The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWL)

1. Abstract

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a prominent 5-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by Ed Diener, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen, and Sharon Griffin (1985) to assess the cognitive-judgmental component of subjective well-being (SWB). While early psychological investigations of well-being frequently conflated emotional states, affective balances, and cognitive evaluations, the SWLS was specifically formulated to isolate individuals’ global evaluations of their life circumstances against their own idiosyncratic criteria rather than externally imposed standards. The instrument utilizes a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), yielding a total continuous score between 5 and 35. Psychometric evaluations across diverse clinical, non-clinical, cross-cultural, and demographic samples have consistently demonstrated that the SWLS possesses robust internal consistency (with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha typically ranging between .79 and .89) and high temporal stability (test-retest reliability coefficients of .84 across one month and .54 over a four-year interval, confirming both trait-like stability and sensitivity to substantive life transitions).

Factor-analytic investigations, including both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), overwhelmingly support a unidimensional construct accounting for 66% to 75% of the total variance, with factor loadings across all five items consistently exceeding .60. Extensive validation studies have established convergent validity via moderate-to-strong correlations with alternative subjective well-being measures, clinical psychiatric ratings, self-esteem inventories, and informant reports, alongside discriminant validity that clearly demarcates life satisfaction from momentary positive and negative affect, general emotionality, and social desirability biases. Criterion validity is evidenced by the scale’s capacity to predict psychological morbidity, functional physical health outcomes, treatment responsiveness in psychotherapy, and behavioral markers such as suicide ideation and attempts. The SWLS has become the gold-standard instrument in positive psychology, clinical diagnostics, health psychology, and macro-level socio-economic surveys.

2. Keywords

Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS, subjective well-being, life satisfaction, cognitive appraisal, psychometrics, positive psychology, Ed Diener, quality of life, factor analysis, construct validity, test-retest reliability

3. Authors

The Satisfaction with Life Scale was originally conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by a research team at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, led by:

• Edward F. Diener, Ph.D. (1946–2021): Known colloquially as “Dr. Happiness,” Diener was the Alumni Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a senior scientist for the Gallup Organization, and a pioneer in the scientific investigation of subjective well-being. His empirical frameworks transformed the study of happiness, life quality, and hedonic adaptation.
• Robert A. Emmons, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. Emmons is a leading international expert on the psychology of gratitude, personal goals, and subjective well-being, having served as the founding editor-in-chief of The Journal of Positive Psychology.
• Randy J. Larsen, Ph.D.: William R. Stuckenberg Professor of Human Values and Moral Development and Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Larsen is widely recognized for his theoretical and empirical work on emotion regulation, affective science, and personality dynamics.
• Sharon Griffin, M.A.: Researcher and collaborator at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign during the initial psychometric operationalization and validation of the instrument.
• William G. Pavot, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at Southwest Minnesota State University. Pavot, in close collaboration with Ed Diener, authored the seminal psychometric re-evaluations, reviews, and cross-method convergence studies of the SWLS throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Satisfaction with Life Scale is to assess an individual’s conscious, cognitive evaluation of their life as an integrated whole. Within the overarching paradigm of subjective well-being, psychological theory distinguishes between affective components (the frequency and intensity of positive and negative emotions) and cognitive-evaluative components (life satisfaction). Prior to the development of the SWLS in 1985, researchers routinely utilized measurement batteries that conflated these dimensions, assessing emotional states, somatic symptoms, loneliness, and self-esteem within single omnibus scores. Such composite metrics obscured whether an individual was cognitively content despite experiencing acute stress, or conversely, experiencing pleasant emotional states while concurrently judging their broader life trajectory as unfulfilled.

The SWLS was engineered to fill this methodological void by capturing a global cognitive appraisal that relies entirely on the respondent’s own subjective standards. Rather than evaluating satisfaction across specific pre-determined life domains—such as health, finances, marital status, or occupational status—the SWLS allows individuals to weight these domains according to their unique personal hierarchies of values. For instance, if an individual places minimal value on financial wealth but maximal value on creative expression or family harmony, the scale permits them to form an overarching judgment based on the parameters they personally deem essential for an “ideal” life.

