Positively Negative: Why Negative Affect is Linked to Higher Wellbeing

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2026-04-28 DOI:10.1007/s10902-026-01040-4

Jinrui Liu, Ragnhild Bang Nes, Joar Vittersø, Irene J. E. Teulings, Espen Røysamb

{"title":"Positively Negative: Why Negative Affect is Linked to Higher Wellbeing","authors":"Jinrui Liu, Ragnhild Bang Nes, Joar Vittersø, Irene J. E. Teulings, Espen Røysamb","doi":"10.1007/s10902-026-01040-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many researchers oppose the hedonic idea that wellbeing can be reduced to the maximization of positive affect (PA) and the minimization of negative affect (NA). However, few studies have investigated alternative optimal levels of affects other than maximized PA and minimized NA. This paper examines ideal levels of PA and NA, and their alignment as an alternative approach to wellbeing. Study 1 investigates people’s ideal levels of affects. In a randomized forced-choice experiment ( N = 352, U.S.-based), most participants rejected a life without NA and idealized experiencing 10-13% NA and 66-80% PA across experimental conditions and two selfreported measures. Study 2 ( N = 638, international sample) examines whether life satisfaction corresponds more closely to affective alignment than to affective maximization. Using piecewise regression, we found that PA was consistently and positively associated with life satisfaction. Lower NA was associated with higher life satisfaction only among those experiencing more NA than desired. For those already below their ideal NA level, further reduction was no longer related to life satisfaction. Crucially, participants whose experienced and ideal affects were aligned reported the highest life satisfaction, instead of the group with highest hedonic experience. Overall, our findings suggest that individuals feel most satisfied when their experience aligns with their ideal, rather than when maximizing hedonic experience. Furthermore, the alignment is more linked to life satisfaction than to wisdom or personal growth. All in all, maximizing PA and minimizing NA are neither desired nor associated with the highest life satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-026-01040-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many researchers oppose the hedonic idea that wellbeing can be reduced to the maximization of positive affect (PA) and the minimization of negative affect (NA). However, few studies have investigated alternative optimal levels of affects other than maximized PA and minimized NA. This paper examines ideal levels of PA and NA, and their alignment as an alternative approach to wellbeing. Study 1 investigates people’s ideal levels of affects. In a randomized forced-choice experiment ( N = 352, U.S.-based), most participants rejected a life without NA and idealized experiencing 10-13% NA and 66-80% PA across experimental conditions and two selfreported measures. Study 2 ( N = 638, international sample) examines whether life satisfaction corresponds more closely to affective alignment than to affective maximization. Using piecewise regression, we found that PA was consistently and positively associated with life satisfaction. Lower NA was associated with higher life satisfaction only among those experiencing more NA than desired. For those already below their ideal NA level, further reduction was no longer related to life satisfaction. Crucially, participants whose experienced and ideal affects were aligned reported the highest life satisfaction, instead of the group with highest hedonic experience. Overall, our findings suggest that individuals feel most satisfied when their experience aligns with their ideal, rather than when maximizing hedonic experience. Furthermore, the alignment is more linked to life satisfaction than to wisdom or personal growth. All in all, maximizing PA and minimizing NA are neither desired nor associated with the highest life satisfaction.

查看原文本刊更多论文

积极消极：为什么消极的影响与更高的幸福感有关

许多研究者反对享乐主义的观点，即幸福可以被简化为积极影响的最大化和消极影响的最小化。然而，除了最大化PA和最小化NA之外，很少有研究调查了其他最佳影响水平。本文考察了PA和NA的理想水平，以及它们作为健康的替代方法的一致性。研究1调查了人们的理想情感水平。在一项随机强迫选择实验中（N = 352，基于美国），大多数参与者拒绝没有NA的生活，并在实验条件和两种自我报告的测量方法中理想化地体验10-13%的NA和66-80%的PA。研究2 （N = 638，国际样本）检验了生活满意度是否更接近于情感一致性而不是情感最大化。通过分段回归分析，我们发现PA与生活满意度呈持续正相关。较低的NA与较高的生活满意度只有在经历了比期望更多的NA的人群中才相关。对于那些已经低于理想NA水平的人来说，进一步降低与生活满意度不再相关。最重要的是，经验和理想情感一致的参与者报告了最高的生活满意度，而不是享乐体验最高的那一组。总的来说，我们的研究结果表明，当他们的经历与他们的理想相符时，而不是最大化享乐体验时，人们会感到最满意。此外，这种一致性更多地与生活满意度有关，而不是与智慧或个人成长有关。总而言之，最大化PA和最小化NA既不受欢迎，也与最高的生活满意度无关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?