Flourishing Scale

1. Abstract

The Flourishing Scale (FS) is a brief, 8-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess self-perceived success in vital domains of psychological functioning, including purpose in life, positive social relationships, engagement, competence, self-esteem, optimism, and active contribution to the well-being of others. Developed by an international team of positive psychologists led by Edward Diener in 2009 and formally published in 2010 (initially conceptualized under the provisional title Psychological Well-Being Scale), the instrument was formulated to address a structural gap in the empirical evaluation of eudaimonic well-being. Unlike traditional hedonic assessment tools that concentrate predominantly on subjective emotional balances or overall life satisfaction—such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE)—the Flourishing Scale integrates multiple contemporary theories of human flourishing and optimal psychological functioning into a single, highly efficient summary metric.

Psychometrically, the Flourishing Scale exhibits robust measurement properties across diverse populations, clinical demographics, occupational groups, and cross-cultural cohorts. Each of the eight items is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), generating an aggregate score that ranges from 8 to 56 points, where elevated values indicate substantial psychological resources and adaptive strengths. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses routinely demonstrate that the instrument conforms to a unidimensional, single-factor structural model with exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging between .85 and .93) and stable temporal reliability over test-retest intervals (r ≥ .71 over one month). Criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity analyses substantiate its distinctiveness from purely affective or cognitive well-being measures, demonstrating significant positive correlations with self-efficacy, basic psychological need satisfaction, optimism, and positive affect, alongside strong negative correlations with depression, neuroticism, and perceived stress. Due to its brevity, theoretical grounding, and open-access licensing, the FS has become one of the most widely implemented instruments in positive psychology, epidemiology, educational measurement, organizational behavior, and psychiatric outcome tracking.

2. Keywords

Flourishing Scale, eudaimonic well-being, Ed Diener, psychological flourishing, positive psychology, psychometrics, life satisfaction, human strengths, optimal functioning, mental health assessment, self-determination theory, social indicators

3. Authors

The Flourishing Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by a collaborative group of researchers in subjective well-being and positive psychology. The contributing authors include:

• Edward F. Diener, Ph.D. (1946–2021) — Often affectionately termed “Dr. Happiness,” Dr. Diener was the Joseph R. Smiley Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a Senior Scientist for the Gallup Organization. A pioneer in the scientific study of subjective well-being (SWB), Diener authored hundreds of foundational publications establishing the validity and cross-cultural dynamics of happiness, life satisfaction, and psychological flourishing.
• Derrick Wirtz, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Teaching in Psychology at the University of British Columbia (Okanagan Campus), specializing in the cognitive processes underlying subjective well-being, the retrospective evaluation of experience, and pedagogical innovations in psychological measurement.
• William Tov, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University, whose research centers on daily well-being processes, emotion dynamics, personality-culture interactions, and the psychometric measurement of subjective flourishing.
• Chu Kim-Prieto, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at The College of New Jersey, focusing on cultural influences on emotional experience, subjective well-being appraisal, and cognitive evaluations of life quality.
• Dong-won Choi, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at California State University, East Bay, with substantive empirical expertise in cultural psychology, social cognition, and cross-cultural validity of well-being indicators.
• Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D. — Marshall Field IV Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago (formerly at the University of Virginia), internationally recognized for his scholarship on culture, social ecology, residential mobility, and the psychologically rich life.
• Robert Biswas-Diener, Ph.D. — Managing Director of Positive Acorn and a prominent researcher in applied positive psychology, positive organizational scholarship, and subjective well-being across diverse cultural contexts and vulnerable populations.

Institutional affiliations for the primary correspondence at the time of development were housed within the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA). Inquiries regarding the scale and its sister instruments are curated by the Diener family and associated academic institutions under Creative Commons public access principles.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Flourishing Scale is to provide an empirically grounded, brief, and theoretically comprehensive instrument capable of capturing human flourishing across core social, cognitive, and existential dimensions. Historically, psychological assessment was skewed heavily toward psychopathology, identifying deficits, neuroses, depressive symptom clusters, and maladaptive behaviors as outlined in clinical taxonomies like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). While mid-to-late 20th-century paradigms gradually acknowledged subjective well-being, assessment paradigms coalesced primarily around hedonic dimensions—namely, the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, and global cognitive evaluations of life satisfaction. Diener and colleagues recognized that while hedonic measures (such as the SWLS) provide indispensable insight into whether an individual feels satisfied with their life, they do not assess whether the individual perceives their life as possessing meaning, purpose, relational depth, perceived competence, and social contribution.

