The Flourishing Scale (FS) is a brief self-report measure of eudaimonic wellbeing: self-perceived success in purpose, supportive relationships, engagement, contribution to others, competence, self-respect, optimism, and being respected.
Ed Diener and colleagues developed it to complement the Satisfaction with Life Scale, extending wellbeing assessment beyond life satisfaction to psychological resources and strengths; together the two scales cover both the hedonic and the eudaimonic traditions.
The scale yields a single total score with a replicated one-factor structure, strong internal consistency, and adequate one-month stability in the development sample, with independent validations and adult norms from Portugal and New Zealand.
The developers published no cutoff scores or interpretation bands, so scores must be interpreted against percentile or sample norms; as a brief, uniformly positive self-report, the FS is also open to social desirability and ceiling effects in high-functioning groups.
At a Glance
Items
8 statements, all positively worded; no reverse-keyed items
Administration time
A couple of minutes (8 items; no published estimate)
The Flourishing Scale (FS) is a brief 8-item self-report measure of psychological flourishing developed by Ed Diener and colleagues (Diener et al., 2010). Each item is a declarative statement about an important area of human functioning—purpose and meaning, supportive relationships, engagement, contribution to others, competence, self-respect, optimism, and being respected—and respondents indicate their agreement with each on a 7-point scale. The items sum to a single index of self-perceived success across these domains, which the developers describe as psychological prosperity: not merely the absence of distress, but the presence of psychological resources and strengths.
Understanding Flourishing
Wellbeing research distinguishes hedonic wellbeing—pleasure, positive feelings, and satisfaction with life—from eudaimonic wellbeing, which emphasizes meaning, growth, and effective functioning. The FS was built to capture the eudaimonic side. It was designed to complement the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): the SWLS assesses the global cognitive evaluation of one’s life, while the FS assesses psychological resources and strengths. Administered together, the two scales cover both traditions in just 13 items (Diener et al., 2010).
Theoretical Foundation
The FS integrates elements emphasized by eudaimonic theories of wellbeing, including purpose (central to Ryff’s psychological wellbeing model), engagement (central to flow theory), positive relationships, and contribution to others. It was published in the same development article as the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE), which covers the affective side of wellbeing (Diener et al., 2010). The scale also fits the complete mental health model, in which mental health requires both the absence of illness and the presence of flourishing (Keyes, 2002; 2005), making the FS a natural companion to symptom measures.
🌟 Key insight: The FS measures the presence of positive functioning, not merely the absence of illness; the developers describe a high scorer simply as “a person with many psychological resources and strengths” (Diener et al., 2010).
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
8 positively worded statements, each rated for agreement on a 7-point scale
Single total score with a replicated one-factor structure (Diener et al., 2010; Silva & Caetano, 2013)
Brief administration—typically a couple of minutes for 8 items
Validated in adult and university samples, with nationally representative adult norms from New Zealand (Hone et al., 2013)
Free to use with citation of the development article (Diener et al., 2010)
Dimensions Assessed
Purpose and meaning – direction and significance in life
Supportive relationships – rewarding social connections
Engagement – interest and absorption in daily activities
Contribution – adding to the happiness and wellbeing of others
Competence – capability in personally important activities
Self-respect – positive self-regard and good character
Optimism – a positive outlook on one’s future
Social respect – feeling respected by others
These are content domains represented by single items, not psychometric subscales; the FS yields one total score only (Diener et al., 2010).
Versions & Adaptations
Canonical 8-item FS (Diener et al., 2010), refined from an earlier 12-item form circulated as the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Hone et al., 2013)
No published short form and no single-item version were identified during verification
Translations and country-specific validations exist, including a Portuguese validation (Silva & Caetano, 2013) and New Zealand normative work (Hone et al., 2013); translations are hosted on the developer’s official site
Research Applications
Positive psychology intervention research – outcome measure of positive functioning
Complete mental health research – pairing wellbeing with symptom status under the dual-continua model (Keyes, 2002; 2005)
Population wellbeing surveillance – brief enough for large epidemiological surveys (Hone et al., 2013)
Cross-cultural measurement research – testing the one-factor structure across languages and samples (Silva & Caetano, 2013)
Evaluate your psychological flourishing across key domains of optimal human functioning and wellbeing.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Respondents rate their agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Mixed or neither agree nor disagree
5 = Slightly agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
Scale Items
The FS is free to reproduce with citation, so the full item set is shown (Diener et al., 2010):
“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”
“I am a good person and live a good life”
“I am optimistic about my future”
“People respect me”
Scoring Procedure
Sum all 8 items (possible range 8–56).
