Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985, 49, I 71

The Satisfaction With Life Scale

ED DIENER, ROBERT A. EMMONS, RANDY J. LARSEN, and SHARON
GRIFFIN University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Abstract: This article reports the development and validation of a scale to measure global
life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Among the various
.components of subjective well-being, the SWLS is narrowly focused tp iasses.s global
life.satisfaction and does not tap related constructs such as positive affect or loneliness.
The. SWLS is ghownto have favorable psychometric properties.Ineluding high internal
consistency and high temporal re- liability. Scores on the SWLS .correlate moderately to
highly withother measures of subjective well-being, and correlate predictably with specific
personality characteristics, It is noted that the SWLS is suited for use with different age
groups, and other potential uses of the scale are discussed.
Recentyears have seen an increase in need to ask the person for .their overall
research on subjective well-being (Dien- e.val\lation oftheir,life., rather than sum-
er, 19.84). In this research, three separa- ming acro�s their satisf.1ction with spe-
ble components of subjective well-being ciftc d9miiir1s, to obtain a n1easure of
have been .identifiedi positive affect, overall llfe satisfaction. A.sTat.arkiewicz
negative affect, and life satisfaction (An- (1976) wrote, " ... happiness requires
drews & Withey, 1976). The first two total satisfaction, that is satisfaction
components refer to· the affectlVt\ emo- with life as a whole'' (p. 8}.
tional aspects of the construct;the latter Scales ofgenerallife satisfaction have
to the cog11itive-:Judg111ental aspects. A,.1- bee,µ. developed. U pfortµµately, many
o(these scales con�ist only.of a. single
though several scqJesfor the assessn1ent
of affect exist (Bradburn, 1969;. Kam- item. Such sh1gle item sc:ales. have a
nurµber .. o( prnblems associated with
mann & Flett, 1983; Kozma & Stones, them (see Diener, 1984, for a detailed
1980), the measurement of general life discussion of these measures). Also,
satisfaction has .received less attention. many pf the existing scales have been
Life satisfaction i::efers to a cognitive, desi�ned and are appropriate only for
j11dp,;1nenta} process, Shin apdJ ohns�m gerfaitric populations, such as Neugarten,
( 1978) define life .safisfacti<>n as "a ,glo- Havighurst, andT obin's (l96l)Life Sat-
bal assessment of a person's quality of isfactionlndyxandLawton1s (1975).Phila-
life according to his chosen criteria''(p. delphia Geriatric Center Morale-Scale.
478)> Jµdgrrtents ofgatisfaction are• de- Furthermore, many ofthese sc:alle� do
pepdent1.1pon acoinparison ofone's cir- not appear to • be tapping �oleiy the
cumstanees with w)Ja t js. thou,ht to .be judigimental quality• of life · satisfaction.
anaI?ptopriate standard. It is in1portant For example, tne. Life Satisfaction In-
to point out that the judgment of llow dex, despite its name, includes a factor
satisfied people are· with their pres!:lnt of zest vs> apathy (Neugarten 1:::t al.,
stateofaffairsis ba$ed.op.a co111pari$On 1961). 'ffms, these scales are net, strictly
a
with standard whjich eaqhjnd:ivioual speaking, measures <>nly of life satisfac-
setsforhinror herse�f; it is noteJCter11aUy tion.
Thus, there exists a need for a multi-
imppsed. lt is ·a hall,n1ark ofthe sµbJec- tn
item scale measure life satisfaction as
tive well-being area that it cepters on the a cognitive,-judginental process. The pur-
person's own judgments, n9tupon some pose of the present studies is to design
criterion which is)�dged to he impor-
tant. by•• .tJ:ie researcher .: (Diener, .1984). and partially validate such a measure,
For exiin1pie, altho1.1gh he�\th, ener�Y, theSatisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS).
and so fqrth may be desirable,.p)lilrticular The scale i5 designed around the idea
individuals·. may place differetff values thatune mu:stask subjectsfor.an overall
on them. It is for this reason that we
72 cri , . a·. single factor emerged,
.ac-
fqr 66% (lf the variance.
judgment of their life in order to The ms and t�efr respective
mea- factor
sure the concept of life satisfaction. lQi.:, ;l,1;;¢.,presented in Table 1,
along
Study 1 wit : item-total correlation for
In the initial phase of scale construe- each
tion, a list of48 self-report items were iteni1, . . .
