New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings

Full text

New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess
Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings
Ed Diener ÆDerrick Wirtz ÆWilliam Tov ÆChu Kim-Prieto Æ
Dong-won Choi ÆShigehiro Oishi ÆRobert Biswas-Diener
Accepted: 12 May 2009 / Published online: 28 May 2009
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Measures of well-being were created to assess psychological flourishing and
feelings—positive feelings, negative feelings, and the difference between the two. The
scales were evaluated in a sample of 689 college students from six locations. The Flour-
ishing Scale is a brief 8-item summary measure of the respondent’s self-perceived success
in important areas such as relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism. The scale
provides a single psychological well-being score. The measure has good psychometric
properties, and is strongly associated with other psychological well-being scales. The Scale
of Positive and Negative Experience produces a score for positive feelings (6 items), a
score for negative feelings (6 items), and the two can be combined to create a balance
score. This 12-item brief scale has a number of desirable features compared to earlier
measures of positive and negative emotions. In particular, the scale assesses with a few
E. Diener (&)
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
e-mail: ediener@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu
E. Diener
The Gallup Organization, Omaha, NE, USA
D. Wirtz
East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
W. Tov
Singapore Management University, Bras Basah, Singapore
C. Kim-Prieto
College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
D. Choi
California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA
S. Oishi
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
R. Biswas-Diener
Center for Applied Positive Psychology, Milwaukie, OR, USA
123
Soc Indic Res (2010) 97:143–156
DOI 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

items a broad range of negative and positive experiences and feelings, not just those of a
certain type, and is based on the amount of time the feelings were experienced during the
past 4 weeks. The scale converges well with measures of emotions and affective well-being.
Keywords Subjective well-being Well-being Measure Positive affect 
Negative affect Scales (or Assessment)
1 Introduction
We present two new measures of well-being, and initial psychometric support for these
scales. First, we offer a measure of psychosocial flourishing, based on recent theories of
psychological and social well-being. Second, we present a new scale for assessing positive
and negative feelings that has certain advantages over past scales designed for this purpose.
Both scales show strong psychometric characteristics. We presented these scales earlier in
a book chapter (Diener et al. 2009), but the current sample is larger. The new scales are
presented in the appendices of this paper.
Our eight-item Flourishing Scale was designed to measure social–psychological pros-
perity, to complement existing measures of subjective well-being. In recent years a number
of psychological theories of human flourishing have been developed, and we devised a
brief measure to capture major aspects of this type of ‘‘prosperity’’. Ryff (1989), Ryff and
Singer (1998), and Ryan and Deci (2000), based on earlier humanistic psychology theories,
suggest that there are several universal human psychological needs, such as the need for
competence, relatedness, and self-acceptance, and several of these characteristics are
assessed by our Flourishing Scale.
In addition to the theories derived from the humanistic tradition, we also relied on
additional approaches to well-being in creating our items. Coming from a different tra-
dition, Putnam (2000) and Helliwell et al. (2009) suggest that ‘‘social capital’’ is basic to
the well-being of societies. In yet another vein, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) discusses flow,
interest, and engagement as basic to human well-being, forming the basis of ‘‘psycho-
logical capital’’. Seligman (2002), Ryff (1989), Ryff and Singer (1998), and Steger et al.
(2008) present arguments and data supporting the notion that purpose and meaning are
beneficial to human functioning.
Although good social relationships were originally defined as having the support of
others, recent work has emphasized that humans also need to support others. For instance,
Brown et al. (2003) found that helping others is more important to health than receiving
help, and Dunn et al. (2008) found that people gain more from giving to others than from
receiving from them. Finally, Peterson et al. (1988) and Scheier and Carver (2003) present
evidence that optimism is important to successful functioning and well-being. Seligman
(2002) argues that there are desirable feelings in addition to pleasant ones, and he points
specifically to engagement or interest, and to involvement in activities that are meaningful
and purposeful. Thus, we created a scale with items to measure the essential components of
these various theories of well-being.
The Flourishing Scale included several items on social relationships: having supportive
and rewarding relationships, contributing to the happiness of others, and being respected by
others. The survey also included an item on having a purposeful and meaningful life, and
one on being engaged and interested in one’s activities. Items were included tapping self-
respect and optimism. Finally, the scale included an item on feeling competent and capable
144 E. Diener et al.
123

