J Happiness Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10902-011-9303-5
RESEARCH PAPER

The Affective Temperaments: Differences

between Adolescents in the Big Five Model
and Cloningers Psychobiological Model of Personality
Danilo Garcia

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Positive (PA) and negative affect (NA) are indicators or markers of well-being
that also reflect stable emotional- temperamental dispositions. In three different studies,
self-reported affect was measured by the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS). The PANAS measures affect as two separate dimensions and was therefore used
to generate four affective temperaments (AFTs): self-actualizing (high PA and Low NA),
high affective (high PA and high NA), low affective (low PA and low NA), and selfdestructive (low PA and high NA). The present set of studies investigated differences in
personality between AFTs in an adolescent sample (N = 398). Personality was measured
by two different models: The Big Five and Cloningers psychobiological model. The
interaction of PA and NA was expected to reveal differences and similarities in intrapersonal behavior measured by both models of personality. The results show that low NA
adolescents reported lower levels of neurotic behavior than high NA adolescents. Nevertheless, despite the experience of high NA respectively, low PA, high and low affective
reported higher Self-Directedness than self-destructive adolescents. Implications of the
AFTs framework are discussed.
Keywords Adolescence
Affective temperaments
Big five
Cloningers
psychobiological model
Negative affect
Positive affect
TCI

Temperament and character

1 Introduction
Positive and negative affect are indicators or markers of well-being (Diener 1984). Subjective Well-Being (SWB), for example, involves individuals own judgements about life
satisfaction (LS), the frequency of positive affect (PA) and the infrequency of negative
affect (NA; Pavot 2008). According to Martin and Huebner (2007), the multidimensional
D. Garcia (&)
Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Forensic Psychiatry,
The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Lillhagsparken 3, Gothenburg 422 50,
Hisings Backa, Sweden
e-mail: danilo.garcia@neuro.gu.se; danilo.garcia@euromail.se

123

D. Garcia

model of SWB (i.e., LS, PA, and NA) is valid for adolescents as well. Thus, well-being in
adolescence can be defined as being satisfied with life and the experience of more positive
than negative affect. In this context, it is important to point out that assessing PA and NA
as opposite ends of a continuum fails to take account of positive and negative aspects of
experience independentlyan individual experiencing high positive and negative affectivity may end up with the same score as a person who experiences low positive and low
negative affectivity (Schimmack and Diener 1997). Indeed, there is large evidence that PA
and NA are best thought as two separate systems (for a review see MacLeod and Moore
2000). Ito and Cacioppo (2001), for example, tested different models of the relationship
between ill- and well-being. According to Ito and Cacioppo (2001) health states represent
activity of both dimensions, thus, it is better to think in terms of a bi-dimensional model.
Moreover, according to some researchers PA and NA reflect stable emotional-temperamental dispositions or signal sensitivity systems (e.g., Watson and Clark 1994;
Tellegen 1993). Larsen and Ketelaar (1991), for example, found that individuals who
experience high levels of PA attend and react more intensely to positive stimuli than
individuals with low levels of PA. In contrast, individuals with high levels of NA attend
and react more intensely to negative stimuli than individuals with low levels of NA. Yet
most of the studies use PA and NA to define an unidimensional emotional state rather than
two distinctive trait-like temperamental dispositions. The coexistence of unidimensional
and bi-dimensional models for the assessment of affect reflects the lack of coherence in the
literature (see Lyubomirsky et al. 2005a for a large compilation of studies using different
measures to assess affect).
Moreover, as one of the most used instruments to measure affect, the Positive Affect
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS by Watson et al. 1988), was developed on the idea
that PA and NA represent two orthogonal dimensions rather than two ends of one
dimension. Consequentially, while some PANAS items (e.g., interested) may not be
common in other scales, other items (e.g., happy) are not included in the PANAS. Rusell
and Carroll (1999) point out that the PANAS scales are predominated by high arousal
items (see also Green and Salovey 1999). Indeed, findings suggest that PANAS items
reflect engagement with a stimulus (for a review see Schimmack 2007). Hence, defining
affect as both separate markers of well-being and temperamental dispositions, seems to
specially apply to the PANAS scales. Watson and Tellegen (1985) have actually presented
these as two independent dimensions: high versus low PA and high versus low NA. Seeing
affect as composed of two systems, each one of them categorized as high and low, leads to
four different combinations beyond the two-system approach (for a point of view on twosystem theories see Keren and Schul 2009).
1.1 The Affective Temperaments
The affective temperaments (AFTs) framework developed by Norlander et al. (2002) takes
into account all characteristics of PA and NA earlier stated. Norlander and colleagues
framework goes beyond the view of affect as a two separate systems and takes into account
the interaction of both dispositions. The AFTs are based on self-reported affect measured
by the PANAS and comprises four profiles: self-actualizing1 (high PA, low NA); high
affective (high PA, high NA); low affective (low PA, low NA); and self-destructive (low
PA, high NA). As accurately poined by Rusell and Carroll (1999) low PA, measured using
1

Self-actualizing in Norlanders framework is not to be understood as Maslows Self-actualization. Instead

it describes self-fulfillment (see among others: Archer et al. 2007; Palomo et al. 2007).

