Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0882-7974/92/$3.00

Psychology and Aging

1992. Vol. 7. No. 4, 609-621

Assessing Retirement Satisfaction and Perceptions of Retirement Experiences

Stephen N. Haynes

Frank J. Floyd
Michigan State University

University of Hawaii

Elizabeth Rogers Doll, David Winemiller, Carolyn Lemsky,

Tria Murphy Burgy, Mary Werle, and Nancy Heilman

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Illinois Institute of Technology

A 2-part investigation developed a measure of retirement as a life transition. Study 1 generated
items from interviews with retirees (n = 40) and service providers. Item analysis with recent retirees
(n = 86) produced a 51-item Retirement Satisfaction Inventory assessing 6 areas: preretirement
work functioning, adjustment and change, reasons for retirement, satisfaction with life in retirement, current sources of enjoyment, and leisure and physical activities. Study 2 examined a heterogeneous sample of men (n = 159) and women (n = 243) retirees. Factor analyses produced internally
consistent subscales. Moderate, but acceptable, test-retest reliability was demonstrated. Satisfaction scores correlated with concurrent measures and, together with pre- and postretiremen! experiences, discriminated 4 groups of voluntary and involuntary retirees. Few effects related to gender,
socioeconomic status, length of retirement, and part-time employment were found.

Retiring from full-time employment is a milestone that

marks the transition into the later stage of life for millions of
Americans each year. The retirement experience can lead either to new goals, interests, and activities or to stress, rapid
physical deterioration, and depression (Dorfman & Moffett,
1987; Matthews & Brown, 1987; Morse, Dutka, & Gray, 1983;
Seccombe & Lee, 1986). As many as one third of retirees have
difficulty adjusting to retirement and undergo a decrease in life
satisfaction as a result of the transition (Atchley, 1976; Elwell &
Maltbie-Crannell, 1981; Harris & Associates, 1979). Compared
with workers, retirees report less social support for personal
problems and more symptoms of psychological distress (Bosse,
Aldwin, Levenson, & Ekerdt, 1987; Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson,
& Workman-Daniels, 1990) and are more likely to use medical
services (Boaz & Muller, 1989). Also, in some circumstances,
retirement is a risk factor for suicide in older persons (Kirsling,
1986; Rothberg, Ursano, & Holloway, 1987). Despite its importance, studies of adult development for older persons frequently
neglect the role of the retirement experience or limit their analysis to a single aspect of retirement such as global satisfaction or
economic changes (Parnes & Less, 1985).
Systematic assessment of the retirement experience is hampered by the lack of a comprehensive, parsimonious, and psychometrically sound assessment instrument. The availability
of such an instrument would not only help to stimulate more
research about factors affecting satisfaction and adjustment in
later adulthood but would also be clinically useful to retirement

This research was funded in part by a grant from the Andrus Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Frank J. Floyd, Psychology Department, 129 Psychology Research
Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 488241117.

609

counselors and mental health professionals in designing interventions and prevention programs for retired individuals.
The purpose of our research was to develop a questionnaire
for assessing both current retirement satisfaction and perceptions of retirement-related experiences predictive of adjustment
and well-being in later life. The content of the questionnaire
draws on previous descriptive research on retirement (e.g., Atchley, 1976; Beck, 1982; Parnes et al, 1985) and incorporates the
reports of retirees and professionals working with older persons.

Theoretical Framework
We used life span development theory and life span transition theory (e.g., Baltes, 1987; Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990) to guide
the design of the questionnaire. According to these perspectives, whereas much development in childhood involves progressing through inexorable stages of maturation driven by biological development, personal development in adulthood is
multidirectional and consists of a series of transitions brought
about by experiences. The most significant experiences for promoting change and development are the major life events that
alter the individual's social roles, personal identity, goals, expectations, and sources of rewards. These are the milestones that
mark the beginning of a new life stage for the individual and
present new demands and opportunities associated with developmental tasks. Unlike childhood developmental milestones,
which are relatively invariant, the principle of contextualism
proposes that individual experiences surrounding adult transitions determine the meaning and impact of the transitions for
different persons. Thus, although transitions such as retirement
are "normative" and the event itself is usually predictable and
planned, the contexts for different individuals create differences in how this transition comes about, the meaning of the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

610

FLOYD ET AL.

event, the short-term adjustments required, and the long-term

impact of the event on the individual's life.
The importance of retirement as a life transition is supported
both by cross-sectional studies contrasting groups of retirees
and workers and by comprehensive longitudinal research focused on personal and social development in adulthood (e.g.,
Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, & Ekerdt, 1987; Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, & Workman-Daniels, 1990; Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990;
Matthews & Brown, 1987). Our work adopts this formulation
and draws on the supporting research to design a measure that
can be useful both for group studies of retirees and for idiographic analysis to describe the satisfaction and adjustment of
individuals in retirement.
Assessing retirement as a life transition imposed a temporal
perspective on the measure. That is, understanding the impact
of the transition involved assessing past experiences and feelings surrounding the transition, present satisfaction in retirement, and prospects for future adjustment. These concerns suggested three general domains to evaluate: retirement experiences that affect the meaning and short-term impact of the
event for the person, current satisfaction with life in retirement,
and factors associated with long-term adjustment.