In clinical psychology and psychiatric epidemiology, the SWLS serves as a vital prognostic indicator and treatment-outcome metric. While traditional psychiatric diagnostic protocols emphasize symptom reduction (e.g., mitigating depressive affect or reducing generalized anxiety), modern mental health treatment paradigms recognize that the absence of psychopathology does not necessarily equate to the presence of psychological flourishing. The scale is widely used in baseline clinical assessments to determine psychological vulnerability; lower SWLS scores have been shown to correlate strongly with depressive severity, hopelessness, and prospective suicide risk. In longitudinal clinical trials, the SWLS is routinely utilized to assess whether psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy facilitates substantive restoration of life quality beyond acute symptom amelioration.

In health psychology and behavioral medicine, the SWLS is used to gauge the psychological adaptation of individuals diagnosed with severe, chronic, or terminal health conditions, including spinal cord injuries, oncological diagnoses, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disorders. By examining life satisfaction independently from somatic symptomatology, healthcare practitioners can measure an individual’s psychological resilience and evaluate the efficacy of holistic biopsychosocial interventions. Furthermore, in macro-level sociological, economic, and public policy research, the SWLS is frequently utilized by national statistics agencies, international organizations (such as the OECD and the United Nations), and policy think-tanks to track gross national well-being, monitor social progress, and evaluate the broad societal impact of public policy initiatives.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the SWLS is global life satisfaction, conceptualized as a cognitive, judgmental process in which an individual assesses the quality of their life according to a chosen set of self-referential criteria. Life satisfaction is not an objective assessment of an individual’s external socio-economic status, biomedical vitality, or environmental resources; rather, it reflects an internal synthesis of how closely an individual’s perceived life circumstances align with their self-constructed aspirations, moral standards, and expectations.

Within the taxonomy of well-being, life satisfaction occupies a distinct cognitive niche. It is defined by several underlying operational characteristics:

• Cognitive vs. Affective Independence: Affect refers to transient, valenced emotional reactions (e.g., joy, sadness, fear, anger) to acute environmental events. Cognitive life satisfaction, by contrast, represents an integrative appraisal of extended temporal duration. An individual experiencing temporary grief or acute occupational stress may nonetheless maintain a high degree of global life satisfaction, recognizing their life as fundamentally meaningful and fulfilling. Conversely, an individual experiencing frequent transient sensory pleasures may judge their overall existence to be devoid of purpose or alignment with their core ideals.
• Global vs. Domain-Specific Evaluation: Many quality-of-life indices measure domain-specific satisfactions (e.g., job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, satisfaction with personal safety, satisfaction with physical environment). The construct of global life satisfaction transcends specific domains. It reflects a top-down cognitive judgment wherein the respondent synthesizes their status across all internally valued domains, assigning idiosyncratic mathematical and emotional weights to each domain without requiring the researcher to pre-specify those weights.
• Self-Imposed vs. Externally Imposed Standards: A defining characteristic of the construct as operationalized by Diener and colleagues is non-prescriptive evaluation. The instrument does not measure whether an individual possesses health, wealth, social status, or religious faith. Instead, it measures the degree of concordance between reality and the individual’s internalized “ideal.” For example, Item 1 (“In most ways my life is close to my ideal”) requires the respondent to activate their internal cognitive blueprint of an ideal life and compute a discrepancy score between that mental representation and their current lived experience.
• Temporal Integration: The construct of life satisfaction encompasses both retrospective appraisals and prospective expectations. Item 4 (“So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life”) and Item 5 (“If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”) tap into the retrospective evaluation of accumulated life accomplishments and past decisions, whereas Item 2 (“The conditions of my life are excellent”) and Item 3 (“I am satisfied with my life”) capture the present-state cognitive appraisal.

Psychologically, high life satisfaction indicates a psychological state of congruence, wherein the individual perceives their past decisions, current operational environment, and realized outcomes as meeting or exceeding their expectations. Low life satisfaction reflects substantial perceived discrepancy, characterized by unmet goals, unresolved regret, systemic frustration, or perceived helplessness across domains that the individual deems critical to their personal identity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Satisfaction with Life Scale is theoretically anchored in the Tripartite Model of Subjective Well-Being formulated by Ed Diener (1984). According to this overarching framework, subjective well-being is composed of three interconnected yet structurally separable components:

1. Frequent Positive Affect: The regular experience of pleasant emotional states (e.g., contentment, interest, pride, euphoria).
2. Infrequent Negative Affect: The low incidence of unpleasant emotional states (e.g., depression, anxiety, hostility, shame).
3. Life Satisfaction: A global cognitive evaluation of one’s life as a whole.

