Background: Conceptualizing affect as two separate signal sensitivity subsystems, defined as high/low positive affect and high/low negative affect, implies that (A) the study of affectivity needs the interaction between these two dimensions in a complex adaptive meta-system composed of combinations beyond the two-system approach and that (B) this meta-system is associated to individual differences in personality dimensions that are responsible for automatic emotional reactions (i.e., temperament) and for conscious goals and values (i.e., character). The affective profiles model coined by Archer and colleagues is a good representation of the affectivity meta-system that has generated a great amount of research for the past 20 years. Nevertheless, most research addressing differences in personality has been conducted among children and adolescents.

Aim: We aimed to replicate these past studies in two populations (Americans and Swedes) of adults by investigating differences in personality among individuals with distinct affective profiles. In this way, we want to expand our understanding of how the affectivity meta-system is regulated by automatic emotional responses (temperament) and conscious goals and values (i.e., character) across the lifespan and different cultures.

Method: We used data from two published studies consisting of 523 Americans ((Nima et al., PeerJ 8: e9193, 2020) and 524 Swedes (Fahlgren et al., 2015) who reported affect (Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule) and personality (Temperament and Character Inventory). For each population, we combined their percentiles scores in positive affect (high = PA/low = pa) and negative affect (high = NA/low = na) for profiling: Self-fulfilling (PAna), High Affective (PANA), Low Affective (pana), and Self-destructive (paNA). We used paired sample t-tests to compare differences in personality between individuals with profiles that were similar in one affectivity dimension but dissimilar in the other (i.e., matched differences) and we used independent sample t-tests to compare individuals with profiles that were diametrically different in both affectivity dimensions.

Results: In both populations, high positive affect was associated to low Harm Avoidance, high Persistence, and high Self-directedness and high negative affect was associated to high Harm Avoidance and low Self-directedness. Americans and Swedes with a self-fulfilling profile reported lower Harm Avoidance, higher Reward Dependence, higher Persistence, higher Self-directedness, and higher Cooperativeness compared to those with a self-destructive profile. In both populations, individuals with a high affective profile reported higher Novelty Seeking, higher Persistence, and higher Self-transcendence compared to those with a low affective profile. Most importantly, certain personality dimensions were associated to positive affect and negative affect depending on the specific affectivity combination and country of origin. For example, high Novelty Seeking was associated to high positive affect among Swedes but associated to high negative affect among Americans and while high Self-Transcendence was associated to high positive affect among Americans, among Swedes it was only associated to high positive affect when negative affect was low.

Conclusions: Besides replicating past adolescent studies, throughout person-oriented analyses (i.e., matched comparisons), we deepened our understanding about how and in what conditions specific personality dimensions help us to regulate the affective meta-system. In short, temperament dimensions target most of the times one or both affective subsystems and character dimensions target most of the times both subsystems to bring optimal self-regulation.