Retirement Experiences
Similar to chance events, transition points are often experienced as stressful occurrences that provoke disruption and distress for the individual. However, others may experience the
transition as a challenge and an opportunity to relinquish unrewarding responsibilities and pursue new interests and sources
of pleasure. Accordingly, research and theory on coping with
stress (e.g., Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; McCubbin & Patterson,
1983; Taylor, 1983) emphasize the importance of understanding the individual's appraisal of the event. The appraisal process includes both formulating a subjective meaning of the
event as either a threat or a challenge and evaluating one's capacity to meet the demands of the situation.
A central issue in determining the subjective meaning of retirement for the individual is the significance of work in the life
of the person. Work provides the most central social and psychological framework during adulthood (Henry, 1971). Thus,
the loss of work is potentially a crisis point for the individual.
To assess the nature of work life and the impact of its loss, we
included two sets of items in the questionnaire that evaluate
this domain. One section on preretirement work functioning
includes items about the significance of work-related activities
as rewards before retirement. These are retrospective reports of
job satisfaction and job involvement. Another section on adjustment and change evaluates the retiree's own perception of
the acute stress associated with the event of retirement. These
ratings overcome a limitation with life-events scales (e.g.,
Holmes & Rahe, 1967) that assume that a standard impact
score can be assigned to common life events.
Events are judged as threats when they are perceived to be ok^t
of the individual's control (Taylor, 1983). For retirement, the
issue of controllability involves the retiree's perceptions about
the precipitants of retirement. A common finding of research
on retirement is that voluntary, as opposed to involuntary retire-

ments are associated with more positive adjustment in retirement (Crowley, 1986; Streib & Schneider, 1971). Although official mandatory retirement policies are increasingly rare, seemingly voluntary retirements are often premature (Ruhm, 1989)
and may be prompted by poor health, job stress, or other circumstances not under the retiree's control (Parnes et al., 1985).
Furthermore, the precipitants of voluntary retirement have
been shown to predict satisfaction in retirement (Levy, 1981;
Walker, Kimmel, & Price, 1981). Thus, a third section of the
questionnaire assesses perceptions of the retiree's reasons for
retirement.

Satisfaction With Life in Retirement

The most essential index of subjective well-being for an individual is the person's judgment about quality of life and life
satisfaction (Diener, 1984). Global indices of life satisfaction
appear to be relevant for all age groups. However, global judgments alone are not sensitive to domain-specific qualities of life
(Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976) and do not elucidate
which areas of life are salient for the individual in accounting
for current satisfaction and adjustment. To provide both a
global measure of overall satisfaction and a sensitive index of
specific sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, we included
a scale requiring subjects to give a global rating of general satisfaction with life in retirement, and we also included several
items evaluating satisfaction with specific areas of life in retirement. The specific areas include several that are common to
other life satisfaction scales (e.g., Frisch, Cornell, Villanueva, &
Retzlaff, 1992), such as economic resources, and interpersonal
relationships, along with others that are particularly relevant to
retirees, such as the quality of social services and access to transportation. To group these facets into more general scales, we
used factor analysis to guide the development of subscales of
satisfaction. Thus, the final questionnaire assesses satisfaction
with life in retirement at three levels of globality: overall ratings
of retirement satisfaction, intermediate subscales for domains
of life in retirement, and individual item ratings of specific
areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Rewards and Leisure Activities

Although the event of retirement can be an acute stressor,
retirement is also a stage of adulthood that continues for the
remainder of the individual's life. Most measures of coping
with stress (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), including a recent
measure designed to detect age-related changes in coping styles
(Brandtstadter & Renner, 1990), assess skills and resources for
adjusting to transitory difficulties (acute stressors) but do not
assess factors associated with long-term adaptation to major
life changes. Long-term adaptation involves finding ample
sources of rewards and gratifications that allow individuals to
experience that they are getting enough out of life toward meeting basic developmental goals (Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990). Maintaining life satisfaction during retirement is associated with replacing rewards gained from work activities with rewarding
leisure activities so that the retiree maintains a stable ratio of
reinforcements from pre- to postretijenwot (Friedman & Or-

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

bach, 1974; Howard, 1982). Thus, to assess the potential for
long-term adaptation, we included a section in the questionnaire that asked respondents to judge sources of enjoyment in
retirement. Additionally, because leisure and activities are important ways to counteract the stress of boredom (Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990), the final section of the questionnaire asks about
current leisure and physical activities.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Development and Initial Validation