Diener’s model emerged in reaction to historical philosophical traditions. The hedonic tradition (tracing from Aristippus and Epicurus to Jeremy Bentham) asserted that well-being consists primarily of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The eudaimonic tradition (tracing from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) maintained that true well-being resides in the realization of human potential, virtue, and self-actualization. Diener’s framework reconciles these orientations by adopting a democratic, phenomenological stance: regardless of whether an individual prioritizes hedonic pleasure, eudaimonic virtue, family duty, or intellectual discovery, subjective well-being can be scientifically quantified by evaluating their affective experiences alongside their own conscious, cognitive appraisal of life quality.

A second foundational theory informing the SWLS is Cognitive Appraisal Theory and the Judgment Model of Well-Being. These paradigms postulate that happiness is not a direct readout of sensory inputs or objective demographic reality (such as income, age, or physical health). Instead, an individual’s subjective assessment is mediated by cognitive comparison processes. When evaluating life satisfaction, individuals consciously or unconsciously benchmark their perceived status against multiple comparative standards:

• Social Comparisons: Evaluating one’s life relative to relevant peer groups, reference groups, or societal norms.
• Temporal Comparisons: Comparing current life circumstances with past personal experiences or anticipated future trajectories.
• Aspirational/Counterfactual Comparisons: Assessing current reality against idealized goals, moral standards, or counterfactual alternatives (“what might have been”).

Another relevant conceptual pillar is the Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Theory of Subjective Well-Being. Bottom-up models argue that global life satisfaction is simply the mathematical sum of discrete pleasant experiences and domain-level satisfactions (e.g., satisfying job + satisfying marriage + satisfying leisure = satisfied life). In contrast, top-down models postulate that an individual’s enduring personality traits (such as extraversion, neuroticism, and dispositional optimism) establish a stable cognitive lens through which all life events and circumstances are filtered. The SWLS was formulated with an appreciation of this top-down cognitive architecture, capturing an integrative global judgment that exhibits trait-like temporal stability across decades while preserving the cognitive flexibility necessary to accommodate bottom-up shifts resulting from transformative life events (such as widowhood, sustained unemployment, or profound personal accomplishment).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale has been evaluated comprehensively across hundreds of published empirical studies across four decades, demonstrating robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

The construct validity of the SWLS was initially demonstrated by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) through exploratory factor analyses, which confirmed that the scale constitutes a single homogenous construct. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) across international samples have repeatedly corroborated this unifactorial structure. As detailed in Section 9, item-factor loadings consistently exceed psychometric thresholds, and standard structural equation modeling indices exhibit excellent fit across both clinical and non-clinical cohorts.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is documented through substantial correlations between the SWLS and a broad array of other well-being and psychological functioning inventories. In the original 1985 validation study, SWLS scores correlated robustly with established well-being measures:

• Fordyce Happiness Measure: $r = .58$, demonstrating strong convergence with single-item global happiness assessments.
• Bradburn Affect Balance Scale: Correlations with the Positive Affect subscale ranged from $r = .42$ to $.50$, while correlations with the Negative Affect subscale ranged from $r = -.32$ to $-.37$.
• Cantril Self-Anchoring Ladder: $r = .62$ to $.66$, confirming alignment with alternative cognitive ladder-based quality of life metrics.
• Tellegen’s Well-Being Scale (Differential Personality Questionnaire): $r = .68$, demonstrating convergence with broad personality-based measures of psychological well-being.

To eliminate the possibility that these correlations were merely an artifact of shared method variance (self-report response styles), Pavot, Diener, Colvin, and Sandvik (1991) conducted multi-method convergence analyses. They demonstrated that self-reported SWLS scores correlated significantly with external informant reports (peer, spousal, and parental ratings; $r = .54$), daily experience-sampling methodology (ESM) affect aggregates ($r = .42$ to $.56$), and memory recall tasks for positive versus negative life experiences ($r = .38$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses establish that the SWLS captures an empirical construct distinct from affective states, personality dimensions, and potential measurement artifacts:

• Distinction from Affective Well-Being: Lucas, Diener, and Suh (1996) utilized multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) confirmatory factor analysis across multiple national samples to test whether life satisfaction is empirically distinct from positive affect and negative affect. Their findings unequivocally confirmed that life satisfaction demonstrates discriminant validity from emotional well-being, demonstrating that cognitive appraisal is an independent construct within human psychology.
• Distinction from Social Desirability: The SWLS shows minimal to non-significant correlations with social desirability scales, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (correlations typically range from $r = .02$ to $.19$, indicating that individuals do not merely endorse high life satisfaction to conform to social expectations or present a favorable facade).
• Distinction from Self-Esteem and Depressive Mood: While negatively correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; $r = -.50$ to $-.65$) and positively correlated with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .50$ to $.60$), structural equation modeling confirms that these constructs do not collapse into a single latent factor; rather, life satisfaction operates as an independent predictor of overall functioning.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The SWLS exhibits impressive predictive validity across clinical, behavioral, and public health domains. Lower baseline SWLS scores longitudinally predict psychiatric morbidity, incidence of depressive episodes, and clinical relapse. Notably, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that low life satisfaction is an independent prospective risk factor for suicide ideation, suicide attempts, and completed suicide, even after statistically controlling for baseline psychiatric symptoms. In physical health domains, higher life satisfaction measured via the SWLS prospectively predicts cardiovascular health, immune system efficiency, compliance with medical regimens, and reduced all-cause mortality in longitudinal aging cohorts.

8. Reliability

The Satisfaction with Life Scale demonstrates exceptionally high internal consistency and temporal stability across clinical, community, student, and geriatric populations.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational investigation by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985), the scale exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .87 among an undergraduate sample ($N = 176$) and .86 in a sample of older adults ($N = 53$). Subsequent validation by Pavot, Diener, Colvin, and Sandvik (1991) confirmed internal consistency coefficients ranging between .83 and .85 across collegiate and community cohorts.

Meta-analytic reviews encompassing hundreds of independent administrations across dozens of languages have documented that the internal consistency reliability of the SWLS uniformly falls within the .79 to .89 window. Item-total correlations are consistently high, typically ranging between .55 and .80 for all five items, demonstrating that each item contributes substantial common variance to the total score without excessive item redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Because life satisfaction is theoretical conceptualized as a relatively stable cognitive construct—yet one that remains responsive to substantive life alterations—temporal stability coefficients must demonstrate both trait-like consistency over moderate intervals and sensible fluctuations over long-term developmental trajectories:

• Short-Term Intervals: Diener et al. (1985) reported a two-month test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .82$. Pavot et al. (1991) evaluated stability over a one-month interval and observed test-retest correlations of $r = .84$ and $r = .80$.
• Long-Term Intervals: Over extended periods, the stability coefficient gradually declines, reflecting real intra-individual psychological change in response to major life events. In a four-year longitudinal study conducted by Magnus, Diener, Fujita, and Pavot (1993), the test-retest correlation was $r = .54$. Even across four years, this indicates substantial stability, comparable to that observed in major personality traits (e.g., the Big Five), while leaving significant variance accounted for by objective life changes and individual developmental shifts.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SWLS has been subjected to rigorous mathematical exploration through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), alongside modern Item Response Theory (IRT) and cross-cultural measurement invariance frameworks.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale construction phases, Diener and colleagues began with a pool of 48 items assessing subjective life quality, positive affect, and personal fulfillment. Through successive iterations of principal axis factoring and principal components analysis, items that cross-loaded on affective factors or failed to load heavily on a single general evaluative factor were eliminated. The final five items emerged as a mathematically pure, unidimensional factor accounting for 66% of the variance in the original validation study, with subsequent studies reporting variance explanation up to 75%. Item factor loadings on this single unrotated factor are uniformly strong:

• Item 1 (“In most ways my life is close to my ideal”): Factor loadings typically range between .75 and .85.
• Item 2 (“The conditions of my life are excellent”): Factor loadings typically range between .78 and .86.
• Item 3 (“I am satisfied with my life”): Consistently exhibits the highest loading, typically between .82 and .90, serving as the conceptual core of the scale.
• Item 4 (“So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life”): Factor loadings typically range between .65 and .78.
• Item 5 (“If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”): Factor loadings typically range between .60 and .75. (Item 5 frequently exhibits the lowest loading among the five items, largely because it introduces a counterfactual, retrospective temporal condition rather than a direct evaluation of present conditions).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) have repeatedly affirmed that the one-factor model provides an exceptional fit to empirical data. Standard model fit parameters reported across large-scale epidemiological studies consistently satisfy the stringent criteria established by Hu and Bentler:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values regularly exceed .95, often reaching .98 to .99.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently range between .95 and .98.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values typically fall below .06 (frequently < .05), with 90% confidence intervals well within the bounds of close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values are routinely below .04.