123

The Affective Temperaments

the PANAS, refers to states of depression, melancholy, and lethargy, whereas low NA
refers to states of being relaxed, tranquility, and serenity. In regard to the AFT, this is
important because the two dimensions are measures also of anxiety and depression
anxiety is a state of high NA whereas depression is a mixed state of low PA and high NA
(Clark and Watson 1991).
Although the AFT framework has been used in other studies not many of them have
included adolescents. Research among adults show that self-actualizing and high affective
adults show the best performance during stress, have a more active life and lower blood
pressure than adults with low affective and self-destructive temperaments (Norlander et al.
2002, 2005). These findings are easier to understand in regard to self-actualizing individuals than in regard to high affective ones who experience high levels of negative
emotions along high levels of positive emotions. Nevertheless, Norlander et al. (2002,
2005) findings are in concordance to Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) who found that
individuals who report high positive emotions before doing a time pressured speech
preparation experience higher levels of interest along with high anxiety feelings (i.e., high
affective in AFT terms). Even more important, Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) found that
individuals with high affectivity returned faster to their normal cardiovascular activation
following the task. Nevertheless, while adults with low affectivity have responded bad to
induced stress, compared to high affectives and self-actualizers (Norlander et al. 2002),
they have also reported less stress in their life as the self-actualizing adults (Norlander et al.
2005). The self-actualizing adolescents and adults, however, report experiencing more
energy and optimism than the rest of the AFTs (Archer et al. 2007). On the other hand,
Garcia et al. (2011) found, in concordance to Rusell and Carrolls (1999) observations, that
self-destructive adolescents report more depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms compared to the self-actualizers. Thus, the self-actualizing and self-destructive temperaments
could be understood as the happy and the unhappy adolescents, respectively. The few
studies that have used the AFT framework with adolescent samples have, however, not
considered that adolescents experience emotion in different ways than children and adults
(Silk et al. 2003).
In this line of thinking, Garcia and colleagues (Garcia and Siddiqui 2009a, b; Garcia
et al. 2010) suggested new cut-off points for adolescents using reference data from a group
of 84 adolescents (mean age = 16.51) who were followed three times with the PANAS
self-reports over a 1.5 year time span. These researchers have explored differences
between AFTs in LS, Psychological Well-Being (PWB) and apprehension for events
among adolescents. Their results show that, compared to self-destructive, all temperaments
reported higher levels of LS and PWB (Garcia and Siddiqui 2009a, b). Consequentially, all
temperaments, self-destructive excluded, recalled more positive than negative life events
(Garcia and Siddiqui 2009a). In another study, Garcia et al. (2010) instructed adolescents
to read a short story in which some words (negative, positive and neutral) were highlighted
in bold type (Interpretation and Recognition for Words in a Short Story measure by Garcia
2011a). Two days later participants were presented with a recognition list that included the
bold typed words. All temperaments, with the exception of self-destructives, seemed to
self-regulate their reaction to negative words by paying attention and remembering words
that were congruent to their own temperament. For example, self-actualizing and high
affectives reaction to negative words predicted the number of positive words they recognized as being in bold type in the short story. In contrast, low affectives reaction to
negative words predicted the number of neutral words they recognized as being bold typed
in the story. Garcia and colleagues concluded, in agreement with others researchers (e.g.,
Larsen and Ketelaar 1991; Watson and Clark 1994; Tellegen 1993), that PA and NA

123

D. Garcia

represent temperamental dispositions and that the interacting influence of the two signalsensitivity systems may help to maintain well-being.
Nevertheless, no other study has investigated if the AFTs actually have different personalities. This gap is important because personality appears to be the major determinant of
well-being (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005b) since it is related to reactivity to emotional stimuli,
individual differences in intensity to responses to emotional events, and to the duration of
emotional reactions (Kim-Prieto et al. 2005). If the interacting influence of the two signalsensitivity systems (i.e., PA and NA) helps maintain well-being, then the AFTs should
differ in personality dimensions as well. The study of adolescents well-being is important,
because in this period of life different events and transitions may influence children and
adolescents development and well-being (Gonzales et al. 2007). In addition, temperament
is described as relatively stable in adults; however, adolescents temperament might be less
stable due the fact of their neurological development (Windle and Windle 2006). Before
the expectations are specified, the two models of personality that will serve as the
dependent variables are presented next.
1.2 Two Models of Personality
The five-factor model or Big Five is a valid and reliable descriptive model of personality
consisting of five factors including Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness (for review, see John et al. 2008). The five traits are considered to
be 4060% heritable, and the heritability is greatest for Extraversion and Neuroticism
(Bouchard and Loehlin 2001). The Big Five model of personality is often used when
analyzing the relationship between personality and well-being. The traits of Neuroticism
and Extraversion are most important in the prediction of adults and adolescents wellbeing, therefore the only ones discussed here. Further reading is recommended to be found
elsewhere (e.g., Fogle et al. 2002; Lucas 2008).
Extraversion seems to influence well-being because it is positively related to positive
emotions and being more reactive to PA, while Neuroticism is negatively related to
negative emotions and a being more reactive to NA (Larsen and Eid 2008). However,
while the influence of Neuroticism on well-being is about the same for adolescents as for
adults (e.g., Fogle et al. 2002), recent research among adolescents shows mixed results for
the trait of Extraversion. Rigby and Huebner (2005) suggested that specific avoidant
behavior (e.g., avoiding standing out) in some adolescents might reduce the advantages of
Extraversion we see among adults. Other researchers (e.g., Vitters 2001; DeNeve and
Cooper 1998) hold that Extraversion is overrated as a predictor of well-being. Vitters
(2001), for example, suggest that Neuroticism predicts not only the presence of NA but
also the absence of PA better than Extraversion does (see Garcia and Erlandsson 2010 for
another point of view). Furthermore, despite the mayor role of personality traits on wellbeing, cognitive variables such as locus of control (Ash and Huebner 2001), self-acceptance (Garcia and Siddiqui 2009b) and self-efficacy (Fogle et al. 2002) are also good
predictors of adolescents well-being. Certainly, personality is a broad concept and consists
of heritable traits, environment and learning characteristics (Lucas 2008). Thus, other
models of personality might be necessary to understand the role of personality in the
context of affect.
The cognitive variables mentioned above (i.e., locus of control, self-acceptance, selfefficacy) are included in Cloningers psychobiological model of personality (Cloninger
et al. 1993), which is based in findings from neuroanatomy to neurophysiology as well as
developmental and clinical psychology and psychiatry. Differences in the major brain