This article presents a two-part study focused on the development and initial validation of the questionnaire. The first part
(Study 1) consisted of item development and item analyses to
select items for the final questionnaire. The second part (Study
2) included initial factor analyses to develop subscales of the
three sections assessing reasons for retirement, satisfaction with
life in retirement, and sources of enjoyment in retirement. Additionally, we examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, the intercorrelations among the subscales, the correlations
of the questionnaire scores with measures of life satisfaction
and marital satisfaction, and the associations between reasons
for retirement and satisfaction and adjustment in retirement.
An overarching goal was to develop a measure appropriate
for use with both women and men and for people from all levels
of socioeconomic status (SES). To date, research on retirement
has not adequately described the experiences of women retirees
(Hatch, 1990), and evidence is mixed about the extent to which
men and women differ in retirement satisfaction (Gratton &
Haug, 1983; Seccombe & Lee, 1986). Thus, we examined
gender differences for all scores, and we explored possible
gender effects in all analyses. Regarding SES, previous research
suggests that SES not only determines financial security and
the quality of services obtainable but also may be associated
with different preferences and practices regarding leisure and
social relationships in retirement (Rosow, 1985). Thus, in the
present research, we carefully sampled across socioeconomic
groups, and we evaluated the associations of SES variables with
the scores for retirement satisfaction and retirement experiences.
Study 1
Study 1 involved several stages of interviews with retirees,
interviews with professionals working with older persons, and a
review of relevant literature to generate items. These were followed by pilot tests for early versions of the questionnaire to
eliminate ambiguities and to select internally consistent sets of
items for each section of the questionnaire.

Method

Subjects
A total of 126 older persons participated in various stages of Study
1. The majority of the subjects were recruited at meetings of local
chapters of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and
others came from industry- and university-based retirement organizations and community senior centers. To locate a cross section of people, the subjects were recruited from a large urban area, a medium-

611

sized urban area, and several small towns throughout the Midwest.
Retirement was denned as "an age-related reduction in employment,"
so some of the subjects were employed part time. The sample was
roughly equally divided between men and women.
Procedure
Initial item development. First, a set of potential items was compiled
from semistructured interviews with 30 subjects. The interview schedule included six open-ended questions covering current activities,
sources of rewards, components of current satisfaction, preretirement
work functioning, adaptation and change associated with retirement,
and reasons for retirement. The interviewers were trained to use standard follow-up probes, they completed practice interviews, and they
were supervised continuously to ensure uniformity in the procedures.
The interviews lasted approximately 20-30 min during which the respondents were encouraged to speak freely about their own experiences in retirement. Tape recordings of the interviews were independently reviewed by two members of the research team who generated a
questionnaire item to assess each of the points raised by the retirees.
Other items suggested by the research literature, but not raised in
the interviews, were added to the questionnaire so that at least four
items were included to address each of the six areas covered in the
interview. To make the questionnaire inclusive but parsimonious,
highly specific, idiosyncratic activities and sources of rewards were
summarized with questions about more general topics, such as activities with family, activities with friends, and satisfaction with social
services. Grammatical conventions were standardized across all items,
and a standard 4-point or 6-point Likert-type rating format was
adopted. The specific anchors for each of the rating scales matched the
content of the particular item, but most items required a rating of
either frequency, importance, or degree of satisfaction. The anchors
reflected a range from never to often, very unimportant to very important, or very dissatisfied to very satisfied. The general instruction statement and the specific instructions for each section were written to be
as concise and unambiguous as possible, and large printing and an
uncluttered arrangement were used to make the questions easy to read
and thus reduce extraneous sources of error.
Pilot testing. An initial version of the questionnaire was pilot tested
by administering it to 10 additional retirees who first answered the
questionnaire, then completed an individual interview where the questionnaire was reviewed to discover any items that were confusing, difficult to read, or offensive. Each subject also was questioned about
whether any other items should be included to adequately assess retirement experiences.
A second pilot version, altered on the basis of the retiree's reactions,
was then sent to eight psychologists, social workers, and counselors
working at agencies that provide counseling to retired people who are
experiencing adjustment problems. After reviewing the questionnaire,
each professional was interviewed over the phone regarding clarity and
the need for additions or deletions. Once again, the suggestions were
incorporated into a final pilot version of the questionnaire that included 110 items.
Item analysis. The 110-item pilot questionnaire was administered
to 86 men and women from AARP and other retirement organizations. To ensure that the questionnaire was sensitive to the experiences
of people undergoing the transition into retirement, we recruited only
individuals who had been retired for 5 years or less. An item was retained for the final scale if it showed sufficient response variability,
where both ends of the rating scale were endorsed by at least 5% of the
sample. Also, to ensure internal consistency, the items measuring areas
of satisfaction and sources of enjoyment had to correlate at least .65
with a global 6-point rating of retirement satisfaction. These proce-

612

FLOYD ET AL.

dures produced a final 51-item version of the questionnaire that we

titled the Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI). The entire questionnaire is given in the Appendix, including the instructions, all items,
and all response scales.
Study 2
The purposes of Study 2 were to develop a scoring format and initial
norms for the RSI and to conduct initial psychometric evaluation of
the measure.
Method

