Objective: We used the affective profiles model to investigate individual differences in motivation, stress andenergy. The aim was to replicate past findings, but we also focused on matched comparisons within individuals withaffective profiles that are similar in one affective dimension and differ in the other in order to predict changes whenindividuals increase/decrease their experience of positive or negative affect.

Methods: A total of 567 participants answered the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule, which was usedfor affective profiling; the Situational Motivation Scale, which measures intrinsic motivation, identified regulation,external regulation, and amotivation; and the Stress-Energy questionnaire.

Results: Comparisons between the four different profiles, replicating the past findings, showed that individuals withhigh affective and self-fulfilling profile scored highest in intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and energy, whilethey scored lowest in external motivation, amotivation, and the self-fulfilling profile, also lowest in stress. Additionally,the matched comparisons showed, for example, that levels of intrinsic motivation increase when negative affect levelsdecrease, and positive affect is kept high when positive affect decreases and negative affect is kept low.

Conclusions: One important feature of the affective profiles model is the possibility to compare individuals thatare similar in one affect dimension but differ in the other (Garcia, 2011, 2017). This way of discussing individualdifferences helps to predict what changes could be expected when individuals increase or decrease their experience ofpositive or negative affect. Importantly, the direction of these changes cannot be addressed from cross-sectional data