in the activities that are important to the respondent. Thus, the brief scale assesses major
aspects of social–psychological functioning from the respondent’s own point of view.
The second scale, which was designed to assess subjective feelings of well-being and
ill-being, is named the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE). This 12-item
questionnaire includes six items to assess positive feelings and six items to assess negative
feelings. For both the positive and negative items, three of the items are general (e.g.,
positive, negative) and three per subscale are more specific (e.g., joyful, sad).
Although there are a number of existing scales designed to assess emotions, the SPANE
has a number of advantages. First, we use a number of general feelings in our scale, such as
‘‘positive’’, ‘‘pleasant’’, and ‘‘negative’’. This allows the SPANE to reflect the full range of
emotions and feelings that a respondent might feel, both bad and good, without creating a
list of hundreds of items to fully reflect the diversity of positive and negative feelings. The
problem with existing surveys is that they inquire about specific feelings, and weight them
all identically. Thus, earlier scales omit important feelings, or feelings that are valued in
certain cultures and not others. Furthermore, current scales, in giving equal weighting to all
items, can obscure the fact that a person might feel quite positive or negative but not feel
many of the specific emotions listed on the scale. Thus, a respondent could score at an
intermediate level on the scale despite feeling positive all of the time. A person who feels
positive all of the time should not be labeled as moderately happy because she or he
experiences only a few of the questions listed. Similarly, a person who is sad and angry all
of the time should be considered very unhappy even if he or she never experiences fear or
stress, or the other negative feelings listed on the scale. Thus, the SPANE captures positive
and negative feelings regardless of their provenance, arousal level, or ubiquity in western
cultures where most scales have been created. In this way, our scale can better reflect the
full set of feelings felt by individuals around the globe, and give them the proper positive
and negative weighting. By including labels such as ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘positive’’, and ‘‘bad’’
and ‘‘negative’’, that reflect all types of feelings, the SPANE assesses the full range of
possible desirable and undesirable experiences.
An issue with the most popular current scale of emotions, the PANAS (Watson et al.
1988) is that the items are all high arousal feelings, and many are not considered emotions
or feelings. For example, the words ‘‘active’’ and ‘‘strong’’ need not refer to feelings. If a
person feels happy, contented, grateful, and loving, it is not captured by the high arousal
emotions of the scale. The SPANE reflects all levels of arousal for both positive feelings
(joy, happy, contented) and negative feelings (sad, angry, and afraid). The emotions we use
allow us to capture the major emotions of many affect theories, but the general words such
as ‘‘pleasant’’ and ‘‘unpleasant’’ allow us to also assess other positive and negative feel-
ings. Thus, the SPANE reflects all positive and negative feelings regardless of their specific
labels. Although clinical practitioners often want to access specific feelings such as
depression, a common goal of well-being researchers is to assess positive and negative
feelings in general.
Another advantage of our scale is that the questions are framed in terms of the amount
of time the respondent experiences each feeling, which appears to be more strongly related
to well-being measures such as life satisfaction than is the intensity of those feelings
(Diener et al. 1991). Furthermore, responses regarding the amount of time having an
experience might be more comparable across respondents than is the intensity of feelings,
which allows for more variability in interpretation than reporting time responses such as
‘‘always’’ and ‘‘never’’. In addition, the scale is keyed to the last ‘‘4 weeks’’, which is short
enough to allow the respondent to recall actual experiences rather than rely on general
Measures of Well-being 145
123