123

The Affective Temperaments

systems for procedural versus propositional learning lead to the distinction between four
temperament constructs and three character constructs (for a review see Cloninger 2004).
The four temperament dimensions are defined in terms of individual differences in
behavioral learning mechanisms, explaining responses to signals of punishment or nonreward (Harm Avoidance), novelty and signals of reward or relief of punishment (Novelty
Seeking), maintained response to previously rewarded behavior without continued reinforcement (Reward Dependence), and Persistence (previously a subscale of Reward
Dependence). In contrast, character involves individual differences in self-concepts about
goals and values (Cloninger 2004). Character seems to form the individuals thoughts in
three dimensions: Self-Directedness (based on the concept of the self as an autonomous
individual), Cooperativeness (based on the concept of the self as an integral part of
humanity or society), and Self-Transcendence (based on the concept of the self as an
integral part of the universe and its source).
The two models of personality described in this section show important correlations:
Harm Avoidance is positively related to Neuroticism while Novelty Seeking is positively
related to Extraversion (De Fruyt et al. 2005). Moreover, development in adolescence may
be focused on the concept of the self as independent (Erikson 1968) and that specific
concept of the self (i.e., self-directedness) may be another key element to understand wellbeing among youth. Indeed, Self-Directedness is also related to low levels of Harm
Avoidance, high LS, high levels of PA, and low levels of NA among adolescents (Asch
et al. 2009; Garcia 2011b; Garcia and Moradi 2011).
1.3 Aims and Rationale of the Present Study
The present study aims to investigate differences in personality traits and dimensions
between AFTs. These differences are tested using the two models of personality described
in the section above in order to capture differences and similarities that might explain why,
besides self-actualizers, also low and high affectives show greater well-being than the selfdestructive. Adolescents who report high NA (i.e., high affectives and self-destructives) or
low PA (i.e., low affectives and self-destructives) are expected to report higher levels of
neurotic behavior (i.e., Neuroticism and Harm Avoidance) than adolescents who report
high PA and low NA (i.e., self-actualizing). Moreover, adolescents who experience high
PA or low NA (i.e., self-actualizing, high affective, and low affective) are expected to
report higher levels of Self-Directedness than the self-destructive adolescents. Three
studies were conducted to test the expectations presented here.

2 Study 1: Pilot
2.1 Method
2.1.1 Instruments
Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988). The Swedish
PANAS version used in the present study has been largely used in other studies (e.g.,
Norlander et al. 2002, 2005). The PANAS asks participants to rate to what extent they
generally have experienced 20 different feelings or emotions (10 PA and 10 NA) for the
last weeks, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very slightly, 5 = extremely). The 10-item PA
scale includes adjectives such as strong, proud, and interested (Cronbachs a = .85). The

123

D. Garcia

10-item NA scale includes adjectives such as afraid, ashamed, and nervous (Cronbachs
a = .78).
NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCraes 1992). The
Swedish version of the NEO-PI-R was used to assess personality according to the fivefactor model. The 240 items of the NEO-PI-R are organized in the five traits, 48 items
each, and uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agreee).
Cronbachs a varied between .84 and .92.
The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI; Cloninger et al. 1993). The TCI
measures the seven factors of the psychobiological model of personality (238-items with
forced binary answer: yes or no). The four temperament dimensions are: Harm Avoidance
(e.g., I often feel tense and worried in unfamiliar situations, even when others feel there is
little to worry about), Novelty Seeking (e.g., I often try new things just for fun or thrills,
even if most people think it is a waste of time), Reward Dependence (e.g., I like to
discuss my experience and feelings openly with friends instead of keeping them to
myself), and Persistence (e.g., I often push myself to the point of exhaustion or try to do
more than I really can). The three character dimensions are: Self-Directedness (e.g., In
most situations my natural responses are based on good habits that I have developed),
Cooperativeness (e.g., I often consider another persons feelings as much as my own),
and Self-Transcendence (e.g., I sometimes feel so connected to nature that everything
seems to be part of one living organism). The Swedish version of the TCI developed by
Brandstrom et al. (1998, 2001, 2003, 2008) was used in the present study. The data used in
the present study corresponded to the Swedish normative data of the TCI (S. Brandstrom,
personal communication, September 28, 2006). Cronbachs a varied between .48 and .80.
2.1.2 Participants and Procedure
Pupils at a high school in the county of Blekinge, Sweden, participated in the study. The
whole population (N = 109) was contacted and 93 adolescents (63 girls) agreed to participate (age mean of 16.69, SD = .91). All parents were informed of the present and other
studies being conducted among adolescents at the school. The nature of the studies was
explained (e.g., instruments, confidentiality) and questions addressed at the same meeting.
Pupils were told that their involvement was voluntary, confidential and that the studies
were about how high school pupils think about their lives. All participants were presented
with the PANAS, the two personality measures (the order of the personality measures was
randomized across the sample) and other instruments. In Garcia and colleagues studies
participants PA and NA scores were divided into high and low, using reference data from
a group of 84 adolescents (mean age = 16.51) who were followed three times with the
PANAS self-reports over a 1.5 year time span. PA and NA mean scores from this group
yielded the following cut-off points: low PA = 34 or less; high PA = 35 or above; low
NA = 22 or less; and high NA = 23 or above. The same cut-off points were used to create
the AFT profiles in the present study because these cut-off points were based in longitudinal data; secondly, due to the similarities between the present sample and their sample
(e.g., age, nationality). This procedure divided participants in the four AFTs: self-actualizing (18 boys and 15 girls), high affective (5 boys and 16 girls), low affective (3 boys and
11 girls), and self-destructive (4 boys and 21 girls).
In order to test differences between AFTs in both personality models two AFTs
between-subjects MANOVAs were conducted. In both MANOVAs the AFTs were the
independent variables. The NEO-PI-R was the dependent variable in the first MANOVA
and the TCI the dependent variable in the second MANOVA.