their experiences regarding retirement. They were encouraged to answer all items, but they were informed that they could skip items if they
wished. One item (Item 19) was an open-ended response that allowed
subjects to write in reasons for retirement not addressed i n other items.
We developed this item for counseling purposes so that the questionnaire would be sensitive to the unique experiences of some retirees, but
the item was not included in any of the analyses. Additionally, five of
the items regarding satisfaction with marriage, family, and social services included a not applicable response option for subjects who were
unmarried or had no experiences in these areas (see Appendix). Because many of the subjects' protocols included occasional unanswered
or inapplicable items, analyses were conducted with all available responses to each item, and thus the ns for the analyses that follow vary.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Subjects
A sample of 402 retired individuals was recruited from retirement
organizations in the same way as the sample for Study 1. For Study 2,
the organizations were located in urban, suburban, and rural settings
in two states. The subjects were 159 men and 243 women. The mean
age of the men was 69.40 years (SD = 5.94 years), and they had been
retired a mean of 4.18 years (SD = 2.92 years). The mean age of the
women was 67.49 years (SD = 6.20 years), and they had been retired a
mean of 4.28 years (SD = 3.07 years). The men reported a mean current
family income of $33,630 (SD = $18,010), and the women reported a
mean current family income of $28,390 (SD = $18,690). These reports
reflected the pooled income from all sources for both spouses and thus
were higher than the preretirement earnings of each retiree. Unmarried retirees reported a mean annual income of $18,880 (SD =
$10,910). Both the men and the women had retired from occupations
ranging from manual laborers to professionals. Scores on the Duncan
index of occupational status (Stevens & Featherman, 1981) ranged
from 17.7 for assemblers to 87.1 for college teachers, with a mean of
37.39 (SD = 16.82), which is associated with skilled trades and lower
management such as technicians, building managers, retail salespersons, and factory supervisors. The sample also represented a wide
range of educational backgrounds. Fourteen percent had less than a
high school education, 26.1% completed high school only, 31.9% completed trade school or some college, 12.9% obtained bachelor's degrees,
and 14.7% obtained advanced degrees. Ninety-five percent of the men
and 55% of the women were currently married. The sample consisted
of 89% Whites, 10% African Americans, and 1% Asian Americans.
Measures
All subjects completed the 51 -item RSI and a demographic information sheet. Additionally, to evaluate the concurrent validity of the RSI,
all retirees completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985), a 5-item measure with a 7-point Likert
response format. Married individuals also completed the Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons (Haynes et al., 1992), a 26-item
questionnaire about marital adjustment and satisfaction with the marital relationship.
Procedure
The majority of the questionnaires were distributed at the close of
organization meetings and were completed on site or returned by mail.
A subgroup of approximately 40 retirees completed the questionnaires
in individual meetings that were part of another research project. Another subgroup of 65 subjects participated in a retest session 2 weeks
after the initial session. The subjects were informed that the purpose of
the study was to develop a questionnaire that would be sensitive to

General Results
Factor Analysis
To group individual items into subscales, three sets of factor
analyses were conducted on the three sections of the questionnaire measuring reasons for retirement (15 items), satisfaction
with life in retirement (11 items), and sources of enjoyment (15
items). Principal-components analyses were followed by varimax rotation of factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Separate analyses of the data from the men and the women produced highly consistent solutions; therefore we present only the
solutions for the combined sample of men and women. Also,
the analyses include only the subjects who answered all items
(n = 272), although analyses with the entire sample using mean
substitution to estimate missing ratings produced similar factor
solutions. Table 1 displays the factor loadings and the composition of the subscales. To form independent subscales, we assigned each item to only one subscale, the one associated with
its primary (highest) factor loading. As displayed in Table 1,
some of the items showed nearly equal loadings on more than
one factor, with no clear primary loading. In most cases, we
inspected the separate analyses with the men and the women
and assigned the item to the subscale on which it consistently
loaded highest. However, when no consistent priority was apparent, we assigned the item on the basis of both its conceptual
relevance to other items on the scale and its effect on the alpha
coefficients for the scales. Table 1 also lists the eigenvalue for
each factor, the percent of variance accounted for, and the alpha
coefficient for each scale.

Reasons for Retirement

The items assessing reasons for retirement produced four significant factors labeled Job Stress (3 items), Pressure From Employer (4 items), Pursue Own Interests (4 items), and Retirement
Due to Circumstances (4 items). Together these factors accounted for 61% of the variance in the reasons-for-retirement
items. With one exception, all items showed a primary loading
on only one factor, with no secondary loadings above .40. Item
9 loaded similarly on Factors 1 and 2 but loaded slightly higher
on Factor 2, so the item was assigned to the second subscale.

613

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

Table 1
Factor Analyses of Reasons for Retirement, Satisfaction With Life in Retirement, and Sources of Enjoyment Sections of the
Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI)
Factor

Factor
1

Item

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Eigenvalue
% variance
Alpha

.81

.19

.17

.11

.77
.74
.32

.24
.38
.75

.05
.12
.02

.11
.12
.23

.20

.73

.16

.02

.20

.67

.11

.34

.49
-.01

.53
.18

.08
.83

.29
.09

.76

.09

.13

-.14
.31

.57

.27

.26

.42

.34

-.05
.48
.16

.21
.10
.35

-.05
.01
.12

.75
.62
.55

-.11

.39

.52

1.63
11
.79

1.11
7
.66

1.04
7
.61

5.31
35
.80

Satisfaction with life in retirement

29. Government services
30. Personal safety
27. Access to transportation

.80
.73
.71

.02
.09
.19

28. Community agency

services
21. Financial situation
22. Physical health
26. Level of physical activity
20. Marriage
23. Spouse's health
24. Quality of residence
25. Relations with extended
family
Eigenvalue
% variance
Alpha

.02
.21
-.01

.67
.53
.10
.21
.16
-.07
.34

.20
.18
.84
.82
-.12
.25
.41

.04
.30
.11
.05
.82
.60
.46

.20

.39

.38

3.59
33
.78

1.35
12
.72

1.09
10
.57

.73
.72
.68
.63
.55
.55
.45
.27
-.06
.20
.22
. 3?
3.