self-concept, yet is based on an adequate time period to avoid tapping only a short-term
mood. In sum, we created the SPANE to improve on existing measures of feelings.
2 Methods
2.1 Measures
Flourishing Scale (FS). The Flourishing Scale consists of eight items describing important
aspects of human functioning ranging from positive relationships, to feelings of compe-
tence, to having meaning and purpose in life. The scale was called Psychological Well-
being in an earlier publication, but the name was changed to more accurately reflect the
content because the scale includes content that goes beyond psychological well-being
narrowly defined. Each item of the FS is answered on a 1–7 scale that ranges from Strong
Disagreement to Strong Agreement. All items are phrased in a positive direction. Scores
can range from 8 (Strong Disagreement with all items) to 56 (Strong Agreement with all
items). High scores signify that respondents view themselves in positive terms in important
areas of functioning. Although the scale does not separately provide measures of facets of
well-being, it does yield an overview of positive functioning across diverse domains that
are widely believed to be important. The Flourishing Scale is shown in the Sect. 4.
The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE). This measure is a brief
12-item scale, with six items devoted to positive experiences and six items designed to
assess negative experiences. Because the scale includes general positive and negative
feelings, it assesses the full range of positive and negative experiences, including specific
feelings that may have unique labels in particular cultures. Because of the general items
included in the scale, it can assess not only the pleasant and unpleasant emotional feelings
that are the focus of most scales, but also reflects other states such as interest, flow, positive
engagement, and physical pleasure.
Each SPANE item is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘‘very
rarely or never’’ and 5 represents ‘‘very often or always’’. The positive and negative scales
are scored separately because of the partial independence or separability of the two types of
feelings. The summed positive score (SPANE-P) can range from 6 to 30, and the negative
scale (SPANE-N) has the same range. The two scores can be combined by subtracting the
negative score from the positive score, and the resulting SPANE-B scores can range from
-24 to 24. The SPANE is shown in the Sect. 4.
2.2 Participants
Data collection occurred in the fall of 2008. The N’s for different analyses vary in size
because a few participants had missing data, and because the ancillary scales were given at
some locations but not at others. Of the total 689 respondents in the study, 468 reported
being female, 175 reported being male, and the others omitted a response to this question.
Sample 1. Seventy-four respondents from the introductory psychology participant pool
at the University of Illinois volunteered to participate in order to earn course bonus points.
Participants answered the survey twice, approximately 1 month apart. Besides the new
scales, respondents completed additional surveys for the purpose of examining convergent
validity.
Sample 2. College of New Jersey had 86 respondents.
Sample 3. Singapore Management University had 181 participants.
146 E. Diener et al.
123

Sample 4. California State University East Bay included 64 respondents.
Sample 5. Students at East Carolina University responded twice to the new scales, with
168 participants present on both occasions.
Sample 6. Students at the University of Virginia (N=116) participated in the study.
2.3 Scale for Assessing Convergent Validity
We employed a number of well-being measures in order to determine the convergence of
the new scales with established measures. For traditional subjective well-being, we
included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985), and at some locations,
Fordyce’s (1988) single item measure of happiness, which is answered on a 11-point scale
ranging from ‘‘Extremely happy (feeling ecstatic, joyous, fantastic!)’’ to ‘‘Extremely
unhappy (utterly depressed, completely down)’’. Lyubomirsky and Lepper’s (1999) 4-item
scale of happiness was also used at some universities. This scale (the SHS) asks how happy
the respondent is using four items. We included Watson et al. PANAS (1988), which is the
most widespread measure of positive and negative feelings. We also used at some locations
Scheier, Carver, and Bridges’ LOT-R (1994), which assesses optimism, and the UCLA
Loneliness Scale (Russell 1996), which is a marker of poor social relationships. We also
included Ryan and Deci’s Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (BNS; 2000), which has 21 items
to assess competence, supportive relationships, and autonomy. Finally, we administered
the 54-item version of Ryff’s (2008) scale, with 9 items to measure each of the following
concepts: Autonomy, Growth, Mastery, Relationships, Self-esteem, and Purpose and
Meaning. Thus, we can determine the associations of our new scales with a wide variety of
other well-being measures.
3 Results
Table 1presents the basic psychometric statistics for the scales, as well as the ranges on
each scale. The Cronbach alphas of the scales are good, and the temporal reliabilities are
moderately high, showing some change across a 1-month period. As expected, flour-
ishing was somewhat more stable over time than were feelings. The alphas show the
internal consistency of the items, but a factor analysis of the items is needed as well
because even a high alpha is consistent with the existence of more than one factor in a
scale. A principal axis factor analysis of the Flourishing Scale revealed one strong factor
with an eigenvalue of 4.24, accounting for 53 percent of the variance in the items, and
no other eigenvalue above 1.0. The factor loadings ranged from .61 to .77. Thus, one
strong factor characterizes the Flourishing Scale. In order to further explore the
dimensionality of the scales, we examined the commonalities from the factor analyses as
well as item-total correlations and alphas if items were deleted, and these are shown in
Table 2.
We also subjected the SPANE to a principal axis factor analysis, separately for the
positive and negative items. SPANE-P produced one strong factor with an eigenvalue
above 1.0 (3.69), accounting for 61 percent of the variance in the scale items. The loadings
varied from .58 to .81. The SPANE-N had one strong eigenvalue above one (3.19) that
accounted for 53 percent of the variance in the scale. The factor loadings varied from .49 to
.78. The negative and positive scales correlated r=-.60 (N=682, p\.001) with
each other, a value higher than some measures of emotions because the SPANE is more
saturated with the valence dimension of the emotion circumplex.
Measures of Well-being 147
123