Consequently, the Flourishing Scale was designed to operationalize eudaimonia—a philosophical and psychological construct originating with Aristotle that emphasizes the realization of human potential, virtue, and functional excellence. The theoretical rationale rests on the assertion that flourishing represents a constellation of universal psychological resources. An individual can experience momentary positive moods without possessing a coherent sense of life direction, high self-respect, or reciprocated social support. Conversely, someone navigating challenging life events might endure transient negative affect while maintaining robust psychological flourishing characterized by profound purpose, perceived competence, and deep relational commitment. The FS was engineered explicitly to capture these deeper psychosocial assets.

In clinical and counseling psychology, the FS serves as a vital diagnostic and outcome evaluation measure. Rather than measuring clinical progress solely via symptom reduction (e.g., reductions on the Beck Depression Inventory or PHQ-9), clinicians employ the Flourishing Scale to track whether interventions cultivate genuine psychological capital, therapeutic resilience, and authentic behavioral engagement. In public health, community psychology, and population-level surveillance, the FS functions as a parsimonious surveillance metric that can be embedded into wide-ranging demographic surveys without inducing respondent burden. Its eight-item length allows epidemiologists to detect structural shifts in human flourishing across socioeconomic strata, work environments, and healthcare systems. In organizational behavior, human resource development, and educational institutions, the scale is routinely utilized to assess the efficacy of occupational wellness initiatives, employee engagement protocols, and student mental health frameworks, demonstrating how organizational environments foster or impede universal human needs.

5. Psychological Construct

The Flourishing Scale conceptualizes flourishing not as a fragmented collection of disparate traits, but as a holistic, multi-faceted psychological construct reflecting socio-cognitive competence, existential fulfillment, and relational integration. Although psychometrically evaluated as a single latent factor, the eight items reflect distinct, highly integrated psychological dimensions:

Meaning and Purpose in Life

Item 1 (“I lead a purposeful and meaningful life”) assesses existential coherence and goal-directed intentionality. Grounded in the existential psychology of Viktor Frankl and modern eudaimonic models, this dimension evaluates whether an individual experiences their existence as having significance, value, and overarching direction. It captures whether personal daily activities are perceived as anchored within a larger teleological trajectory or whether life feels chaotic, arbitrary, and disconnected from personal values.

Supportive and Rewarding Relationships

Item 2 (“My social relationships are supportive and rewarding”) evaluates perceived social capital, relational depth, and interpersonal fulfillment. Deriving from attachment theory and social support literature, this component measures whether an individual perceives their social network as an authentic source of mutual emotional sustenance, unconditional positive regard, and reciprocal validation, rather than an arena of isolation, alienation, or interpersonal conflict.

Engagement and Flow

Item 3 (“I am engaged and interested in my daily activities”) assesses cognitive absorption, intrinsic motivation, and vitality. Strongly aligned with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow and Ryan and Deci’s intrinsic motivation tenets, this dimension gauges the respondent’s subjective interest in everyday life. High endorsement indicates that the individual encounters daily tasks with attentiveness and intellectual or emotional curiosity, rather than experiencing persistent anhedonia, apathy, or mechanical routine.

Prosocial Contribution

Item 4 (“I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others”) captures generative altruism, social utility, and prosocial behavior. In accordance with Adlerian individual psychology (“Gemeinschaftsgefühl” or social interest) and evolutionary perspectives on cooperative altruism, this construct acknowledges that human flourishing is deeply intertwined with contributing to the broader social collective. Flourishing is not merely what one receives from the social world, but what one actively expends to elevate others.

Competence and Self-Efficacy

Item 5 (“I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me”) operationalizes perceived behavioral mastery, domain-specific self-efficacy, and environmental navigation. Rooted in Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and the competence domain of Self-Determination Theory, this dimension does not assess objective, universal superiority, but rather subjective mastery over activities aligned with the individual’s core values and identity.