123

The Affective Temperaments

2.2 Results
Table 1 shows the correlations between personality variables.
2.2.1 Differences Between AFTs in the Big Five Model
The first MANOVA showed that there was a significant effect of the level of AFTs
(self-actualizing, high affective, low affective and self-destructive) on personality measured by the NEO-PI-R (F(15,179) = 2.18, p = .01; Wilks Lambda = .63; partial eta
squared = .14). The AFTs differed in the trait of Neuroticism (F(3,89) = 9.29, p \ .001).
No differences were found for the traits of Extraversion (F(3,89) = 1.87, p = .14),
Openness (F(3,89) = 1.40, p = .25), Agreeableness (F(3,89) = .34, p = .80), or Conscientiousness (F(3,89) = 1.56, p = .21). A Bonferroni correction to the alpha level of .01
showed that self-actualizers showed lower scores in the trait of Neuroticism than high
affectives (p = .01), low affectives (p = .01) and self-destructives (p \ .001). See Table 2
for details.
2.2.2 Differences Between AFTs in Cloningers Model
The second MANOVA showed that there was a significant effect of the level of AFTs
(self-actualizing, high affective, low affective and self-destructive) on personality measured by the TCI (F(21,238) = 3.20, p \ .0001; Wilks Lambda = .49; partial eta
squared = .21). The AFTs differed in Harm Avoidance (F(3,89) = 12.25, p \ .001) and
Self-Directedness (F(3,89) = 14.94, p \ .001). No differences were found for Novelty
Seeking (F(3,89) = .10, p = .96), Reward Dependence (F(3,89) = .80, p = .50), Persistence (F(3,89) = 1.91, p = .13), Cooperativeness (F(3,89) = .48, p = .69) or Self-Transcendence (F(3,89) = 1.11, p = .35). A Bonferroni correction to the alpha level of .001
showed that, as predicted, self-actualizers showed lower scores in Harm Avoidance than
low affectives (p = .001) and self-destructives (p \ .001). However, in contrast to the
expectations, no differences in Harm Avoidance where found between self-actualizing and
high affective adolescents (p = .23). High affective adolescents actually reported lower
scores in Harm Avoidance than self-destructive adolescents (p = .001; see Table 2 for
details). Nevertheless, as expected, self-actualizers, high affectives, and low affectives
reported higher Self-Directedness than the self-destructive adolescents (p \ .001 for selfactualizing; p \ .001 for high affectives; p = .01 for low affectives, see Table 2 for
details).
2.3 Brief Discussion
Study 1 showed that the AFTs actually differed in personality measured by two models.
As expected the self-actualizing adolescents showed lower tendency to neurotic
behavior than the rest of the AFT. Moreover, besides profiles with high PA (i.e., selfactualizing and high affective), also the low affective adolescents reported higher SelfDirectedness. In Study 1, two separate analyses were conducted to test differences
between AFTs in each personality model, nevertheless, given the number of variables
tested in Study 1, Study 2 and 3 aimed to replicate these findings in larger samples for
each personality model.

123

123

-.35

-.24

N = 93, ** p \ .001; * p \ .001, ns, non significant

(12) Conscientiousness

**

.04 ns

.57

**

.04 ns

.47**

.25*

-.02 ns

(11) Agreeableness

.08 ns

.29**

.20 ns

.20 ns

(10) Openness

.04 ns
.06 ns

-.53**

.41**

(9) Extraversion

.31

.32

**

.50**

.50**

.26*

.69

.08 ns

**

**

.59

**

.82

**

.61**

.41**

**

(8) Neuroticism

.38

.41

**

.06 ns

.22*

.62

**

.67

**

.58

**

.27

(7) Self-transcendence

(6) Cooperativeness

(5) Self-directedness

(4) Persistence

.46**

.66**

(3) Reward dependence

**

.27**

(2) Harm avoidance

(1) Novelty seeking

Table 1 Correlations between personality variables in Study 1

**

.41

**

.14 ns

-.03 ns

.41**

-.45

.36**

.74**

.08 ns

.64**

.38**

.26*

.00 ns

.61**

-.19 ns

.28**

.40**

.05 ns

.19 ns

-.26

.17 ns

.25*

-.35**

.25

.14 ns

.08 ns

-.08 ns

.38**

10

.03 ns

11

12

D. Garcia

14.20

Self-transcendence

22.08

5.49

6.86

6.38

2.27

4.22

7.46

6.79

18.77

18.84

15.50

27.67

151.69

16.62

4.16
b

4.90

13.24

27.48

26.81a

4.58

7.74

4.97

2.17

4.41

6.46

14.62a
14.76

5.56

27.00

26.44

18.65

16.64

21.37

SD

23.48

157.10

159.84

148.89

173.42

148.90

High affective (n = 21)

versus self-destructives, versus low affectives

11.07

6.60

6.18

29.79

2.17

3.36

2.67

7.51

6.00

23.16

21.87

17.63

18.71

24.64a

16.71

17.14

22.86

151.86

163.43

155.23

170.86

p \ .01, Bonferronis test: * versus the other three groups,

28.36

Cooperativeness

15.76

Reward dependence

3.60

20.96

Harm avoidance

18.96

23.92

Novelty seeking

Self-directedness

142.00

Conscientiouness

Persistence

161.50

162.75

Agreeableness

Extraversion

Openness

163.55

155.13

Neuroticism

SD

SD

Low affective (n = 14)

Self-destructive (n = 25)

Table 2 Means in personality variables (NEO-PI-R and TCI) among AFTs in Study 1

13.58

29.39

29.55a

4.03

14.97

10.88a,b

23.52

157.90

156.64

154.52

171.18

132.03*

5.87

6.09

6.41

2.10

4.51

4.79

5.18

24.92

18.20

17.77

17.12

23.62

SD

Self-actualizing (n = 33)

13.29

28.74

25.34

4.01

15.40

15.38

23.52

152.53

160.20

155.42

167.24

147.36

5.28

6.71

7.33

2.20

4.17

7.48

5.77

24.24

20.86

17.59

21.68

24.69

SD

Total (N = 93)