No reverse scoring is required; all items are positively worded.
Higher scores indicate greater flourishing; the scale yields a single total score with no subscales (Diener et al., 2010).
Score Interpretation
The developers did not publish clinical cutoff scores or interpretation bands; they state only that a high score represents “a person with many psychological resources and strengths” (Diener et al., 2010). Interpret an individual score relative to an appropriate reference sample rather than a fixed threshold. The development article provides percentile norms for this purpose.
FS total score
Percentile
25
1
32
5
36
10
40
21
43
33
44
39
45
44
46
53
48
70
50
83
52
90
54
96
56
100
Selected values from Diener et al. (2010), Table 3. Percentiles are based on six college-student samples.
Population Norms
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
College students, six campuses (development sample)
689
44.97
6.56
Diener et al. (2010)
New Zealand adults, nationally representative
9,646
43.82
8.36
Hone et al. (2013)
Portuguese employees
717
42.92
6.10
Silva & Caetano (2013)
Portuguese university students
194
44.51
4.86
Silva & Caetano (2013)
Descriptive sample means, not diagnostic norms.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: α = .87 in the original 689-student development sample, drawn from six campuses including Singapore Management University (Diener et al., 2010)
Test-retest reliability: r = .71 over a one-month interval (Diener et al., 2010)
Temporal stability: flourishing was somewhat more stable over one month than the affect measures administered alongside it (Diener et al., 2010)
Factor Structure
Unidimensional structure: one strong factor, eigenvalue 4.24, accounting for 53% of the variance, with no other eigenvalue above 1.0 and loadings ranging .61–.77 (Diener et al., 2010)
Cross-sample replication: one factor (eigenvalue 3.77, 47% of variance, loadings .60–.76) that was invariant across two Portuguese samples in multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (GFI = .97, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04) (Silva & Caetano, 2013)
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity (Diener et al., 2010, Tables 5 and 8, unless noted):
Satisfaction with Life Scale: r = .62 (N = 680)
Ryff Psychological Well-Being subscales: r = .43–.73 (strongest with environmental mastery/competence, r = .73, and self-acceptance, r = .70; purpose, r = .63)
Basic Needs Satisfaction: competence r = .67, relatedness r = .64
Optimism (LOT): r = −.59 (N = 346); the LOT is keyed so a lower score indicates greater optimism, so this reflects a strong positive association with optimism
Negative feelings (SPANE-N): r = −.43 (Silva & Caetano, 2013)
Loneliness (UCLA): r = −.28 (N = 527), a modest association as expected for a discriminant marker (Diener et al., 2010)
Complete Mental Health and Health Outcomes
The complete mental health model classifies people using wellbeing and symptom status together. In a representative sample of U.S. adults (MIDUS, ages 25–74), Keyes (2004) reported the following prevalence using his own diagnostic operationalization (not Flourishing Scale scores):
Prevalence estimates of flourishing depend strongly on which operational definition is applied; different published definitions yield markedly different rates (Hone et al., 2014).
Health and functioning outcomes (Keyes, 2004; complete mental health status, not FS scores):
Cardiovascular disease: prevalence of any CVD was lowest among flourishing adults (8.2%), compared with 11.8% (moderate), 12.0% (languishing), and 18.9% (depressed and languishing). Adjusted odds of any CVD versus flourishing: moderate 1.5×, languishing 1.5× (marginally significant, p = .07), pure depression 2.1×, depressed + languishing 2.9×.
Work and daily functioning: flourishing adults had the fewest limitations of activities, the highest workplace productivity, and the fewest missed days of work.