Self-Respect and Moral Self-Regard

Item 6 (“I am a good person and live a good life”) addresses self-acceptance, moral self-worth, and ontological peace. Integrating aspects of Carl Rogers’s unconditional positive self-regard and virtue ethics, this item explores whether respondents perceive their conduct, character, and existential choices as morally decent and fundamentally worthwhile, buffering against corrosive shame and demoralization.

Optimism and Future Orientation

Item 7 (“I am optimistic about my future”) reflects generalized positive outcome expectancies and psychological hope. Drawing on Martin Seligman’s learned optimism paradigm and Michael Scheier and Charles Carver’s dispositional optimism models, this component assesses whether an individual approaches the future with proactive confidence, anticipating positive trajectories rather than succumbing to catastrophic anticipation, fatalism, or helplessness.

Social Respect and Esteem

Item 8 (“People respect me”) evaluates perceived social recognition, social rank security, and interpersonal dignity. Human beings require not only intimate bonds (Item 2) but also validation from their wider community. Grounded in sociometer theory and social identity literature, this dimension assesses whether an individual feels acknowledged as an entity of intrinsic worth and moral standing within their broader peer groups and society.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Flourishing Scale sits at the intersection of several pivotal paradigms in modern personality, motivational, and clinical psychology. Rather than inventing an isolated, idiosyncratic construct, Diener and colleagues systematically synthesized the prevailing theories of optimal human functioning into an integrated eudaimonic measurement matrix. The foundational theoretical pillars supporting the Flourishing Scale include:

Carol Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being (PWB) Model

Carol Ryff articulated a six-factor model of psychological well-being encompassing autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Ryff argued that health cannot be defined merely as the absence of illness, nor can well-being be equated solely with feeling happy. The Flourishing Scale directly operationalizes these domains into succinct single-item indicators: Ryff’s “purpose in life” is mirrored in Item 1, “positive relations” in Item 2, “environmental mastery” and “personal competence” in Item 5, and “self-acceptance” in Item 6.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Self-Determination Theory posits that human wellness is contingent upon the satisfaction of three universal psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these basic psychological needs are thwarted, individuals display signs of alienation and distress; when satisfied, vitality and flourishing emerge. The Flourishing Scale aligns tightly with SDT: Item 2 and Item 8 capture the relational and social validation dimensions (relatedness), Item 5 operationalizes competence directly, and Items 1 and 3 reflect self-concordant, autonomous engagement in daily life.

Corey Keyes’s Mental Health Continuum

Sociologist and psychologist Corey Keyes proposed that mental health exists along a continuum ranging from “languishing” (a state of emptiness, stagnation, and low subjective well-being) to “flourishing” (a state where an individual exhibits high levels of emotional, psychological, and social well-being). Keyes emphasized that an individual can be free of diagnostic psychopathology yet remain severely languishing. The FS adopts Keyes’s diagnostic philosophy, asserting that flourishing requires active participation in the social sphere (Item 4 and Item 8) combined with intrinsic vitality (Item 3).

Martin Seligman’s PERMA Architecture

In his seminal work Flourish (2011), Martin Seligman transitioned positive psychology from an authentic happiness theory to a multi-dimensional well-being theory known as the PERMA model: Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. The timing of Diener et al.’s (2010) publication was deeply synergistic with Seligman’s conceptual shifts. The FS items seamlessly map onto every pillar of the PERMA framework: Engagement (Item 3), Relationships (Item 2), Meaning (Item 1), Accomplishment/Competence (Item 5), along with optimism and social esteem (Items 7 and 8).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Flourishing Scale has been thoroughly corroborated across clinical, educational, occupational, and cross-cultural investigations, consistently demonstrating exceptional construct, convergent, criterion, and discriminant validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation investigation by Diener et al. (2010) across two major student cohorts (N = 689 and N = 563), the Flourishing Scale demonstrated profound convergent validity with established measures of well-being, personality, and human flourishing. The FS exhibited strong positive correlations with Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being scales (correlations ranging from .62 to .73), particularly with the environmental mastery, personal growth, and self-acceptance subdimensions. Furthermore, the FS correlated robustly with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .62 to .78), the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; r = .53 to .69 with positive feelings), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .60 to .75).

