INTEGRATION AND DEGRADATION
IN DEVELOPMENT AND AGING
Styles of Regulation
We have thus far assumed that the dynamic integration principle operates ac-
cording to a dynamic process by which the degree of complexity and integra-
tion of cognitive-affective representations are not fixed, but respond to
moment-to-moment fluctuations. In this way, the tradeoff between affect opti-
mization and affect differentiation describes a dynamic interplay that usually
functions in a resilient way, shifting from temporary arousal to resilient recov-
ery (Selye, 1978). We assume that such fluctuation is a normal and adaptive re-
sponse to the ups and downs of affective activation, and characterizes psycho-
logically healthy individuals, as well as ones less healthy. This state-like
dynamic character usually takes place outside of the consciousness of the indi-
vidual and provides a highly automatic and nonconscious but flexible and vital
means by which the organism can adjust to changing demands.
Even though this interplay overall is an adaptive one, it does mimic certain
regressive features of growth and development. This regression-like aspect re-
flects, however, fairly naïve forms of fragmentation that are a natural part of
early development. Such regressive features can take on a more motivated
and stable, and hence defensive, form—namely, in cases where continued
anxiety and overactivation become habitual. In such cases, one should ob-
serve systematic deviations from a pattern of integration.
We recently turned to an examination of such stylistic deviations (La-
bouvie-Vief & Medler, 2002). To do so, we defined, in the context of an ongo-
ing longitudinal-sequential study, two regulation components, affect optimi-
zation and cognitive-affective complexity (affect complexity, in short)
through a factor analysis of coping and defense variables from the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996). Briefly, high opti-
mizers are individuals characterized by minimizing feelings. They do not en-
gage in inappropriate behavior and fantasy, do not attend to feelings and
nonrational process in a rich and flexible way, and tend to ignore unpleasant
facts. However, they also are low in doubt and find it easy to make decisions.
Individuals high on complexity–differentiation are able to bring intellectual
analysis to emotions, both in ways that are integrative and adaptive and in
ones that reflect retreats from affect through rationalization and intellectual-
ization. At the same time, they are high in tolerance of ambiguity and low in
repression. Crossing these two dimensions yielded four distinct regulation
styles reflecting the way in which individuals can coordinate these dimen-
sions. Through factor analytic and cluster analytic methods, we (Labouvie-
Vief & Medler, 2002) have identified four such styles or groups.
- AFFECT OPTIMIZATION AND DIFFERENTIATION 255