The Affective Temperaments

123

D. Garcia

3 Study 2: AFTs and the Big 5

Study 2 was designed to test differences between AFT profiles and Big Five personality
traits. The same instruments from Study 1were used to measure affect (i.e., the PANAS)
and personality (i.e., the NEO-PI-R).
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants and Procedure
A total of 157 (107 girls, age mean of 16.59, SD = .92) pupils at a high school in the
county of Vaxjo, Sweden, participated in Study 2. The same procedure from Study 1 was
followed in Study 2 (e.g., parents consent, information about the studies to pupils). All
participants were presented with the PANAS (Cronbachs a = .80 for PA; Cronbachs
a = .79 for NA) and the NEO-PI-R (Cronbachs a between .85 and .94). The AFT categorization divided the sample as follows: self-actualizing (20 boys and 20 girls), high
affective (9 boys and 28 girls), low affective (15 boys and 19 girls), and self-destructive (6
boys and 40 girls).
A between-subjects MANOVA was conducted in order to test differences between
AFTs in personality traits measured by the NEO-PI-R. The AFTs was the independent
variable and the five personality traits were the dependent variables.
3.2 Results
There was a significant effect of the level of AFTs (self-actualizing, high affective, low
affective and self-destructive) on personality measured by the NEO-PI-R (F(5,25) = 5.44,
p \ .001; Wilks Lambda = .45; partial eta squared = .15). As in Study 1, the AFTs
differed in the trait of Neuroticism (F(5,154) = 21.62, p \ .001), did not differed in
Openness (F(5,154) = 1.67, p = .15), Agreeableness (F(1,154) = .47, p = .80), or
Conscientiousness (F(5,154) = 1.65, p = .15). However, in contrast to Study 1, the AFT
differed in the trait of Extraversion (F(5,154) = 7.85, p \ .001). A Bonferroni correction
to the alpha level of .01 showed that self-actualizers reported lower scores in the trait of
Neuroticism than high affectives (p \ .001), and self-destructives (p \ .001). Nevertheless, low affective reported lower Neuroticism than the self-destructive (p \ .001) and the
high affective (p \ .01). In regard to Extraversion, both self-actualizers and high affectives
reported higher scores in this trait that the low affective (p \ .01) and the self-destructive
adolescents (p \ .001). See Table 3 for details.
3.3 Brief Discussion
As predicted, self-actualizers showed lower levels of Neuroticism than adolescents who
experience high NA (i.e., high affective and self-destructive). Nevertheless, in contrast to
Study 1, low affectives reported lower neurotic behavior compared to high affectives and
self-destructives as well. Thus, suggesting that high levels of Neuroticism is a common
trait among adolescents who experience high NA (i.e., high affectives and self-destructives). Garcia and Siddiqui (2009a, b) found that both high and low affective adolescents
feel more satisfied with life and report higher Psychological Well-Being than the selfdestructive adolescents, despite their experience of high NA respectively low PA. These

123

170.94

165.83

Agreeableness

Conscientiouness

21.35

17.39

20.91

17.05

20.58

158.55

166.36

155.94

159.36

129.06

18.12

20.72

17.86

20.74

15.22

SD

155.67

165.11

164.61
22.27

22.12

19.37

19.47
21.08

142.81

SD

175.83a,b

High affective (n = 37)

versus self-destructives, versus low affectives, versus high affective

156.98

Openness

p \ .01, Bonferronis test:

155.25

Extraversion

155.21

Neuroticism

a,c

SD

Low affective (n = 34)

Self-destructive (n = 46)

Table 3 Means in personality variables (NEO-PI-R) among AFTs in Study 2

a,c

166.10

165.30

164.85

174.55a,b

116.08

21.88

23.61

19.73

17.91

17.85

SD

Self-actualizing (n = 40)

162.21

167.16

160.28

165.43

136.54

21.82

20.76

19.97

21.14

23.76

SD

Total (N = 157)

The Affective Temperaments

123

D. Garcia

researchers suggested that, in contrast to the other AFTs, the self-destructives seem to lack
the ability to self-regulate their reaction to negative stimuli, which in turn, keeps them in
their emotional state (Garcia et al. 2010). Garcia and colleagues results together with the
results presented here suggest that this ability to self-regulate emotions is managed by high
affective despite high levels of Neuroticism.
Although it was explicitly stated that the relationship between Extraversion and PA is
contradictory, a further explanation might be in order. Rigby and Huebner (2005) suggested that there may be specific avoidant behavior (e.g., avoiding standing out) in some
adolescents that might reduce the advantages of Extraversion we see among adults.
Although this explanation is plausible, it can be argued that the relationship between
Extraversion and character constructs may give a better explanation. According to Cloninger (2004) understanding the self as a unity of being (i.e., high in all character dimensions) leads to attitudes that increase personal satisfaction, sublimation, and flexibility
regardless of external circumstances (Cloninger 2004, p. 126). In contrast to SelfDirectedness, Extraversion was not related to Cooperativeness, was negatively related to
Self-Transcendence and only slightly positively related to Self-Directedness (Study 1).
Thus, extroverts probably vary in their level to connect to others, to be able to transcend
the self and to feel autonomous. The lack of Self-Directedness, in particular, is probably
harmful among extrovert adolescents because while peers can influence academic
achievement and prosocial behaviors (Wentzel and Caldwell 1997), peers can also influence the use of drugs and alcohol and delinquency (Urberg et al. 2003).

4 Study 3: AFTs and TCI

Study 3 was designed to test differences between AFT profiles and personality constructs
from Cloningers psychobiological model of personality. The same instruments from Study
1were used to measure affect (i.e., the PANAS) and personality (i.e., the TCI).
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants and Procedure
A total of 148 (97 girls, age mean of 16.78, SD = .95) pupils at a high school in the county of
Blekinge, Sweden, participated in Study 3. The same procedure from Study 1 and 2 was
followed in Study 3 (e.g., parents consent, information about the studies to pupils). All
participants were presented with the PANAS (Cronbachs a = .83 for PA; Cronbachs
a = .79 for NA) and the TCI (Cronbachs a between .69 and .72). The AFT categorization
divided the sample as follows: self-actualizing (24 boys and 20 girls), high affective (9 boys
and 21 girls), low affective (10 boys and 20 girls), and self-destructive (8 boys and 36 girls).
A between-subjects MANOVA was conducted in order to test differences between
AFTs in personality constructs measured by the TCI. The AFTs was the independent
variable and the seven personality constructs were the dependent variables.
4.2 Results
There was a significant effect of the level of AFTs (self-actualizing, high affective, low
affective and self-destructive) on personality measured by the TCI (F(7,21) = 4.40,
p \ .001; Wilks Lambda = .55; partial eta squared = .18). As in Study 1, the AFTs