-.14
.27
.20
.32
.13
.33
.46
.75
.73
.66
.60

.14
.02
.23
.36
.52
-.01
.33
-.06
.16
.35
.24

Jl

C1

4Sj
.*t

-.01
.24
.41

.09
.26
.42

.87
.46
.45

5.95
40
.82

1.38
9
.83

1.05
7
.65

Sources of enjoyment

-.12

.08

.33

Satisfaction with life in retirement (continued)

Reasons for retirement

16. Too much stress at work
17. Difficulty with physical
demands of job
15. Disliked job
10. Pressured by employer
1 1 . Offered incentives by
company
8. Laid off, fired, or hours
reduced
9. Difficulties with people
at work
12. Wanted time with family
13. Wanted time to pursue
own interests
18. Spouse wanted partner's
retirement
14. Wanted to make room
for younger people
4. Reached mandatory
retirement age
5. Poor health
6. Spouse's poor health
7. Could finally afford
retirement

Item

50. Can be alone more

4 1 . No boss
43. Less stress
49. More relaxed
48. More time to think
37. Not having to work
47. Being careful
44. Retirement groups
46. Volunteerism
39. More time with friends
38. More time with family
45 Tiitic for activities
36. Freedom to pursue own
interests
42. More travel
40. Control over own life
Eigenvalue
% variance
Alpha

Note. N = 272. Numbers in boldface are primary factor loadings and indicate the subscale assignment for the item. See the text for the decision
rules when items obtained similar loading on two or more factors. No data are given in the fourth column for the Satisfaction with life in retirement
and Sources of enjoyment sections because each of those sections produced only three significant factors.

Satisfaction With Life in Retirement

The factor analysis of the items measuring satisfaction with
life in retirement produced three significant factors, labeled
Satisfaction With Services and Resources (5 items), Satisfaction
With Health and Activity (2 items), and Satisfaction With
Marriage and Home Life (4 items). These three factors accounted for a total of 55% of the variance in the satisfaction
ratings. The factor solution showed relatively good simple structure with the exception of Item 24, "quality of residence," and
Item 25, "relations with extended family," each of which obtained only moderate loadings on both Factors 2 and 3. Because
both items loaded slightly higher on Factor 3 in the separate
analyses with the men and the women and because they significantly reduced the alpha coefficient for the second scale, they

were assigned to the third subscale, Satisfaction With Marriage

and Home Life.

Sources of Enjoyment
The sources of enjoyment section also produced three significant factors labeled Reduced Stress/Responsibilities (7 items),
Social Activities (5 items), and Freedom and Control (3 items),
which accounted for a total of 56% of the variance in these
items. Although Item 48, "more time to think," showed similar
loadings on Factors 1 and 3, it consistently loaded slightly
higher on Factor 1 for both the men and the women; therefore it
was retained on the first subscale. Similarly, Item 40, "control
over own life," loaded only moderately on all three factors but
consistently loaded highest on Factor 3 in the separate analyses

614

FLOYD ET AL.

with the men and the women and was assigned to the third
subscale. Item 47, "being carefree," loaded similarly on Factors
1 and 2 and was assigned to the first subscale, Reduced Stress/
Responsibility, because it was most similar conceptually to the
other items on that scale.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Scoring
Scores for the factor-analytically-derived subscales were calculated as the mean of the ratings for the items making up the
subscale. Additionally, overall mean scores were calculated for
all 11 items measuring satisfaction with aspects of retirement
(a = .81). If a subject failed to answer an item, the mean scores
were calculated from the remaining items. The individual ratings of current activities (3 items), preretirement work functioning (3 items), and adaptation and change associated with retirement (2 items), along with the global rating of overall satisfaction with retirement, were treated as single-item scores. The
mean scores and standard deviations for the men and the
women are given in Table 2.

between testings. Test-retest correlations were computed for

the overall mean satisfaction scores, the three sets of factor
scores, and the other individual items measuring preretirement
work functioning, adaptation and change associated with retirement, and participation in activities.
The correlations are given in Table 2. In general, the reliability was higher for the factor scores and the mean satisfaction
score than for the single-item ratings. The correlations for the
two testings ranged from r = .56 to r = .77 (mean r = .68) for the
multiple-item scales and from r = .45 to r = .71 (mean r = .62) for
the single-item ratings. Although the correlations are moderate,
only one of the factor scales, satisfaction with services, and two
of the single-item ratings produced correlations below r = .60.
The two single items asked the retirees to make complex judgments concerning preretirement expectations about retirement
and concerning overall changes in their lives from pre- to postretirement.

