Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (CSASS)

1. Abstract

The Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (CSASS), informally known as the Cantril Ladder, is one of the most widely administered psychometric instruments for the assessment of evaluative subjective well-being (SWB) and macro-level life satisfaction. Developed by social psychologist Hadley Cantril in 1965, the instrument was engineered to bypass ethnocentric semantic biases inherent in standardized adjective-based rating scales by employing a self-anchoring visual and cognitive metaphor: an 11-step ladder numbered from 0 (representing the worst possible life for the respondent) to 10 (representing the best possible life). Respondents locate their perceived standing on this continuum across distinct temporal horizons, traditionally assessing their present life and their anticipated life five years into the future, with retrospective ratings occasionally captured for five years prior.

Methodologically, the CSASS functions as a cognitive-evaluative measure distinct from momentary affective or hedonic well-being. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust test-retest reliability, with temporal stability coefficients typically ranging from $r = .65$ to $r = .85$ over short intervals (two to four weeks) and stabilizing around $r = .50$ to $r = .60$ across multi-year longitudinal panels such as the Gallup World Poll. Convergent validity is evidenced by high correlations ($r = .65 – .78$) with multi-item instruments such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and single-item global life satisfaction measures. Factor analytic and structural equation modeling (SEM) investigations confirm that the Cantril Ladder loads primarily onto a general evaluative life-judgment factor, showing high sensitivity to socioeconomic indicators (e.g., household income, educational attainment, macro-level gross domestic product per capita) while maintaining discriminant validity against transient hedonic states such as daily positive and negative affect. Today, the CSASS serves as the primary evaluative metric for the United Nations World Happiness Report and global epidemiological surveillance programs, providing an internationally invariant, low-burden assessment of human thriving, struggling, and suffering.

2. Keywords

Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale, Cantril Ladder, subjective well-being, life evaluation, life satisfaction, psychometrics, Gallup World Poll, self-anchoring scale, evaluative well-being, happiness measurement, quality of life, socioeconomic indicators

3. Authors

The Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale was conceptualized and developed by Albert Hadley Cantril Jr. (1906–1969), an influential American social psychologist, public opinion researcher, and former chair of the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. Cantril was a pioneer in the scientific operationalization of public attitudes, perception, and human motivation. During his tenure as head of the Institute for International Social Research in Princeton, New Jersey, Cantril directed comprehensive cross-national psychological surveys across diverse industrialized and developing societies.

Cantril’s foundational work culminated in the publication of his magnum opus, The Pattern of Human Concerns (1965), which outlined the theoretical architecture and empirical findings derived from administering the self-anchoring scale to over 20,000 individuals across 14 nations. In modern psychometric and macroeconomic contexts, the scale has been standardized and popularized globally by the Gallup Organization (notably through the Gallup World Poll led by researchers such as Jim Clifton, Gale Muller, and collaborators including Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton), as well as prominent well-being researchers including John F. Helliwell, Richard Layard, and Jeffrey D. Sachs.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale is to assess an individual’s cognitive evaluation of their overall life situation relative to an idiosyncratic, self-defined continuum of human potential. When Cantril designed the instrument in the mid-20th century, comparative psychological measurement faced a severe methodological dilemma: standardized psychological inventories utilized rigid, researcher-defined adjectives and semantic anchors (e.g., “extremely satisfied,” “moderately happy,” or “poor quality of life”). These semantic anchors suffered from marked cultural, linguistic, and contextual confounding. The translation of specific emotional or evaluative terms across languages often warped the underlying construct, and respondents in disparate sociocultural environments interpreted standardized benchmarks through entirely different frames of reference.

To overcome these limitations, Cantril introduced the principle of the “self-anchoring” scale. Rather than imposing predetermined societal or clinical norms regarding what constitutes a “good” or “bad” life, the CSASS compels the respondent to establish their own psychological reference points. The scale explicitly asks the individual to define the top of the ladder (step 10) as the “best possible life” they can conceptualize, and the bottom (step 0) as the “worst possible life.” By allowing the respondent’s own values, aspirations, anxieties, and realities to establish the structural boundaries of the measurement space, the scale establishes a personalized psychological continuum against which their current, past, and projected life states can be quantitatively mapped.