123

The Affective Temperaments

Table 4 Means in personality variables (TCI) among AFTs in Study 3
Selfdestructive
(n = 44)

Low affective
(n = 30)

High affective
(n = 30)

Self-actualizing
(n = 44)

Total
(N = 148)

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

Novelty seeking

23.91

6.55

22.07

6.01

23.07

5.19

23.25

5.17

23.18

5.77

Harm avoidance

19.58

7.05

16.63

7.49

14.21a

5.67

10.00a,b

4.71

15.08

7.29

Reward dependence

16.16

3.81

15.87

3.52

14.97

4.41

14.75

4.07

15.44

3.97

3.82

2.42

3.67

2.35

1.99

4.36

2.00

4.23

2.26

21.09

6.63

25.03a

6.53

5.99

30.59a

5.77

25.96

7.24

Persistence
Self-directedness

5.24a,b
27.44a

Cooperativeness

28.49

6.71

30.70

6.37

28.97

7.08

29.50

5.78

29.33

6.36

Self-transcendence

14.93

5.54

11.20

5.45

14.31

6.12

13.27

5.72

13.56

5.79

p \ 0.001, Bonferronis test: a versus self-destructives, bversus low affectives, cversus high affective

differed in Harm Avoidance (F(3,144) = 18.12, p \ .001) and Self-Directedness

(F(3,144) = 17.98, p \ .001). Consequently, no differences were found for Novelty
Seeking (F(3,144) = .61, p = .61), Reward Dependence (F(3,144) = 1.19, p = .32),
Cooperativeness (F(3,144) = .77, p = .52), or Self-Transcendence (F(3,144) = 2.80,
p = .10) Nevertheless, in contrast to Study 1, the AFT differed in Persistence
(F(3,144) = 3.24, p \ .01).
A Bonferroni correction to the alpha level of .001 showed that, as predicted, selfactualizers showed lower scores in Harm Avoidance than low affectives (p \ .001) and
self-destructives (p \ .001). As in Study 1, high affective adolescents reported lower
scores in Harm Avoidance than self-destructive adolescents (p = .001). The difference in
Harm Avoidance between high and low affectives was not significant (p = .84). As
expected, self-actualizers high affectives, and low affectives reported higher Self-Directedness than the self-destructive adolescents (p \ .001 for self-actualizing; p \ .001 for
high affectives; p = .05 for low affectives). The high affective adolescents reported higher
scores of Persistence than the low affective (p = .05) and the self-destructive adolescents
(p = .05). See Table 4 for details.
4.3 Brief Discussion
While an adolescent with high affectivity experience high levels of NA which in turn is
related to neurotic behavior, they also reported higher levels of Self-Directedness than the
self-destructive adolescents. Self-Directedness was also higher among low affectives,
compared to self-destructives, despite low affectives experience of low PA and neurotic
behavior. Self-directed behavior seems to be the common character construct between selfactualizing, high and low affective adolescents. Self-destructive adolescents lack this type
of behavior. It is plausible to suggest that self-directed behavior might be responsible for
high and low affectives recollecting their life as satisfied, despite reporting higher levels of
Neuroticism than self-actualizing adolescents. After all, self-directed adolescents can be
expected to be responsible, have a purpose, resourceful, self-acceptant, and automatically
act in accord with their long-term values and goals (i.e., a congruent second nature;
Cloninger 2004).
Nevertheless, different facets of Self-Directedness are perhaps at work. For example,
high affective adolescents are probably more concerned with goal-directed behavior.

123

D. Garcia

Indeed, Garcia and Siddiqui (2009b) found that high affective adolescents showed higher
personal growth (a sub-scale of PWB) than the low affective adolescents. In concordance,
high affective adolescents in Study 3 reported higher levels in the temperament construct
of Persistence than low affective and self-destructive adolescents. Sheldon et al. (2010), for
example, found that persistent pursuit of need-satisfying goals leads to increased SWB
among young adults. Adolescents high in Persistence are expected to be hard-working, and
stable despite frustration and fatigue. They are also expected to increase their efforts in
response to anticipated reward (Cloninger et al. 1993). In other words, frustration and
fatigue might be perceived as a personal challenge, they do not give up easily and are
probably are willing to make major sacrifices to be a success (e.g., good grades). Moreover,
Tugade and Fredrickson (2004), for example, found that individuals who report high
positive emotions before doing a time pressured speech preparation experience higher
levels of interest along with high anxiety feelings. Even more important, Tugade and
Fredrickson (2004) found that individuals with high affectivity returned faster to their
normal cardiovascular activation following the task. In other words, goal-directed behavior
among high affective adolescents probably leads to both high PA and high NA; however,
high PA in turn may lead to resilience and higher well-being. In contrast, adolescents with
a low affective temperament are more concerned with the self-acceptant behavior.
Accepting the self probably helps them to avoid stressful situations and high levels of NA.
Norlander et al. (2005), for example, found that while low affectives reacted more to
induced stress, compared to self-actualizing and high affectives, the low affectives also
reported less stress in their life, compared to high affectives and self-destructives.
The same logic may apply to Harm Avoidance. However, in contrast to the expectations, no differences in Harm Avoidance were found between high PA adolescents (i.e.,
self-actualizers and high affectives). Instead, high affectives showed lower levels of Harm
Avoidance than self-destructives, while self-actualizers reported lower levels of Harm
Avoidance than self-destructives and low affectives. The experience of positive emotions
is, however, suggested to broad thoughts and behaviors and facilitates more adaptive
responses to environments, in turn, enhancing well-being (Fredrickson 2006). In contrast,
negative emotions are believed to narrow thoughts and behaviors. Thus, in contrast to low
affective and self-destructive adolescents, it can be suggested that the high affective
adolescents high PA makes them less prone to signals of punishment or non-reward (i.e.,
Harm Avoidance).