Concurrent Validity

Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability was evaluated with the subsample of 65
subjects who completed the RSI twice, with a 14-day interval

Concurrent validity was assessed for five scores from the RSI
that assess current satisfaction in retirement: the overall mean

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Test-Retest Correlations for

Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI) Scores
Women
( = 243)

Men
( = 159)

Section and variable

Retirement satisfaction
Services subscale
Health subscale
Marriage/Home Life subscale
Mean of satisfaction ratings
Global satisfaction rating
Preretirement work functioning
Job gratification
Job satisfaction
Anticipated satisfaction
Adjustment and change
Initial adjustment
Pre-post improvement
Sources of enjoyment
Reduced Stress and
Responsibilities subscale
Social Activities subscale
Freedom and Control subscale
Reasons for retirement
Job Stress subscale
Pressure From Employer
subscale
Pursue Own Interests
subscale
Circumstances subscale
Current activities
Leisure with friends
Leisure with family
Physical activities

SD

SD

Test-retest
correlations
(ii = 65)

4.93
4.46
4.89
4.82
5.29

0.59
0.95
0.65
0.52
0.85

4.88
4.59
4.98
4.83
5.15

0.75
1.03
0.82
0.69
0.99

.56
.66
.71
.66
.67

4.72
4.76
5.09

1.18
1.18
0.89

4.60
4.77
4.86

1.34
1.23
1.07

.65
.68
.45

4.90**
4.87

1.23
0.92

4.33
4.72

1.56
1.16

.71
.50

2.83
2.93
3.27

0.70
0.66
0.61

3.04*
3.11*
3.34

0.74
0.64
0.65

.64
.64
.70

2.23

1.31

2.03

1.40

.75

1.87

1.20

1.60

1.12

.77

3.04
2.66

1.23
1.21

2.68
2.43

1.38
1.27

.65

3.43
3.27
3.27

0.71
0.73
0.76

3.60*
3.38
3.26

0.58
0.72
0.83

.67
.62
.60

.74

Note. Asterisks indicate significantly higher mean scores based on / tests following significant multivariate effects.
* p < .05. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

615

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

score for the satisfaction items, the three subscale scores derived
from these items, and the global rating of retirement satisfaction. Validity was indicated by the correlations of the five scores
with the Satisfaction With Life Scale and for the married retirees with total satisfaction scores on the Marital Satisfaction
Questionnaire for Older Persons. These correlations are presented in Table 3 together with the intercorrelations among the
five retirement satisfaction scores for comparison purposes.
The correlations for the women are given above the diagonal,
and those for the men are below the diagonal.
With one exception, all of the validity coefficients (the correlations with the criteria) were highly significant and indicated
that the RSI scores share from 9% to 41% of variance with the
Satisfaction With Life Scale and the Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons. As shown in Table 3, the validity
coefficients were roughly equal for the men and the women on
both criteria, and they were somewhat higher for the total satisfaction index and the global rating of retirement satisfaction
than for the three subscale scores. Also, the validity coefficients
were similar to or greater in magnitude than the intercorrelations among the RSI satisfaction subscale scores. The specificity of the factor scores was supported by the exceptionally high
correlation between the Satisfaction With Marriage and Home
Life subscale and the Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for
Older Persons (r = .64 and r = .65 for the women and the men,
respectively).

Reasons for Retirement

To evaluate the validity and utility of the reasons for retirement scales, we assessed whether ratings of reasons for retirement showed expected relationships with other aspects of retirement satisfaction and experiences. We expected that those who
rated the Job Stress factor as a particularly important reason for
retirement would endorse relatively less preretirement job satisfaction and relatively greater rewards from reduced job stress in
retirement than other retirees. Research on involuntary retirement suggested that persons who obtained relatively high
scores on the Pressure From Employer factor should report a
more difficult transition period, less satisfaction with retire-

ment, fewer sources of enjoyment in retirement, and poorer

functioning in physical, social, and leisure activities than people who retired voluntarily. In contrast, the voluntary retirees
who obtained relatively high scores on the Pursue Own Interests
factor should report an easier transition to retirement, higher
satisfaction, more sources of enjoyment, and positive adjustment in retirement.
Because most people reported multiple reasons for retirement and because only high scores, but not necessarily low
scores, on a factor should be meaningfully related to retirement
satisfaction and experiences, we interpreted the factor scores in
an ipsative fashion and selected the most important reason for
retirement for each subject. Of the 369 respondents with complete data on the reasons for retirement section of the questionnaire, 317 (86%) could be assigned to one of four groups on the
basis of having made relatively higher ratings on one of the four
factors included in the reasons for retirement section. The
group assignment thus indicated that the respondent identified
a primary reason for retirement as either escaping from job
stress (n = 53), desiring to pursue own interests (n = 154), responding to the employer's pressure to retire (n = 21), or having
circumstances (e.g., age and health) mandate retirement (n =
89). The remaining 52 subjects obtained equal factor scores on
at least two of the factors and were excluded from these analyses.
A series of one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) contrasted the groups on the other five sections of the
questionnaire. Significant multivariate effects were followed up
with univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc
Scheffe tests. The M ANOVAs revealed significant differences
among the four groups of retirees on four of the five sections of
the questionnaire: preretirement work functioning, F(9,796) =
9.09, p < .001; adjustment and change, F(6,574) = 3.02, p < .01;
satisfaction with life in retirement, F(\5, 853) = 2.26, p < .01;
and current sources of enjoyment, F(9, 798) = 4.15, p < .001.
The univariate results for these variables are summarized in
Table 4. Only the ratings of involvement in activities failed to
differ across any of the groups, F(9,870) = 1.11, ns.
First, as expected, the group who indicated that they retired