Subsequent international validation studies have replicated these convergent patterns. In the Japanese adaptation by Sumi (2014; N = 844), the FS correlated positively with generalized self-efficacy (r = .59), dispositional hope (r = .64), and life satisfaction (r = .63). In the French validation study conducted by Villieux et al. (2016; N = 312), FS scores correlated strongly with self-determination need satisfaction metrics (autonomy r = .58, competence r = .67, relatedness r = .61) and generalized optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised; r = .58).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses demonstrate that while flourishing is inversely related to psychological distress, it is not simply the mirror opposite of depression or anxiety. Diener et al. (2010) reported substantial negative correlations between the FS and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; r = -.44 to -.60), neuroticism (r = -.38 to -.49), and perceived loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale; r = -.52 to -.65). Confirmatory factor analyses testing multi-trait models consistently verify that the latent factor of flourishing is statistically distinct from negative affectivity, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the Flourishing Scale extends across academic, organizational, and health psychology. High baseline scores on the FS prospectively predict lower healthcare utilization, reduced somatic complaints, higher academic grade retention, and enhanced job performance even after controlling for baseline demographic variables, cognitive intelligence, and generalized positive affect. In longitudinal tracking, individuals scoring in the highest quartile of flourishing exhibit superior immunological profiles, lower systemic inflammatory biomarkers (such as interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein), and greater longevity.

8. Reliability

The Flourishing Scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency, temporal stability, and measurement invariance across disparate cultural contexts and linguistic adaptations.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Diener et al. (2010), the instrument displayed high internal consistency reliability, yielding a Cronbach’s α of .87 in the primary validation cohort (N = 689) and .86 in the replication cohort (N = 563). Subsequent psychometric evaluations globally have consistently reported coefficient alphas between .85 and .93:

• United States / Multi-sample (Diener et al., 2010): α = .87; McDonald’s ω = .88.
• German Validation (Esch et al., 2013; N = 2,524): α = .85; mean inter-item correlation = .41.
• French Adaptation (Villieux et al., 2016; N = 312): α = .86; composite reliability ρ = .88.
• Chinese Validation (Tong & Wang, 2017; N = 1,178): α = .90; test-retest reliability r = .76.
• Portuguese Adaptation (Silva & Caetano, 2013; N = 398): α = .83; mean corrected item-total correlations > .50.
• Japanese Validation (Sumi, 2014; N = 844): α = .89; McDonald’s ω = .91.

Item-total correlations across these validation initiatives routinely fall between .52 and .76, confirming that each item contributes substantive, non-redundant variance to the aggregate latent construct.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest assessments affirm that the Flourishing Scale evaluates stable psychological resources rather than transient mood states. Diener et al. (2010) reported a one-month test-retest stability coefficient of r = .71. In a longitudinal evaluation with an 8-week interval conducted by Hone, Jarden, and Schofield (2014; N = 416) in New Zealand, the stability coefficient was estimated at r = .78. Even across extended six-month windows, test-retest correlations remain robust (typically r ≥ .65), while still exhibiting responsiveness to significant life events, clinical psychotherapy, and targeted positive psychology interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Flourishing Scale has been exhaustively analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Item Response Theory (IRT).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial scale development, Diener et al. (2010) subjected the eight items to principal axis factoring with both orthogonal and oblique rotations. Across all samples, a single dominant eigenvalue emerged (λ > 4.0), explaining between 50% and 62% of the total variance. The ratio of the first to second eigenvalue regularly exceeds 4.5:1, which strongly satisfies psychometric criteria (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983) for essential unidimensionality. All eight items demonstrated standardized factor loadings exceeding .60, with no secondary factors reaching eigenvalues above 0.80.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA investigations universally support the single-factor model across international contexts. Representative goodness-of-fit indices from key validation studies include:

• Diener et al. (2010) Original Model: χ²(20) = 89.24, p < .001; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .96; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .95; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .068 (90% CI [.054, .083]); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038.
• Hone et al. (2014) New Zealand Cohort (N = 10,009): χ²(20) = 412.18; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .051; SRMR = .029. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .68 (Item 8) to .84 (Item 1).
• Villieux et al. (2016) French Cohort: χ²(20) = 51.34; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .069; SRMR = .041.
• Silva & Caetano (2013) Portuguese Workplace Sample: CFI = .96; RMSEA = .060; factor loadings ranging from .58 to .78.