5 General Discussion
The present study aimed to examine differences between adolescents in two models of
personality (i.e., Big Five and Cloningers psychobiological model). The AFTs framework
was the backdrop of the analysis. The interaction of PA and NA was expected to be related
to intrapersonal behavior that might help adolescents to maintain their affective state. At a
first glance some of the hypothesis probably are self explanatory; NA, for example, should
map on neurotic behavior (i.e., Neuroticism and Harm Avoidance). Nevertheless, the
relationship between extrovert behavior and PA in adolescence is still unclear. In contrast,
Neuroticism is suggested to predict the presence of NA and the absence of PA among
adults and adolescents. Moreover, among adolescents the concept of Self-Directedness is
probably a key element to understand positive emotional development and is linked to the
experience of high PA and low NA. As suggested by Garcia and colleagues the interaction
of PA and NA leads to behaviors that help the individual to maintain well-being by keeping

123

The Affective Temperaments

High PA
Self-Actualizing

High Affective

Low in Neuroticism

High in Neuroticism

High in Extraversion

High in Extraversion

High in Self-Directedness

High in Self-Directedness

Low in Harm Avoidance

Low in Harm Avoidance

High in Persistence

Low NA

High NA
Low Affective

Self-Destructive

Low in Neuroticism

High in Neuroticism

Low in Extraversion

Low in Extraversion

High in Self-Directedness

Low in Self-Directedness

High in Harm Avoidance

High in Harm Avoidance

Low in Persistence

Low in Persistence

LowPA
Fig. 1 Positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) scales as two bisected crossed-over axes, showing the
results from the personality variables among AFTs (adapted from Norlander et al. 2002 with permission of
T. Norlander)

them in their affective state (e.g., high PA and/or low NA), thus, the AFTs framework
offers something unique over and above the single dimensional frameworkspecifically,
with respect to the high and low affective individuals. The results of the present study are
summarized in Fig. 1.
The AFTs framework showed relatively consistent differences in personality across the
three studies. Nevertheless, boys and girls often differ on the personality variables analyzed in this study (especially in the traits of Neuroticism and the dimension of Harm
Avoidance); therefore, these possible differences should be explored. In the present study
these analysis were not conducted due to the gender misdistribution across samples.
Similar to other studies (e.g., De Fruyt et al. 2005), Neuroticism and Harm Avoidance were
positively related (Study 1). However, in contrast to most studies (e.g., De Fruyt et al.
2005, Schmeck et al. 2001) Harm Avoidance was not negatively related to Self-Directedness (Study 1). Thus, the results and the suggestions from the present set of studies
should be interpreted with caution.
5.1 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The results presented here are based on self-reports, the samples were relatively small and
consisted only of adolescents. Moreover the TCI instrument showed varied reliability.
Thus, it is reasonable to ask why the revised TCI version (TCI-R; Cloninger 1999) was not

123

D. Garcia

used in the present set of studies. Nonetheless, both the TCI and TCI-R are equally reliable
(C. R. Cloninger, personal communication, March 15th, 2011). Although Neuroticism,
Harm Avoidance and Self-Directedness relation to affect is perhaps logical, further studies
are needed in order to establish if Self-Directedness has an important role in other measures of well-being (e.g., life satisfaction). Research using larger and adult samples is
needed in order to strengthen the findings presented here. Furthermore, as stated in the
introduction temperament is relatively stable in adults, while it might be less stable during
adolescence due to their neurological development (Windle and Windle 2006). Thus, in
order to use PA and NA as trait measures among adolescents, future studies should address
the testretest reliability of the AFT framework.
5.2 Conclusions
The results demonstrate interesting differences between AFTs and Neuroticism and also
AFTs and Self-directedness and Harm Avoidance. The most interesting finding is the lack of
self-directed behavior in self-destructive adolescents in comparison with the other three
AFTs. It is plausible to suggest that this finding might be potentially important for the clinical
practice (e.g., working with suicidal patients). Self-directedness as the only character
dimension that is being learned and increases with age, could be eventually a focus of
therapies. Differences and similarities in personality variables among AFTs are probably the
base of self-actualizing, low and high affectives ability to self-regulate their emotions, to feel
satisfied with life and to show high levels of PWB. If these difference are consistent, the AFT
framework can then be suggested as reliable when predicting well-being and useful when
interventions seek to increase adolescents satisfaction with their life.
Very little is needed to make a happy life;
it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.
Marcus Aurelius
People with high assurance in their capabilities
approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered
rather than as threats to be avoided.
Albert Bandura
Acknowledgments The preparation of this article was facilitated thanks to the Swedish Council for
Working Life and Social Research (FAS). I would like to thank the participants for their help facilitating the
studies and to the reviewers who helped to improve the manuscript. I would also like to convey my gratitude
to Professor C. Robert Cloninger at the Washington University in St. Louis, Sven Brandstrom at the
University of Linkoping, and Anver Siddiqui at the University of Gothenburg for their most valued help
with the TCI instrument. Appreciation is also directed to Professor Trevor Archer at the University of
Gothenburg, and Torsten Norlander at Karlstad University for their most valuable insights on the Affective
Temperament framework. Last but not least I would like to thank Dr. Antonella Delle Fave for her
encouraging words and open-mindedness.

References
Archer, T., Adrianson, L., Plancak, A., & Karlsson, E. (2007). Influence of affective personality on cognitive-mediated emotional processing: Need for empowerment. European Journal of Psychiatry, 21,
2144.
Asch, M., Cortese, S., Perez Diaz, F., Pelissolo, A., Aubron, V., Orejarena, S., et al. (2009). Psychometric
properties of a French version of the junior temperament and character inventory. European Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 144153.