Table 1 Psychometric statistics of the scales
Mean
(SD)
Cronbach’s
alpha
Temporal
stability
Scale
range
Flourishing scale (8 items)
FS 44.97 .87 .71 8 to 56
(6.56)
SPANE (feelings)
P (positive; 6 items) 22.05 .87 .62 6 to 30
(3.73)
N (negative; 6 items) 15.36 .81 .63 6 to 30
(3.95)
B (balance; 12 items) 6.69 .89 .68 -24 to 24
(6.88)
Standard deviations of the scale scores are shown in parentheses. Missing data reduced the N’s to a few
below the total sample size of 689, so that the sample sizes above varied from 681 to 688 for alphas, means,
and standard deviations. N’s for temporal stabilities varied from 257 to 261
Table 2 Internal reliability of scales
Flourishing scale Commonalities Corrected item-total
correlation
Alpha if
item deleted
Purpose and meaning .60 .71 .85
Relationships supportive .42 .60 .86
Engaged .46 .63 .85
Contribute to others .48 .64 .85
Competence .43 .61 .86
Good person .53 .67 .85
Optimistic .41 .59 .86
Respected .38 .57 .86
Positive feelings
Good .58 .70 .84
Positive .58 .69 .84
Pleasant .50 .66 .85
Joy .58 .55 .87
Happy .66 .74 .84
Contented .34 .70 .84
Negative feelings
Negative .60 .66 .76
Bad .61 .67 .76
Unpleasant .45 .59 .78
Sad .53 .65 .77
Angry .25 .47 .81
Afraid .24 .45 .81
148 E. Diener et al.
123

Tables 3and 4present norms for the scales in terms of percentiles, so that readers can
determine what individual scores signify. Table 3presents the norms for the Flourishing
Scale and Table 4presents the percentile norms for the SPANE.
Table 5shows the correlations of the Flourishing Scale with the Ryff Scales of Psy-
chological Well-being and Deci and Ryan’s Basic Need Satisfaction in General scale. As
can be seen, the Flourishing Scale correlated at substantial levels with the other well-
being measures, with the exception of Ryff’s autonomy scale, which correlates at lower
levels with most of the other scales. The Flourishing Scale was most strongly associated
with competence/mastery, least strongly with autonomy, and substantially with the other
scales.
Table 6gives the N’s for each of the six locations where data were collected, as well as
the means and standard deviations for the Flourishing and SPANE subscales for each
University. As can be seen, respondents in Singapore scored the lowest well-being on all
three scales. Men and women did not score significantly differently on the scales.
Table 7presents the correlations of the SPANE with several other scales of feelings. As
can be seen, the SPANE subscales correlated substantially with the PANAS scales, as well
as the other brief measures of positive feelings.
Table 8presents the correlations of the Flourishing Scale and SPANE with selected
other measures of well-being such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (see Pavot and
Diener 1993,2008 for reviews). As can be seen, the scales correlate at substantial
levels with the other measures, except at a more modest level with the Loneliness
scale.
Table 3 Flourishing scale
norms in terms of percentile
rankings (range 8–56)
Note: Selected values are given
for the scales. Percentiles are
based on six college student
samples
Score Percentile
25
29
32
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
1
3
5
7
10
13
15
18
21
24
28
33
39
44
53
60
70
77
83
87
90
93
96
98
100
Measures of Well-being 149
123

Table 4 SPANE scale norms
in terms of percentile rankings Scale Score Percentile
SPANE-P
(range 6–30)
12
13
14
1
2
3
15
16
17
5
7
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
18
24
31
41
51
62
76
83
90
94
97
98
30 100
SPANE-N
(range 6–30)
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
4
6
10
16
12
13
14
25
33
43
15
16
17
52
63
73
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
80
85
89
93
96
98
99
27 100
SPANE-B -91
(range -24 to 24) -82
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
3
4
6
8
11
13
15
0
1
2
18
22
25
150 E. Diener et al.
123