In clinical, public health, and psychiatric epidemiology, the CSASS provides a rapid, non-invasive assessment of existential functioning, demoralization, and general psychological adjustment. It is widely employed in cohorts evaluating chronic medical illness, severe psychiatric morbidity, and socioeconomic displacement, enabling clinicians and investigators to evaluate whether medical or psychotherapeutic interventions assist patients in closing the gap between their perceived present state and their subjective ideal. Furthermore, the future-oriented dimension (evaluating standing five years from now) captures subjective optimism, perceived agency, and hope, offering a distinct prognostic window into resilient adaptation.

In macroeconomic policy, social indicators research, and international development, the purpose of the CSASS has expanded exponentially. Adopted as the central evaluative metric of the Gallup World Poll and synthesized annually within the United Nations World Happiness Report, the scale serves as a standardized index of national human development. Unlike traditional macroeconomic measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, the Cantril Ladder quantifies the realized welfare of populations directly from the perspective of citizens, providing policymakers with empirical data on structural inequality, public trust, health infrastructure, and institutional integrity.

5. Psychological Construct

The Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale operationalizes the cognitive-evaluative dimension of subjective well-being (SWB). Contemporary psychological science, codified by the tripartite model of well-being (Diener, 1984; OECD, 2013), bifurcates subjective well-being into three distinct domains: evaluative well-being (life judgments), affective or hedonic well-being (momentary emotional states of pleasure, joy, anger, sadness, and stress), and eudaimonic well-being (psychological functioning, meaning, and purpose). The Cantril Ladder is predominantly an instrument of *evaluative well-being*, measuring a reflective, overarching cognitive appraisal of one’s life as an integrated whole rather than capturing transient emotional fluctuations.

The Dual-Item Temporal Dimensions

The standard modern administration of the CSASS comprises two core temporal dimensions:

• Present Evaluative Striving (Current Life Evaluation): This dimension captures the respondent’s reflective appraisal of their immediate life circumstances relative to their self-generated spectrum of possibility. It does not measure whether the respondent felt happy or cheerful today; rather, it prompts a broad mental audit of their economic security, physical health, interpersonal relationships, career attainment, and existential safety. A rating of 7 or higher reflects an appraisal that their lived experience aligns substantially with their personal aspirations.
• Future Anticipated Striving (Future Life Evaluation): This dimension assesses the respondent’s subjective expectation of their life trajectory five years into the future. By prompting prospective evaluation, the instrument captures psychological constructs related to optimism, perceived self-efficacy, locus of control, and perceived social mobility. In diverse global populations, future ratings consistently exceed present ratings—a psychological phenomenon known as the “optimism bias” or the striving gradient—except in scenarios characterized by terminal illness, deep socio-political collapse, or profound clinical depression.

Gallup’s Evaluative Well-Being Typology

Through empirical calibration of the present and future dimensions, researchers at the Gallup Organization categorized respondents into three distinct psychological and functional states:

• Thriving: Defined as rating present life at 7 or higher and anticipated future life at 8 or higher. Individuals in this category exhibit robust psychological resilience, lower incidence of chronic disease, fewer lost workdays, higher optimism, and substantial civic engagement.
• Struggling: Defined as rating present life between 5 and 6, or future life between 5 and 7. These individuals report moderate daily stress, financial fragility, and heightened vulnerability to unexpected health or economic shocks.
• Suffering: Defined as rating both present and future life at 4 or lower. Individuals categorized as suffering report severe deficits in basic psychological and physical needs, high rates of depression, acute daily pain, physical exhaustion, and structural hopelessness.

