as emotional problems, loss of friends, experience with severe punishment or
discrimination, and identity crises. In contrast, those high in cognitive-
affective complexity describe their lives as containing major negative experi-
ences such as severe punishment and discrimination and by major turning
points such as changes in self-concept, spiritual belief, or social status. These
data confirm those of others who report that individuals of high conceptual
complexity (as assessed by ego level) are more likely to give constructions of
their lives as complex and as involving difficult and life changing events
(Helson & Roberts, 1994; McAdams, 2001). At this time, we do not know if
the difference reflects the fact that complex individuals construct more differ-
entiated representations of their life course as a result of their rich intellectual
resources, or if their experience of negative events leads them to marshal
these resources in an attempt to cognitively master a difficult life history.
The four groups in many ways resemble similar subgroups identified in
Helson’s research (Helson & Srivastava, 2001; Helson & Wink, 1987). In
Helson and Wink’s (1987) work, these subgroups were identified as a combi-
nation of two dimensions. One of those represents smooth adaptation to the
social world, the other intrapsychic development and independence from
normative values. More recently, Helson and Srivastava (2001) described
these types as four identity styles: achievers who value both openness and
growth and environmental mastery (tradition, security, and conformity);
conservers who value environmental mastery but not personal growth; seek-
ers who value personal growth over environmental mastery; and the depleted
who score low on either of these two dimensions. Like the styles identified in
our research, these groups also display characteristic differences in how they
organize positive and negative affect, the seekers aimed at amplifying affect
and the conservers at dampening negative affect.
In general, the regulation styles we have identified in our research appear
to represent systematic individual differences in how individuals structure
their lives and how they cope with a multitude of emotional experiences. Our
results indicate that to rely on positive affect as a primary criterion of well-
being and positive development may not be sufficient, but that individuals
may organize the valence of emotions in different characteristic ways. Be-
yond emotional experience per se, these ways of organizing positive and neg-
ative emotions may form the basis of characteristic ways of constructing self
and identity. Our results show that these style differences are more important
than chronological age, and also that group membership remains fairly con-
stant over a 6-year period. However, the causes associated with change–con-
stancy over time remain to be explored in future research.
The notion that individual differences related to affect regulation reflect
systematic differences in identity and personality is congruent with much ex-
isting literature. Individual differences in affect complexity may run in paral-
lel with other differences in more classic personality variables. Emotional
- AFFECT OPTIMIZATION AND DIFFERENTIATION 257