"ij���ngsho:wn that.. the SWLS
generated .• These consisted primarily hasde- sit;i.l!>l�psychometric
of questions related to satisfaction properties, the next
with one's life; however, some positive step was to examine the relationship
and be-
negative �ffe.ctitemswere·included.
In- itial factQr,analyse� restJ:lteci in three
fac- tor�:.pqs_itiveaff�c.t,
·��S!J:tive.a,ffeqt;;apd
saHsfaci,1on. Th.e affe.ct items
we,;ec::Um-
inated, as were items from the
satisfac-
tion factor that had loadings less
than
·69, .anci tQi�em� .\.Yer.e left. Bec.ause.
of
tbe liigh �ew-��tic 'si�il�rit�
of s.everalof
tlips� item�,Jive ;were �ropped,
resµlting
in a five�!tfIP- s.c�J¢,:�1Je S"fbS,. Study
1
w�s •desjgneci}d)e$! . t�t
p.syc;bometric
prpperties qf �be sc;ale.
Method
S11bjects were 176 undergraduates
at the University of Illinois who were
en-
roUe�in intrqductorY:psychology
classes.
Sµbjtlctswete administered the
SWLS inagrq�tsetting.Twci months
of later, 76 tij��¢ • students were
read ministered
th'e'scalei
Results
The mean score on the SWLS

E,99, with
23- ••
6.43.
was
a standard deviation of
itei:n is. scored from , I to 7, so the
pQ��il:>Je:range of scores on the questi-
op;qair�jsfrom 5 (low satisfaction) to
35 (b;J�litslftisfaction). The two-month
test-
re.te�r correlation coefficient was ·
.82,
al'!d'cpef!fic.ierit alphawas.. 87. The
interi-
t�'µii,;(jr#:l:1tion matrix. was factor
ana-
1�:t(!!if; using principalaxis factor
e,
analy-
s.i!l. The number offactors to be
extract-
¥{�� (letennined py an inspection of
the �Crlile plot of eigenvalues. Using
this
 tween it and other measures of subjec-
The Satisfaction with Life Scale tive well-being,, and also with certain
personality measures to which we
Table 1 might expect it to be related.
SWLS Items and Factor Loadings
Method
Item-
Factor Total Two different samples of
Item
Loadings Corre- undergrad- uates. served as subjects.
lations Sample Leon- sisted of the 176
1. In most ways my life is students used in Study
close to my ideal. .84 .75 1. Sample 2 consisted of a different
2. The conditions of my life groupof 163 undergraduates enrolled
are excellent. .77 .69 in
introductory psychology classes. In
3. I am· satisfied with my life .83 .75 ad- dition to the SWLS, subjects were
4. So far I have gotten the im- also adtjtiqistered a battery
portant things I wantin life. .72 .67 of.subjectivewell-
5. If I could live my life over, bei· ;·,S. ·•.P·.l·.ea.. s. · u re s. Th <::s e in c lud e d:
I would change almost ( 1 9() �) S e lf -A n ch ori n g La dd e r,
nothing, .61 .57 C a n t· r·i l'sal. l(l96Q) widely used item,
G u r in e t
Note: n =J76 .. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Andrews
Scale. anq/With�y's{l976) D-Tscale, and
For-
Instructions for, adlflinistering the scale are: Be-
lowarefive statements with which you may agree
dyqyts ( 1978) • single item measure of
or disagtee: Using. the 1-7 scale below, indicate
hap;pigess, Fordyce's (1978)percent
your. agreement with each item by placing (heap-
·of
propriate numberon.theline preceding that item. tirri� happy question, Campbell, Con-
Please be open and honest in your responding. ver$.e;:,:and Rodgers' ( 1976)
The 7�p.oint scale i's:,(= strongly disagree, 2 == dis- semanticdif-
agree, 3 slightly· disagree, 4 = neither agree nor =
fereritial-Iike scale, Bradburn's (1 �69)
disagree, 5 = slightly itgti;e, 6 = agree, 7""' strbngly Affect Balance Scale, Tellegen's
agree, . (1979)
E. DIENER, R. A. EMMONS, R. J. LARSEN, and S. GRIFFIN 73
Table 2 are shown in Table 2.