Table 3
Correlations Among Retirement Satisfaction Scores, Satisfaction With Life Scale,
and Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons (MSQFOP)
for Men (Below Diagonal) and Women (Above Diagonal)
Variable

1. Mean of satisfaction items

2. Satisfaction With Services subscale
3. Satisfaction With Health subscale
4. Satisfaction With Marriage/Home
Life subscale
5. Global retirement satisfaction rating
6. Satisfaction With Life Scale
7. MSQFOP*

_
.77
.83

.86

.50

.74
.46
.38

.37
.29
.30

.57
.47
.35

.47
.34
.11*

.69
.45
.48
.56

.26
.26
.42
.33

.73
.40

.41
.44
.37
.32

.31
.30
.65

.38

.53
.41

.50
.50

.64
.51
.47

.56

Note. Unless indicated otherwise, n = 159 men, n = 243 women, and all correlations are significant at p <
.001, two-tailed.
" n = 143 married men and n = 136 married women.
* p > .05.

616

FLOYD ET AL.

Table 4
Group Differences in Retirement Satisfaction and Experiences
When Primary Reason for Retirement Involved Job
Stress (JS), Employer Pressure (EP), Pursuit of
Own Interests (OI), or Circumstances (C)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Variable
Retirement satisfaction
Mean of satisfaction items
Services subscale
Health subscale
Marriage/Home Life subscale
Global satisfaction rating
Preretirement functioning
Job gratification
Job satisfaction
Anticipated satisfaction
Adjustment and change
Initial crisis
Pre-post improvement
Sources of enjoyment
Reduced Stress and
Responsibilities subscale
Social Activities subscale
Freedom and Control subscale

Ffor
group effect
6.90***
4.58**
4.59**
4.21**

Scheffe
contrasts
OI > JS, C
OI > JS, C

OI>C
OI>JS

2.21

19.17***
20.09***

JS < OI, EP, C

JS < OI, EP, C

2.24

3.33*
4.95**

EP>OI

4.08**

JS>EP

EP < JS, OI

2.01

3.86**

OI> EP

Note. JV= 317. All ScheffS contrasts are significant at p < .05.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
primarily to escape job stress reported relatively poor work
adjustment but positive retirement experiences. As shown in
Table 4, this group was distinguished from the other retirees by
reporting the lowest levels of preretirement job gratification
(M= 3.73, grand M = 4.72) and job satisfaction (M = 3.64,
grand M= 4.73), but they reported the highest level of current
enjoyment from reduced job stress (M = 3.21), which was significantly higher than the subscale score for reduced job stress by
the group who retired because of pressure from the employer
(Af=2.64).
The results for those who indicated being pressured into involuntary retirement also were consistent with expectations.
These retirees reported the most negative initial crisis period
immediately following retirement (M = 3.65), which significantly differed from the ratings of initial crisis by the retirees
who chose to pursue their own interests (M= 4.71). The pressured group also reported less positive long-term changes from
pre- to postretirement (M= 3.95) as compared with both the
job-stress (M = 4.94) and the own-interests groups (M = 4.87),
and they rated having freedom and control less positively than
the own-interests group (M = 2.99 vs. M = 3.42).
In contrast, the voluntary retirees who endorsed the desire to
pursue their own interests as the most important reason for
retirement reported relatively positive satisfaction with life in
retirement. This group obtained an overall mean satisfaction
score (M = 4.96) that was significantly higher than the means
for the groups who retired because of job stress (M = 4.58) and
because of circumstances (M = 4.71). Similarly, as shown in
Table 4, the own-pursuits group obtained higher scores on each
of the three satisfaction subscales than either or both of the
job-stress and circumstances groups.

We had no expectations about either particularly positive or

negative experiences for people who retired primarily because
of circumstances, and the results showed that this group tended
to score consistently with the least extreme groups across all of
the domains. The one exception was the significantly lower
scores on the Satisfaction with Health subscale for the circumstances group (M = 4.37) versus the own-interests group (M =
4.76), which was consistent with the fact that retirement because of poor health was one of the items used to assign people
to the circumstances group.
Association With Demographic Characteristics
A final set of analyses examined the associations of the RSI
factor scores and single-item scores with several demographic
variables. First, a series of ANOVAs contrasting the men and
the women on all variables showed five significant differences.
Compared with the men, the women anticipated less satisfaction in retirement, F(l, 400) = 5.73, p < .05, and they reported
more stress immediately following retirement, F(l, 351) =
13.22, p < .001 (see Table 2 for means). However, the women
also reported spending more time in leisure activities with their
friends, F(l, 373) = 2.46, p < .05, and they rated two sources of
enjoyment more important than did the men: reduced stress
and responsibilities in retirement, F(\, 406) = 6.52, p < .05, and
social activities, F(l, 406) = 5.28, p < .05.
Next, the RSI variables were correlated with length of retirement, education, income for the year before retirement, and
current annual income. We expected that higher satisfaction
and enjoyment would be associated with longer time spent in
retirement and higher levels of SES. Eighty correlations each
were calculated for the men and the women, and the majority
of these correlations were near zero. None of the correlations
with length of retirement were significant, but three of the RSI
variables showed similar patterns of significant correlations
with the SES variables for both the men and the women. As
expected, higher scores on the Satisfaction with Services subscale were associated with higher current income for both the
men, r(l 58) = .38, p < .01, and the women, r(242) = .35, p < .01,
and with higher income before retirement for the women,
r(242) = .33, p < .01. However, higher scores for the subscale
assessing enjoyment from reduced stress and responsibilities
were associated with lower levels of education for both the men,
r(158) = -.23, p < .01, and the women, r(242) = -.26, p < .01,
and with lower preretirement income, r(242) = .31, p < .01,
and lower current income, r(242) = .29, p < .01, for the
women. Similarly, higher scores on the subscale assessing enjoyment from social interactions were associated with less education for the men, r(158) = -.43, and the women, r(242) =
-.37, p < .01; lower income before retirement for the men,
Kl 58) = -.27, and the women, r(242) = -.37, p < .01; and lower
current income for the men, r(158) = -.28, and the women,
r(242) =-.40, p<.0\.
Finally, to evaluate whether being employed part time had
any effects on the retirees' reports, a series of M ANOVAs contrasted 45 subjects who were employed part time with the remaining nonemployed subjects on each of the six sections of the
questionnaire. No significant effects were obtained for preretire-