4 Discussion
The two new measures presented here are promising, although more validity work is
needed. For one thing, it will be important to determine the associations of the scales with
nonself-report assessments of the same concepts, for example from informants, and also to
use the scales to predict nonself-report behaviors. It will also be desirable to develop norms
for other groups beyond college students, and to establish the stability of the scales over
longer time periods beyond 1 month.
Table 4 continued
Note: Only selected values are
given for the scales. The other
percentiles can be approximated
by interpolating the percentile for
the figures that are shown
Scale Score Percentile
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
29
33
40
46
53
59
65
71
77
82
85
89
91
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
Table 5 Correlations of psychological well-being and flourishing
FS BNS Ryff
Comp Rel Aut Aut Mast Grow Rel Purp SA
Basic need satisfaction
Competency .67
Relatedness .64 .60
Autonomy .54 .60 .56
Ryff scales
Autonomy .43 .38 .32 .59
Mastery .73 .71 .62 .60 .44
Growth .67 .58 .51 .53 .50 .59
Relationships .65 .68 .78 .63 .35 .69 .49
Purpose .63 .59 .42 .56 .53 .67 .63 .54
Self-acceptance .70 .74 .64 .59 .54 .72 .63 .71 .64
N’s for the flourishing scale and the BNS scales varied from 527 to 530, and with the Ryff scales the Nwas
74
Measures of Well-being 151
123

The brief Flourishing Scale performed well, with high reliabilities and high conver-
gence with similar scales. It correlated strongly with the summed scores for the other
psychological well-being scales, at .78 and .73. Thus, the FS yields a good assessment of
Table 6 Descriptive statistics by location
Locations NMeans and standard deviations
Flourishing SPANE-P SPANE-N
Singapore 181 42.6
(6.4)
20.8
(3.6)
17.0
(4.0)
East Carolina 168 48.1
(4.9)
23.1
(3.2)
14.5
(3.6)
Virginia 116 43.2
(7.8)
21.9
(4.0)
14.2
(4.0)
New Jersey 86 46.6
(5.0)
23.0
(3.7)
14.6
(3.9)
Illinois 74 45.6
(6.4)
22.3
(4.0)
15.5
(3.5)
California 64 43.8
(6.0)
21.6
(3.6)
15.9
(3.7)
Table 7 Correlations of feelings scales
SPANE-P SPANE-N SPANE-B PANAS-PA PANAS-NA PANAS-BAL
PANAS-PA .61
N=505
-.44
N=499
.58
N=499
PANAS-NA -.46
N=504
.70
N=498
-.65
N=498
-.31
N=502
PANAS-BAL .66
N=502
-.70
N=496
.76
N=496
.81
N=502
-.81
N=502
SHS .56
N=209
-.48
N=205
.58
N=205
.50
N=207
-.42
N=207
.57
N=206
Fordyce .55
N=602
-.45
N=598
.57
N=597
.55
N=419
-.49
N=418
.65
N=416
All p’s \.001
Table 8 Construct validity: convergence with other relevant scales
Relevant other measures Flourishing scale (FS) SPANE-P SPANE-N SPANE-B
Satisfaction with life scale .62
N=680
.58
N=686
-.46
N=682
.57
N=681
LOT
(low score is optimistic)
-.59
N=346
-.58
N=350
.51
N=346
.61
N=346
UCLA loneliness -.28
N=527
-.32
N=531
.29
N=527
-.34
N=526
Cantril’s ladder .57
N=531
.62
N=536
-.48
N=532
.61
N=531
Note: All p’s \.001
152 E. Diener et al.
123

overall self-reported psychological well-being, although it does not assess the individual
components of social–psychological well-being. If an overall psychological well-being
score is needed, and a brief scale is desirable, the FS appears to be adequate. If separate
component scores are needed, additional scales should be used.
The SPANE performed well in terms of reliability and convergent validity with other
measures of emotion, well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction. The scale has advantages
over other measures of feelings. Because of the inclusion of feelings such as ‘‘positive’’
and ‘‘negative’’, it can assess all positive and negative feelings, not just specific feelings.
Furthermore, it reflects the fact that some feelings are considered valuable by some and
less desirable by others because it assesses the respondent’s categorization of the desir-
ability and pleasantness of the feelings. The scale should perform well across societies
because it is based on the respondent’s evaluations of their feelings, which might vary
across cultures. In addition, the scale can reflect feelings such as physical pleasure,
engagement, interest, pain, and boredom that are omitted from most measures of feelings.
The measure reflects a range of feelings, regardless of whether they are low or high in
arousal. The SPANE refers to the time people experience feelings, with the benefit that this
aspect of feelings best predicts long-term well-being, and also it might be more validly
reported across respondents. Although more research is needed on the SPANE, it should be
valid in many research and applied situations.
It is interesting to note in Table 2that for the SPANE-N the items with the lowest
commonalities and item-total correlations were ‘‘afraid’’ and ‘‘angry’’, two of the specific
emotions that are included on most measures of feelings. In contrast, items such as ‘‘bad’’
and ‘‘negative’’ seemed to strongly reflect the negative feelings. This is informative
because it suggests that many specific negative emotions might not fully capture the range
of negative feelings. These findings suggest that one form of a very short scale of six items
would be to only present the three general negative and positive items.
The initial psychometric data we collected here are encouraging, but obviously more
work is needed. We had only student samples, and therefore, broader samples should be a
high priority for future study. Another priority for future research is to analyze the degree
to which the new scales and existent scales differ and converge across cultures and groups.
Finally, a major issue for well-being research is to examine the sources of unique and
common variance in the scales. Across types of well-being there is sizeable convergence of
the measures, and the source of this overlap, as well as the unique contributions of the
scales, is an important direction for study.
Appendix
Scale of Positive and Negative Experience
ÓCopyright by Ed Diener and Robert Biswas-Diener, January 2009.
Please think about what you have been doing and experiencing during the past 4 weeks.
Then report how much you experienced each of the following feelings, using the scale
below. For each item, select a number from 1 to 5, and indicate that number on your
response sheet.
1. Very rarely or never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
Measures of Well-being 153
123