Correlations Between the SWLS and In both samples there are
Other Measures of Subjective Well-Being moderately
strong correlations with all of the,
Sample I Sample sub-
2 jective well-being scales except the
(n=l76) (n=l63)
AIM;
Fordyce I .58 .57 which is a measure of the intensity of
Fordyce (percent) .58 .62 emotional experience. The
correlations
DPQ .68
for Sample 2 between scores on the
Cantril .62 .66
SWLS and scores on the selectedl per-
Gurin .59 .47 sonality measures were self-esteem,
Andrews and Withey .68 .62 .54; symptom checklist, - .41;
Campbell .75 .59 neuroticism,
Bradburn-PAS .50 .51 - .48; emotionality, - .25; activity, .08;
Bradburn-NAS -.37 -.32 sociability, .20;and impulsivity, - .03.
Summed Domain Satisf, .57 It appears that individuals who are
AIM .09 satis- fied with their lives are in
Note: DPQ = Differential Personality Ques- generalwell adjusted and free from
tionnaire. PAS = Positive Affect Scale. N AS = psychopathology.
Negative Affect. Scale. AIM = Affect Intensity
Measure. Sample 2 was not administered the Study 3
D�Q or t�e AIM, and Sample I did not complete Both studies above were limited to
the domain satisfaction items. ·
college student populations. In the
well-being subscale of his Differential pres- ent study we assessed the
Personality Questionnaire, and psychometric properties of the SWLS
Larsen's (1983) Affect Intensity on a geriatric population. In addition,
Measure (AIM). Sample 2was also we obtained a criterion validity
given Buss and Plom- in's (19.75) survey coefficientforthe SWLS in terms of a
ofthe temperaments (EASl-lll), the life satisfaction rating made by
Rosenberg (1965) Self- Esteem Scale, experimenters who interviewed each
the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck subject about their life.
Personality Inventoryj'Ey-
Method
senck _& �y�enck, 1964),
checklist similar to the Hopkins
a symptom
Fifty-three elderly persons living·
inven- in the U rbana-Charnpaign area
tory �Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, & volunteered for the project.
I;lol1)1p, 1974\ ratings of life satisfac- Therewere four major groups of
t10�. m 10 key life domains (e.g., grades,
health, love life, and friends), and the s_ubjects: those in a nursing holl;le,
Marlowe-Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe shut-ms, a coffee-group of former
of
1_9p4) �cil�e soc�al desirability. The,1 bu.smessmen, and 8: group of religiously
on.en�ed women whomet together peri-
O
!1fe domain.questions simply asked odically. The average age was 75, and
sub- 32 were females. Each participant was
jects to rate each of these areas of their in- terviewed abouttheir life for about
life, Th�s.e ratings were then summed in one hour by a pair of trained
an, unweighted way to yield a domain interviewers. Subjects received a
satisfacttcn com posite score. • structured set of questions
· whichfocused on the extent to which
Results they remained· active: and were
oriented toward . self-directed
.scores on the swi.s correlated ;02 learning. Atthe end of the session,
with the Marlowe-Crowne measure .
in- dicating that the SWILS is not subjects com- pleted a large. print
evoki�g a version of the.SW LS
soci3:l desirability response set. The and ,a revision of the Life Satisfaction
cor- relations between the SWLS and interviewers Index (Adams,<1969). The
in��pendently rated each
the other measures of subjective subject in terms
well-being of global life satisfaction on a: 7-point
scale.
Results
The mean SWLS score for the sample
was 25.8. The ratings of the two inter-
E. DIENER, R. A. EMMONS, R. J. LARSEN, and S. GRIFFIN 75
Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed Ed Diener
happiness as an overall assessment of the quality Department of Psychology
of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475-492. University of Illinois
Tatarkiewicz,W- (1976). Anal)lsis. ofhappiness. 603 E. Daniel
Champaign, IL 61820
The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Tellegen, A. ( 1979). Differentialpersonality ques-
tionnaire. Unpublished materials, University of Received: September 22, 1983
Minnesota. Revised: May 29, 1984