlation analyses, we investigated the Dirty Dozen dark traits convergent validity to Machiavellianism measured by the Mach-IV, psychopathy measured by Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire Revised, narcissism using the Narcissism Personality Inventory, and both neuroticism and extraversion from the Eysenck’s questionnaire. Finally, besides these Classic Test Theory analyses, we analyzed the responses for each Dirty Dozen item using Item Response Theory (IRT).Results. The results confirmed previous findings of a bi-factor model fit: one latent core dark trait and three dark traits. All three Dirty Dozen traits had a striking bi-modal distribution, which might indicate unconcealed social undesirability with the items. The three Dirty Dozen traits did converge too, although not strongly, with the contiguous single Dark Triad scales (r between .41 and .49). The probabilities of filling out steps on the Dirty Dozen narcissism-items were much higher than on the Dirty Dozen items for Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Overall, the Dirty Dozen instrument delivered the most predictive value with persons with average and high Dark Triad traits (theta > −0.5). Moreover, the Dirty Dozen scale was better conceptualized as a combined Machiavellianism-psychopathy factor, not narcissism, and is well captured with item 4: ‘I tend to exploit others towards my own end.’Conclusion. The Dirty Dozen showed a consistent factor structure, a relatively convergent validity similar to that found in earlier studies. Narcissism measured using the Dirty Dozen, however, did not contribute with information to the core of the Dirty Dozen construct. More importantly, the results imply that the core of the Dirty Dozen scale, a manipulative and anti-social trait, can be measured by a Single Item Dirty Dark Dyad (SIDDD).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.