The Self-Anchoring Mechanism vs. Standard Likert Formats

The psychological construct of the CSASS is profoundly shaped by its self-anchoring mechanism. In a standard 5-point or 7-point Likert-type life satisfaction item (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life”), the response options are fixed by verbal labels that rely on shared semantic understanding. However, an individual’s interpretation of “satisfied” varies across cultures, age groups, and socioeconomic strata. The Cantril Ladder replaces verbal semantic labels with a spatial, numerical vertical metaphor (the ladder) anchored by personal extremes. Step 10 represents the individual’s bespoke conception of human fulfillment—encompassing their unique values, whether rooted in wealth, spirituality, family, or personal freedom—while Step 0 represents their idiosyncratic conception of complete deprivation. As a consequence, the construct measured is not satisfaction against an external, arbitrary benchmark, but attainment relative to personalized cognitive capacity and aspiration.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale draw from mid-century transactional psychology, humanistic psychology, aspiration level theory, and modern behavioral economics. Cantril was deeply influenced by the phenomenological and transactional view of human behavior developed alongside Adelbert Ames Jr. Transactionalism posits that human perception is not a passive reception of objective external stimuli; rather, an individual’s perception of reality is an active, purposive transaction between personal history, current expectations, biological needs, and environmental affordances. Consequently, an individual’s subjective evaluation of their life can only be meaningfully understood within their own personal perceptual frame.

Aspiration Level Theory and Social Comparison

The scale directly incorporates the Theory of the Level of Aspiration formulated by Kurt Lewin, Tamara Dembo, Leon Festinger, and Pauline Sears (1944). Aspiration theory dictates that psychological satisfaction does not correlate linearly with objective attainment; rather, satisfaction is mediated by the dynamic distance between one’s current performance (achievement) and one’s subjective aspiration level. When aspirations rise faster than achievements—a phenomenon often described in modern economics as the “hedonic treadmill” or the aspiration treadmill—subjective evaluation may remain stagnant despite objective material gains.

Furthermore, Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory explains how respondents anchor Step 0 and Step 10. When individuals mentally construct the “best possible life,” they unconsciously sample reference groups consisting of peers, cultural archetypes, media representations, and historical antecedents. The self-anchoring ladder operationalizes this cognitive calculation, allowing respondents to synthesize both downward social comparisons (constructing the worst possible life at Step 0) and upward social comparisons (constructing the ideal at Step 10).

The Cognitive-Evaluative vs. Affective Duality (Kahneman & Deaton)

The modern theoretical framing of the Cantril Scale was substantially deepened by behavioral economists and cognitive psychologists, most notably Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton (2010). In their landmark analysis of over 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, Kahneman and Deaton demonstrated that subjective well-being consists of two functionally and empirically distinct constructs:

1. Emotional Well-Being (Affect): The day-to-day emotional quality of an individual’s experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, fascination, anxiety, sadness, anger, and affection.
2. Life Evaluation: A person’s cognitive, reflective judgment of their life as a whole, which the Cantril Scale measures directly.

Kahneman and Deaton demonstrated that while emotional well-being satiates at a specific household income threshold (approximately $75,000 in the United States at the time of their 2010 study), life evaluation as measured by the Cantril Ladder continues to rise steadily alongside log income without any discernible ceiling. The theoretical rationale is that the Cantril Ladder prompts a deliberate, reflective cognitive comparison that invites the respondent to consider their socioeconomic status, assets, institutional standing, and broader life achievements. Because income and education are readily quantifiable metrics of status within modern societies, they load far more heavily onto the Cantril Scale than on momentary affective experiences.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale has been rigorously evaluated across hundreds of empirical investigations covering thousands of cultural and national contexts.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity represents the degree to which the Cantril Scale correlates with other recognized instruments intended to measure the same or closely related theoretical constructs. Across psychometric studies, the Cantril Ladder demonstrates high to very high convergent validity with standardized multi-item life satisfaction inventories and single-item global indicators:

• Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): In structural equation modeling studies, bivariate correlations between the Cantril Ladder and Diener’s 5-item SWLS consistently fall between $r = .65$ and $r = .78$, indicating that both instruments tap into the same core latent construct of cognitive life evaluation while retaining slight methodological variances (Pavot & Diener, 1993, 2008).
• Personal Well-Being Index (PWI): Studies comparing the Cantril Scale with Cummins’ Personal Well-Being Index show strong convergent associations ($r = .68 – .74$), indicating that the single visual ladder successfully synthesizes the distinct life domains (standard of living, health, achievements, personal relationships, safety, community connection, and future security) measured by multi-item domain scales.
• Single-Item Life Satisfaction (0–10 scale): In comparative research utilizing data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and the World Values Survey (WVS), the Cantril Ladder correlates with standard single-item life satisfaction questions at approximately $r = .75 – .82$.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity requires that the instrument be empirically distinguishable from constructs that it theoretically should not capture. Research confirms that the Cantril Ladder successfully discriminates between cognitive-evaluative well-being and experiential/affective well-being:

• Daily Affective Experience: As demonstrated by Kahneman and Deaton (2010) as well as Kapteyn et al. (2015), the Cantril Ladder exhibits low to moderate correlations ($r = .20 – .35$) with daily positive affect (e.g., smiling, laughter, enjoyment) and negative affect (e.g., worry, sadness, acute physical pain). While momentary affect fluctuates dramatically based on immediate situational variables (e.g., traffic, sleep duration, social interaction), the Cantril Ladder remains anchored to broader structural realities.
• Transient Emotional States: Clinical studies have found that while state-anxiety inventories (such as the STAI-State) fluctuate wildly during acute experimental stressors, the Cantril Ladder exhibits negligible short-term reactivity, underscoring its stability as a reflective cognitive measure.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The Cantril Scale exhibits extensive predictive validity across health, behavioral, economic, and sociopolitical domains:

• Physical Health and Mortality: Longitudinal prospective cohort studies (e.g., using the Health and Retirement Study [HRS]) demonstrate that baseline Cantril Ladder scores predict all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, stroke risk, and functional mobility limitations over 5- to 10-year follow-up periods, independent of baseline socioeconomic status, depression, and pre-existing medical diagnoses.
• Labor Market Outcomes: Higher initial Cantril scores predict subsequent career success, lower rates of long-term unemployment, higher productivity metrics, and faster post-redundancy re-employment.
• Sociopolitical Stability: At the macro-level, steep declines in national Cantril Scale scores have systematically preceded major sociopolitical upheavals and revolutions (for example, the sustained decline in life evaluation across Egypt and Tunisia leading up to the 2011 Arab Spring, documented by Gallup).

Cross-National Measurement Invariance

A critical issue in international psychometrics is whether the Cantril Ladder measures the same construct across diverse cultural environments. Large-scale structural equation modeling and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) across more than 150 nations within the Gallup World Poll indicate that the visual metaphor of the 0–10 ladder achieves configural and metric invariance across cultural regions (Helliwell et al., 2020). However, minor variations in scalar invariance have been detected: specific cultures (e.g., select East Asian societies displaying cultural tendencies toward the “middle way” or modesty) demonstrate slight compression of variance toward the scale midpoint (5), whereas Latin American populations frequently exhibit positive affective amplification, rating higher on the ladder relative to objective economic indicators.

8. Reliability

Evaluating the reliability of a single-item or two-item scale presents unique psychometric challenges, as traditional internal consistency metrics—such as Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) or McDonald’s omega ($\omega$)—cannot be directly calculated for a single standalone item. Consequently, the reliability of the Cantril Scale is evaluated primarily through temporal stability (test-retest reliability), latent variable modeling, and Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) structural equations.