Standardized item factor loadings across literature remain uniformly high:

• Item 1 (Purposeful life): λ = .74 – .84
• Item 2 (Supportive relationships): λ = .67 – .76
• Item 3 (Engaged in activities): λ = .66 – .79
• Item 4 (Contribute to others): λ = .61 – .73
• Item 5 (Competent and capable): λ = .68 – .78
• Item 6 (Good person/life): λ = .71 – .82
• Item 7 (Optimistic about future): λ = .69 – .80
• Item 8 (People respect me): λ = .60 – .72

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have demonstrated configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance across gender groups, age brackets, educational attainments, and clinical versus non-clinical populations (e.g., Hone et al., 2014; Tong & Wang, 2017). Full scalar invariance confirms that mean latent scores on the FS can be directly and meaningfully compared across diverse demographic strata without measurement bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring protocols for the Flourishing Scale are outlined below:

• Test Type: Self-administered psychometric assessment tool; standardized self-report questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 12+); widely validated across community, collegiate, occupational, and geriatric populations.
• Item Count: 8 brief declaratory statements.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Slightly agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Architecture:
  • All 8 items are positively keyed (no reverse-scored items).
  • Aggregate scores are computed by summing the numerical ratings of all 8 items.
  • Theoretical score range: 8 to 56 points.
  • Alternative scoring: A mean score can be computed by dividing the total sum by 8 (range: 1.0 to 7.0).
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • 48 – 56 (Very High / Flourishing): Signifies substantial psychological resources, clear life purpose, deep supportive relationships, self-efficacy, and optimism.
  • 40 – 47 (High / Moderate Flourishing): Reflects solid functioning across most life domains with minor developmental opportunities.
  • 32 – 39 (Average / Borderline): Represents mixed functioning; some domains of competence or relationships are intact, while meaning or engagement may be compromised.
  • 8 – 31 (Low / Languishing): Suggests pervasive psychological distress, interpersonal isolation, lack of self-efficacy, or existential emptiness; warranting clinical evaluation or psychosocial intervention.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Flourishing Scale was formally published in 2010 (pre-released online in 2009) by Ed Diener and his research consortium. In keeping with Dr. Ed Diener’s lifelong commitment to advancing open science, the Flourishing Scale is an open-access, non-commercial instrument.

Licensing and Usage Rights: The scale is protected by intellectual copyright © 2009 by Edward Diener and the contributing authors, but it is made freely accessible under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC 4.0 or equivalent open scientific permissions). No financial fee, royalty, or formal written authorization is required for clinicians, researchers, educators, or non-profit practitioners to administer, score, and interpret the scale, provided that the original publication is appropriately credited in scientific communications.

Commercial Application: For-profit organizations or commercial platforms seeking to embed the Flourishing Scale into proprietary software systems or commercial diagnostic batteries are expected to contact the estate of Ed Diener or the relevant copyright holders for licensing arrangements.

12. References

• Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., 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., 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
• Esch, T., Jose, G., Gimpel, C., von Scheidt, C., & Michalsen, A. (2013). Die Flourishing Scale (FS) von Diener et al. liegt jetzt in einer autorisierten deutschen Fassung vor. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 20(4), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354414
• Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. M. (2014). 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
• 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
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/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(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
• 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
• Sumi, K. (2014). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Flourishing Scale. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0442-4
• Tong, K. K., & Wang, Y. (2017). Validation of the Flourishing Scale and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in a Chinese sample. PLOS ONE, 12(6), e0180424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180424
• Villieux, A., Sovet, L., Jung, S. C., & Guillevic, C. (2016). Psychological flourishing: Validation of the French version of the Flourishing Scale. L’Encéphale, 42(5), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2016.03.007

13. Items of the Scale