Measurement Invariance

A critical psychometric consideration for an instrument utilized globally is measurement invariance across demographic, clinical, and linguistic cohorts. Extensive multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) studies (e.g., Emerson, Guhn, & Gadermann, 2017) have evaluated configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance across gender, age brackets, and cross-national populations:

• Configural Invariance: The single-factor model holds across men and women, adolescents, adults, and elderly populations, confirming identical conceptual organization across groups.
• Metric Invariance: Factor loadings are invariant across groups, demonstrating that the five items relate to the latent construct of life satisfaction with equivalent magnitude across demographic lines.
• Scalar Invariance: Item intercepts exhibit acceptable invariance across most cultures, enabling valid comparisons of observed latent mean scores in cross-national epidemiological research, although minor scalar variations have occasionally been noted for Item 5 in non-Western collectivist societies.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale.
• Format: Pen-and-paper, computerized psychological testing platforms, online surveys, or clinical interview administration.
• Item Count: 5 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 12+), adults, geriatric populations, clinical and non-clinical cohorts.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-style response format:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Slightly agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Rules:
  • All five items are positively keyed (there are no reverse-coded items).
  • Total score is calculated by summing the numerical responses across all five items: $\text{Total Score} = \sum_{i=1}^{5} \text{Item}_i$.
  • Theoretical score range: 5 to 35.
  • A score of 20 represents the exact neutral midpoint of the scale.
• Normative Benchmark Interpretations:
  • 31 – 35: Extremely satisfied. The respondent feels that their life is close to ideal, their circumstances are excellent, and they have achieved the core outcomes they value.
  • 26 – 30: Satisfied. The respondent perceives their life as going exceptionally well, though minor areas for growth or minor unfulfilled desires may remain.
  • 21 – 25: Slightly satisfied. The respondent is generally content and functioning well, but identifies notable domains that require substantial improvement or progress.
  • 20: Neutral. Represents an exact balance point where the respondent perceives equal measures of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, or is ambivalent regarding their life circumstances.
  • 15 – 19: Slightly dissatisfied. The respondent perceives substantial discrepancies between their current life status and their aspirations, indicating minor chronic distress or acute situational difficulties.
  • 10 – 14: Dissatisfied. The respondent is experiencing significant, widespread dissatisfaction across multiple critical life domains, warranting clinical exploration.
  • 5 – 9: Extremely dissatisfied. The respondent reports profound distress, alienation, or dissatisfaction with their life circumstances, frequently co-occurring with clinical depression, hopelessness, or acute psychological crises.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Satisfaction with Life Scale was originally published in 1985 in the Journal of Personality Assessment by Ed Diener, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen, and Sharon Griffin. In alignment with Dr. Ed Diener’s lifelong commitment to open science and the democratization of psychological measurement, the SWLS is in the public domain.

No formal permission, licensing application, or payment of royalty fees is required to use the SWLS for non-commercial research, academic study, clinical assessment, educational instruction, or public health tracking. Researchers and clinical practitioners are free to reproduce the scale, administer it in digital or physical formats, and incorporate it into larger assessment batteries, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is given to the original authors by citing Diener et al. (1985) and Pavot and Diener (1993, 2008). For commercial reproduction or commercial software integration, users are advised to verify standard fair-use guidelines and contact the copyright holders of the original journal if proprietary publication is intended.

12. References

• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
• Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
• Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Social Indicators Research, 134(1), 225–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1430-8
• Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
• Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A prospective analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1046
• 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
• Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_17
• Slocum-Gori, S. L., Zumbo, B. D., Michalos, A. C., & Diener, E. (2009). Embracing the complexity of human flourishing: An examination of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) using psychometric modeling. Social Indicators Research, 91(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9282-8

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)