Test-Retest Stability

Empirical test-retest coefficients for the Cantril Ladder depend heavily on the time elapsed between administrations:

• Short-term intervals (24 hours to 1 week): Re-interview protocols yield high test-retest stability coefficients, typically falling between $r = .80$ and $r = .86$. This demonstrates that measurement error and arbitrary response noise are low.
• Medium-term intervals (2 to 4 weeks): Over monthly horizons, test-retest reliability remains robust, stabilizing between $r = .70$ and $r = .77$. These values rival the test-retest reliability of multi-item psychometric inventories such as the SWLS ($r pprox .80$).
• Long-term intervals (1 to 5 years): In longitudinal household panel studies (e.g., German Socio-Economic Panel [SOEP], UK Household Longitudinal Study), the year-to-year stability of the Cantril Scale ranges from $r = .50$ to $r = .62$. This moderate stability is theoretically desirable: it demonstrates that the scale possesses sufficient stability to reflect enduring individual traits and life circumstances, while retaining sufficient state-sensitivity to register meaningful life transitions (e.g., marriage, divorce, job loss, bereavement).

Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) and Latent Quality Estimates

In psychometrics, MTMM structural equation models allow researchers to decompose the variance of a measure into true construct variance, method-specific variance, and random measurement error. In an extensive psychometric synthesis conducted by Kapteyn, Lee, Tassot, Vonkova, and Zamarro (2015), the data quality and reliability of the Cantril Ladder were formally modeled alongside multi-item scales and experimental vignettes.

Kapteyn et al. (2015) established that the Cantril Scale exhibits an overall data quality coefficient (defined as the product of reliability and construct validity) of approximately $.75$ to $.82$. This confirms that roughly 70% to 80% of the variance observed in Cantril Ladder scores represents true cognitive life evaluation, with less than 25% attributable to random measurement error or scale-specific artifacts. Using Heise’s (1969) quasi-simplex modeling for single-item longitudinal measures, the estimated latent reliability of the Cantril Scale consistently exceeds $.80$.

9. Factor Analysis

Factor analytic investigations of the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale center on its integration within broader models of subjective well-being and multidimensional mental health.

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA/CFA)

When the Cantril Ladder is entered into Exploratory Factor Analyses alongside diverse mental health, personality, and quality-of-life batteries, it consistently displays distinct structural properties:

• Cognitive-Evaluative Factor Loadings: In joint CFAs containing both life evaluation items and affective items (e.g., Positive and Negative Affect Schedule [PANAS] or Gallup Daily Affect items), the Cantril Ladder loads overwhelmingly onto a distinct “Life Evaluation” latent factor (standardized loadings $lambda = .75 – .88$). Its cross-loadings onto positive affect factors ($lambda < .25$) and negative affect factors ($lambda < .20$) are consistently negligible.
• Temporal Factor Structure: When the Present Ladder, Future Ladder, and Past Ladder items are analyzed together, CFA models frequently demonstrate a two-factor or three-factor temporal structure. Present evaluation and past evaluation often form an “Achieved Life Status” factor, while the 5-year future ladder loads onto an “Anticipated/Optimism” factor ($lambda pprox .82$), demonstrating that respondents structurally differentiate between current realization and prospective striving.

Item Response Theory (IRT) and Threshold Behavior

Application of polytomous Item Response Theory models—specifically the Graded Response Model (GRM)—to the 11-point (0 to 10) Cantril Ladder yields critical psychometric insights regarding item information and category functioning:

• Discrimination Parameter ($lpha$): IRT models reveal high item discrimination ($lpha > 1.80$), confirming that the scale effectively differentiates between individuals possessing differing levels of underlying latent well-being ($ heta$).
• Category Thresholds ($\eta_1$ to $\eta_{10}$): The 10 category threshold parameters span an exceptionally wide range along the latent well-being trait ($ heta = -3.2$ to $ heta = +2.8$). This wide coverage indicates that the 11-step scale possesses high psychometric bandwidth, preventing ceiling effects among highly affluent populations and floor effects among severely disadvantaged groups.
• Scale Point Utilization: Research shows that steps 0, 1, and 2 are used infrequently in general population samples (typically representing fewer than 5% of total responses in OECD nations), while steps 7, 8, and 5 exhibit high response probabilities. Category characteristic curves indicate that respondents can reliably differentiate between adjacent steps in the middle-to-upper register (e.g., distinguishing step 7 from step 8), although threshold differentiation between step 1 and step 2 displays occasional psychometric redundancy in non-clinical cohorts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale is an interviewer-administered or self-administered cognitive-evaluative survey measure. Below are the structural, procedural, and psychometric specifications of the instrument:

