The first, or integrated (high complexity, high optimization) group, pre-
sents a style in which individuals combine affective differentiation with an
emphasis on affect optimization. These individuals maintain high levels of
positive affect and well-being and are socially well adjusted. At the same
time, they combine this with an attitude of openness and give cognitive-
affective representations that are complex and that integrate positive and
negative information.
The integrated group contrasts with two groups that are less well inte-
grated. The complex (high complexity, low optimization) are tolerant, open,
and complex, yet show signs of less positive adjustment such as lower positive
affect and social relationships. These individuals appear to marshal all their
cognitive resources to cope with a core sense of social inadequacy and isola-
tion. The self-protective (low complexity, high optimization) on the other
hand, have high levels of positive affect and judge their relationships as posi-
tive, yet they show low levels of complexity as indicated by low tolerance and
high denial and repression. The fourth or dysregulated (low complexity, low
optimization) group, finally, is overall most poorly adapted, showing both
low complexity and low social-emotional adjustment.
In a subsequent study (Labouvie-Vief, Zhang, & Jain, 2003), we validated
these four groups in terms of an additional set of variables and both Euro-
pean and African Americans. Significant group comparisons indicated that
the integrated subgroup scored high in positive affect but low in negative af-
fect, had high well-being, high scores on good impression and empathy, and
high self-rated health. In contrast, the dysregulated scored lowest on all of
these variables, except on negative affect, on which they score highest. How-
ever, the self-protective and the complex displayed more mixed patterns that
nevertheless are fairly coherent. While the complex and the self-protective
differed in negative affect, they did not differ in positive affect nor in self-
rated health. However, compared to the complex, the defended placed less
emphasis on personal growth but more on environmental mastery. They also
obtain higher scores on good impression, but lower scores on empathy, com-
pared to the complex. Both groups are also less likely to have secure attach-
ment than the integrated, but score higher than the dysregulated.
These data lend support to our contention that a complex style is one that
is open and involves less distortions of intersubjective balance. In addition,
they indicate that one of the major aspects differentiating the groups is how
they deal with negative affect, even though they do not significantly differ in
terms of positive affect. The self-protective tend to dampen negative affect,
while the complex amplify it. This difference is further demonstrated by ex-
amining the relationship of the cognitive-affective complexity and optimiza-
tion dimensions to life history variables that indicate how individuals con-
struct their autobiography. Results indicated that optimizers report that their
life is not characterized by major negative life events and turning points, such
256 LABOUVIE-VIEF AND GONZÁLEZ