4. Often
5. Very often or always
Positive
Negative
Good
Bad
Pleasant
Unpleasant
Happy
Sad
Afraid
Joyful
Angry
Contented
Scoring: The measure can be used to derive an overall affect balance score, but can also
be divided into positive and negative feelings scales.
Positive feelings (SPANE-P): Add the scores, varying from 1 to 5, for the six items:
positive, good, pleasant, happy, joyful, and contented. The score can vary from 6 (lowest
possible) to 30 (highest positive feelings score).
Negative feelings (SPANE-N): Add the scores, varying from 1 to 5, for the six items:
negative, bad, unpleasant, sad, afraid, and angry. The score can vary from 6 (lowest
possible) to 30 (highest negative feelings score).
Affect balance (SPANE-B): The negative feelings score is subtracted from the positive
feelings score, and the resultant difference score can vary from -24 (unhappiest possible) to
24 (highest affect balance possible). A respondent with a very high score of 24 reports that
she or he rarely or never experiences any of the negative feelings, and very often or always
has all of the positive feelings.
Flourishing Scale
ÓCopyright by Ed Diener and Robert Biswas-Diener, January 2009.
Below are eight statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1–7 scale
below, indicate your agreement with each item by indicating that response for each
statement.
7. Strongly agree
6. Agree
5. Slightly agree
4. Mixed or neither agree nor disagree
3. Slightly disagree
2. Disagree
1. Strongly disagree
I lead a purposeful and meaningful life
My social relationships are supportive and rewarding
I am engaged and interested in my daily activities
I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others
I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me
154 E. Diener et al.
123

I am a good person and live a good life
I am optimistic about my future
People respect me
Scoring: Add the responses, varying from 1 to 7, for all eight items. The possible range
of scores is from 8 (lowest possible) to 56 (highest PWB possible). A high score represents
a person with many psychological resources and strengths.
Permission for Using the Scales
Although copyrighted, the SPANE and Flourishing Scale may be used as long as proper
credit is given. Permission is not needed to employ the scales and requests to use the scales
will not be answered on an individual basis because permission is granted here. This article
should be used as the citation for the scales, and this note provides evidence that
permission to use the scales is granted.
References
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing support may be more
beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14,
320–327. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus
negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisci-
plinary perspective (pp. 119–139). New York: Pergamon.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., et al. (2009). New measures of
well-being. The Netherlands: Springer. The collected works of Ed Diener.
Dunn, E., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science,
319, 1687–1688. doi:10.1126/science.1150952.
Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on happiness measures: a sixty-second index of happiness and
mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355–381. doi:10.1007/BF00302333.
Helliwell, J. F., Barrington-Leigh, C., Harris, A., & Huang, H. (2009). International evidence on the social
context of well-being. In E. Diener, D. Kahneman, & J. F. Helliwell (Eds.), International differences in
well-being. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155. doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5,
164–172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satis-
faction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152. doi:10.1080/17439760701756946.
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for
physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 23–27. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.23.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
55.1.68.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.
1069.
Measures of Well-being 155
123

Ryff, C. D. (2008). Scales of psychological well-being. University of Wisconsin, Institute on Aging:
Obtained from Carol Ryff.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Self-regulatory processes and responses to health threats: Effects of
optimism on well-being. In J. Suls & K. A. Wallston (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of health
and illness (pp. 395–428). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait
anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential
for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning
in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning.
Journal of Personality, 76, 199–228. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
156 E. Diener et al.
123