Instrument Specifications

• Measurement Type: Self-anchoring cognitive-evaluative psychological rating scale.
• Item Count: Standard version consists of 2 core items (Current Life Evaluation and Future Life Evaluation). A third item evaluating past life evaluation (5 years ago) is optional.
• Format / Visual Stimulus: A vertical ladder diagram displaying 11 steps numbered consecutively from 0 (at the bottom) to 10 (at the top). In face-to-face and visual web administrations, a graphical ladder is presented. In telephone interviews (CATI), an explicit mental image of a vertical ladder is read to the respondent.
• Response Continuum: 11-point ordinal scale (0 to 10), bounded by personal self-anchors:
  • Step 10: “Best possible life for you”
  • Step 0: “Worst possible life for you”
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Administration Modes: Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), Self-Administered Web Surveys (CAWI), and Paper-and-Pencil questionnaires.
• Target Population: General population aged 15 years and older; adapted versions exist for adolescents and children (e.g., the Children’s Cantril Ladder).

Standard Gallup Scoring and Categorization Rules

While researchers frequently analyze raw numerical scores (0–10) as continuous or pseudo-continuous variables (calculating national means, medians, and standard deviations), the Gallup Organization utilizes a standardized classification algorithm that maps respondents into three functional well-being tiers:

• Thriving:
  • Present Life Evaluation $ge 7$ AND
  • Future Life Evaluation (5 years from now) $ge 8$
  • Interpretation: High current life satisfaction combined with sustained prospective optimism and low systemic vulnerability.
• Struggling:
  • Present Life Evaluation $= 5$ or $6$ OR
  • Future Life Evaluation $= 5$, $6$, or $7$
  • Interpretation: Moderate daily stability accompanied by chronic financial or physical worry and moderate risk of negative outcomes.
• Suffering:
  • Present Life Evaluation $le 4$ AND
  • Future Life Evaluation $le 4$
  • Interpretation: Severe existential distress, acute deprivation, lack of agency, and elevated clinical risk.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Initial Year of Publication: 1965 (introduced in Hadley Cantril’s monograph, The Pattern of Human Concerns, published by Rutgers University Press).

Public Domain and Copyright Status

The foundational text, conceptual framework, and wording of the original Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale published by Hadley Cantril in 1965 reside in the public domain. Academic, clinical, and non-commercial researchers may administer the scale freely without purchasing testing licenses, paying royalty fees, or seeking formal permission from the estate of Hadley Cantril or Rutgers University Press.

Commercial Trademarks and Proprietary Gallup Metrics

While the generic Cantril Ladder questions are open-access, specific proprietary analytical frameworks and index designations are legally protected:

• The terms Gallup World Poll, Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, and Gallup’s specific composite algorithmic aggregations are registered trademarks of Gallup, Inc.
• Organizations seeking to utilize Gallup’s proprietary normative benchmarks, historical cross-country comparative databases, or commercial consulting services must contract directly with Gallup, Inc. (see www.gallup.com).
• For scholarly and empirical research, standard scientific attribution (citing Cantril, 1965, and the relevant methodological sources) is required in accordance with academic integrity guidelines.

12. References

• Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.
• Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
• Gallup. (2011). Understanding how Gallup uses the Cantril Scale. Gallup Polling Reference. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122453/understanding-gallup-uses-cantril-scale.aspx
• Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correlation. American Sociological Review, 34(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092790
• Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J., & De Neve, J.-E. (Eds.). (2020). World Happiness Report 2020. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/
• Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107
• Kapteyn, A., Lee, J., Tassot, C., Vonkova, H., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Dimensions of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 625–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0
• Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 333–378). Ronald Press.
• OECD. (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en
• Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
• Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946

13. Items of the Scale