123

The Affective Temperaments

Ash, C., & Huebner, E. S. (2001). Environmental events and life satisfaction reports of adolescents: A test of
cognitive mediation. School Psychology International, 22, 320336.
Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243273.
Brandstrom, S., Richter, J., & Nylander, P.-O. (2003). Further development of the temperament and
character inventory. Psychological Reports, 93, 9951002.
Brandstrom, S., Richter, J., & Przybeck, (2001). Distributions by age and sex of the dimensions of temperament and character inventory in a cross-cultural perspective among Sweden, Germany, and the
USA. Psychological Reports, 89, 747758.
Brandstrom, S., Schlette, P., Przybeck, T. R., Lundberg, M., Forsgren, T., Sigvardsson, S., et al. (1998).
Swedish normative data on personality using the Temperament and Character Inventory. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39, 122128.
Brandstrom, S., Sigvardsson, S., Nylander, P.-O., & Richter, J. (2008). The Swedish version of the temperament and character inventory (TCI)A cross-validation of age and gender influences. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1, 1421.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and
taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316336.
Cloninger, C. R. (1999). The temperament and character inventoryRevised. St Louis, MO: Center for
Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University.
Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good: The science of wellbeing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and
character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975989.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2005). Cloningers psychobiological model of
temperament and the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Difference, 29,
441452.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). A happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197229.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fogle, L. M., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). The relationship between temperament and life
satisfaction in early adolescence: Cognitive and behavioral mediation models. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 3, 373392.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I.
S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 85103). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Garcia, D. (2011a). Interpretation and recognition for words in a short story (IRWSS). At the American
Psychological Associations PsycTESTSTM database.
Garcia, D. (2011b). Two models of personality and well-being among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 12081212. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.009.
Garcia, D., Andersson Arnten, A.-C., Siddiqui, A., & Archer, T. (2011). Temperament, character, and
adolescents depressive symptoms: Focusing on affect. Manuscript under evaluation.
Garcia, D., & Erlandsson, A. (2010). The relationship between personality and subjective well-being:
Different association patterns when measuring the affective component in frequency and intensity.
Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9242-6.
Garcia, D., & Moradi, S. (2011). Adolescents temperament and character: A longitudinal study on happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9300-8.
Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., Erlandsson, A., & Siddiqui, A. (2010). On lions and adolescents: Affective
temperaments and the influence of negative stimuli on memory. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11,
477495. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9153-6.
Garcia, D., & Siddiqui, A. (2009a). Adolescents affective temperaments: Life satisfaction, interpretation
and memory of events. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 155167. doi:10.1080/1743976080
2399349.
Garcia, D., & Siddiqui, A. (2009b). Adolescents psychological well-being and memory for life events:
Influences on life satisfaction with respect to temperamental dispositions. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10, 387503. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9096-3.
Gonzales, M., Casas, F., & Coenders, G. (2007). A complexity approach to psychological well-being in
adolescence: Major strengths and methodological issues. Social Indicators Research, 80, 267295.
Green, D. P., & Salovey, P. (1999). In what sense are positive and negative affect independent? A reply to
Tellegen, Watson, and Clark. Psychological Science, 10, 304306.

123

D. Garcia
Ito, A. T., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Affect and attitudes: A social neuroscience approach. In J. P. Forgas
(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 5074). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one. A critical evaluation of two-system
theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 533550.
Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse definitions
of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6,
261300.
Larsen, R. J., & Eid, M. (2008). Ed Diener and the science of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R.
J. Larsen (Eds.), the science of subjective well-being (pp. 113). New York: The Guilford Press.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132140.
Lucas, R. E. (2008). Personality and subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of
subjective well-being (pp. 171194). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005a). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness
lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 6, 803855.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005b). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111131.
MacLeod, A., & Moore, R. (2000). Positive thinking revised: Positive cognitions, well-being and mental
health. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 110.
Martin, K. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2007). Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional wellbeing of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 199208.
., & Archer, T. (2002). Performance during stress: Affective personality age, and
Norlander, T., Bood, S.-A
regularity of physical exercise. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 495508.
., & Bood, S.-A
. (2005). The affective personality: Its relation to quality of
Norlander, T., Johansson, A
sleep, well-being and stress. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 709722.
Palomo, T., Kostrzewa, R. M., Beninger, R. J., & Archer, T. (2007). Treatment consideration and manifest
complexity in comorbid neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurotoxicity Research, 12, 4360.
Pavot, W. (2008). The assessments of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of
subjective well-being (pp. 124140). New York: The Guilford Press.
Rigby, B. T., & Huebner, E. S. (2005). Do causal attributions mediate the relationship between personality
characteristics and life satisfaction in adolescence? Psychology in the Schools, 42, 9199.
Rusell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 330.
Schimmack, U. (2007). Methodological issues in the assessment of the affective component of subjective
well-being. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. Van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive
psychology (pp. 96110). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (1997). Affect intensity: Separating intensity and frequency in repeatedly
measured affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 13131330.
Schmeck, K., Goth, K., Poustka, F., & Cloninger, C. R. (2001). Reliability and validity of the junior
temperament and character inventory. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 10,
172182.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., Ferguson, Y., Gunz, A., Houser-Marko, L., Nichols, C. P., et al. (2010). Persistent
pursuit of need-satisfying goals leads to increased happiness: A 6-month experimental longitudinal
study. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 3948.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents emotion regulation in daily life: Links to
depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74, 18691880.
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder.
Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122130.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back
from negative emotional arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320333.
Urberg, K. A., Lou, Q., Pilgrim, C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (2003). A two-stage model of peer influence
in adolescent substance use: Individual and relationship-specific differences in susceptibility to
influence. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 12431256.
Vitters, J. (2001). Personality traits and subjective well-being: Emotional stability, not extraversion, is
probably the important predictor. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 903914.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule
Expanded form. Boise: University of Iowa Press.

123

The Affective Temperaments

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
219235.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to
academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 11981209.
Windle, M., & Windle, R. C. (2006). Adolescent temperament and lifetime psychiatric and substance abuse
disorders assessed in young adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1525.

123