Sample and Demographic Notes
Gender: men and women did not score significantly differently in the development sample (Diener et al., 2010); in the New Zealand national sample, women averaged about one point higher (M = 44.33) than men (M = 43.30) (Hone et al., 2013)
Measurement invariance: the one-factor solution was invariant across the two Portuguese validation samples (Silva & Caetano, 2013)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Applications
Intervention outcome measurement – tracking positive functioning rather than symptom reduction alone
Complete mental health assessment – pair the FS with symptom measures to characterize both continua: flourishing with low symptoms indicates complete mental health, languishing with low symptoms indicates incomplete mental health (Keyes, 2002; 2005)
Comprehensive wellbeing batteries – combined with the SWLS, hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing are covered in 13 items total (Diener et al., 2010)
Population and organizational surveillance – brevity and a single score suit large-scale monitoring (Hone et al., 2013)
Design Considerations
Licensing is simple: the scale is free to administer and reproduce provided the development article is cited (Diener et al., 2010)
Plan interpretation in advance: the developers did not publish cutoff scores, so report the reference sample (percentile norms or a comparable published mean) against which scores will be interpreted
Banded feedback: the developers published no high/moderate/low interpretation bands for FS scores
Repeated administration: the developers published no minimally important change threshold; interpret change against the scale’s one-month stability (r = .71; Diener et al., 2010) and the SD of an appropriate reference sample
Cultural Considerations
The one-factor structure has been confirmed outside the development context, including in Portugal (Silva & Caetano, 2013), and national norms exist for New Zealand (Hone et al., 2013); check for a local validation before using a translation
Item content reflects broadly Western conceptions of individual functioning; treat cross-cultural mean comparisons with caution unless invariance has been established for the samples involved
Limitations and Cautions
Self-report: the FS measures perceived success in valued life domains, not objective functioning
Social desirability: uniformly positive item wording invites inflated self-presentation
Brevity: with one item per domain, the FS cannot support domain-level subscores; item-level inspection is qualitative only
Ceiling effects: high-functioning samples cluster near the top of the score range
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
The Flourishing Scale is copyright Ed Diener and colleagues. The developers grant permission in the development article itself: the scale may be used without requesting permission, provided proper credit is given to the original publication (Diener et al., 2010). Diener’s official site states that the scale is free for research and non-commercial purposes. Scale materials, translations, and the permission statement are available at https://eddiener.com.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Complete Mental Health Model:
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197
Keyes, C. L. M. (2004). The nexus of cardiovascular disease and depression revisited: The complete mental health perspective and the moderating role of age and gender. Aging & Mental Health, 8(3), 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860410001669804
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539-548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
Validation and Normative Research:
Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the Flourishing Scale and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y
Hone, L., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Flourishing Scale in a New Zealand sample. Social Indicators Research, 119(2), 1031-1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0501-x
Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62-90. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4
Related Assessments: SWLS: Satisfaction with Life Scale and SPANE: Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (links added when their pages go live)
A radiant kingfisher thriving in its natural habitat — a symbol of psychological flourishing, well-being, and human potential measured by the FS (Flourishing Scale)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the FS measure?
The Flourishing Scale measures psychological flourishing, the eudaimonic side of wellbeing. Its eight items cover purpose and meaning, supportive relationships, engagement, contributing to others, competence, self-respect, optimism, and being respected. It assesses self-perceived success in these areas of functioning rather than happiness or life satisfaction, and it sums to a single index of what the developers call psychological prosperity (Diener et al., 2010).
How long does the FS take to complete?
The FS consists of 8 statements rated on a 7-point agreement scale, so it typically takes a couple of minutes. No published administration-time figure exists; the estimate simply reflects the scale's brevity.
Is the FS free to use?
Yes. Permission is granted in the development article itself: the scale may be used without requesting permission, as long as proper credit is given by citing Diener et al. (2010). Diener's official site states that the scale is free for research and non-commercial purposes. Scale materials and translations are available from Ed Diener's site at eddiener.com.
How is the FS scored, and are there cutoff scores?
Sum all 8 items (no reverse scoring), giving a total from 8 to 56 with higher scores indicating greater flourishing. The developers published no cutoff scores or interpretation bands; they state only that a high score reflects a person with many psychological resources and strengths. Interpret a score against a reference sample, for example the percentile norms in Diener et al. (2010) or published sample means from New Zealand (Hone et al., 2013) and Portugal (Silva & Caetano, 2013).
What is the difference between the FS and the SWLS?
The FS measures eudaimonic wellbeing (meaning, purpose, engagement, and effective functioning), while the Satisfaction with Life Scale measures hedonic wellbeing (the global cognitive evaluation of one's life). The FS was designed to complement the SWLS, and administering both covers the two traditions in 13 items total (Diener et al., 2010).
How reliable and valid is the FS?
Internal consistency was α = .87 in the 689-student development sample and .83 (employees) and .78 (students) in the Portuguese validation; one-month test-retest reliability was r = .71. The scale is unidimensional, with the one-factor structure replicated and invariant across two Portuguese samples, and it correlates substantially with the SWLS (r = .62) and with Ryff's psychological wellbeing subscales (Diener et al., 2010; Silva & Caetano, 2013).
