Positively Negative: Why Negative Affect is Linked to Higher Wellbeing

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 affective balance—calculated as PA minus NA. This paper examines ideal levels of PA and NA, and the alignment between experienced and ideal levels 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 10.2% NA and 79.7% PA in the experiment. Two self-reported measures yield similar results. Study 2 (N = 638, international sample) examines whether achieving ideal affects corresponds to wellbeing more than maximizing affective balance. Using piecewise regression, we found that a higher proportion of experienced affective balance was positively associated with life satisfaction, but only among those experiencing less affective balance than wanted. For those with a surplus, further increase did not show a positive relationship with life satisfaction. Participants with perfect alignment between experienced and ideal affects reported the highest life satisfaction. Overall, our findings suggest that individuals feel most satisfied when their experience aligns with their ideal, rather than when affective balance is maximized. Furthermore, the alignment is more linked to life satisfaction than to eudaimonic wellbeing indicators. All in all, most individuals do not want to maximize affective balance, and optimal wellbeing is not reached through maximizing affective balance.Note: The current paper is under review at the Journal of Happiness Studies