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ment work functioning, adjustment and change, reasons for

retirement, satisfaction with life in retirement, or current leisure and physical activities. A significant multivariate effect
was obtained for sources of enjoyment, .F(3, 332) = 5.09, p <
.01. The univariate tests indicated that the part-time employees
obtained significantly lower scores than the nonemployed subjects on all three subscales, enjoyment from reduced stress and
responsibilities, M= 2.59 versusM= 2.99, F(l, 334)= 6.1 l,p<
.001; enjoyment from social activities, M = 2.72 versus M =
3.07, F(l, 334) = 5.00, p < .001; and enjoyment from increased
freedom and control, M - 3.08 versus M = 3.36, .F(l, 334) =
3.17,/><.005.

General Discussion
Our goal was to develop a useful questionnaire for assessing
satisfaction in retirement and perceptions of retirement experiences relevant to postretirement adjustment for older persons.
By incorporating reports in six domainspreretirement work
functioning, adjustment and change, reasons for retirement,
satisfaction with life in retirement, sources of enjoyment in retirement, and leisure and physical activitiesthe RSI provides
a comprehensive view of retirees' perceptions of the impact of
retirement as a life transition. This standard measure should be
useful for research focused on understanding patterns of adjustment in retirement and factors that influence postretirement satisfaction. Additionally, the questionnaire could be
used in counseling settings as a brief screening device to identify relevant problems and issues for intervention.
In addition to describing the rationale for the scale and its
composition, our article focuses on developing and validating
factor-analytically-derived subscales for three sections of the
questionnaire: reasons for retirement, satisfaction with life in
retirement, and sources of enjoyment. The factor solutions provided guidelines for constructing subscales with nonoverlapping items, and the validity data for these subscales were encouraging. In particular, regarding the three satisfaction and
the three sources of enjoyment subscales, the relevance of using
the subscales as opposed to only global measures of satisfaction
or enjoyment was demonstrated by several differences in their
associations with life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, gender,
and SES. For example, the subscale assessing satisfaction with
marriage and home life showed the highest correlation with
another measure of marital satisfaction; only the Satisfaction
with Services subscale was associated with income, and the
men and the women differed on the enjoyment subscales related to reduced stress and social activities but not the subscale
assessing freedom and control. Similarly, the four factors included in the reasons for retirement section were useful for
identifying a primary reason for retirement for most retirees
that was associated with preretirement experiences and shortand long-term adjustment in retirement. The significant differences among the groups identified from these scores were consistent with much of the early research showing more positive
adjustment and satisfaction following voluntary retirements
motivated by new interests and goals as opposed to involuntary
retirements and those motivated by negative attitudes about the
job (e.g., Levy, 1981; Walker et al, 1981).

617

A limitation of the validity findings is that they are subject to

inflation because of the shared-method variance among the
self-report measures. For example, recollections about reasons
for retirement are likely to be biased to be consistent with or to
explain current satisfaction and adjustment (Parnes et al.,
1985). Validation against independent criteria, such as employer records, health records, or ratings by family members
and friends, should be explored in future research with the
measure. However, because the RSI is designed to assess the
subjective dimension of retirement experiences, consisting of
retirees' impressions and sentiments about retirement, rather
than an objective indication of retirement experiences and adjustment, deviations from external criteria would not necessarily indicate that the RSI is inaccurate or invalid. Instead, such
differences might help to identify biases in retirees' perceptions
and clarify how actual events are mediated by perceptions in
influencing satisfaction and adjustment.
Regarding reliability, the 2-week test-retest reliability was
adequate for the factor scores but was poor for some of the
single-item ratings. Although single-item variables can be expected to be less reliable than multiple-item scales, perhaps this
is particularly true when using psychological questionnaires
with elderly people who are particularly subject to sources of
measurement error attributable to unfamiliarity with psychological instruments and vision impairments. Reliability probably would have been better if we had administered the questionnaire under more optimal testing conditions involving individual assistance rather than informal group meetings.
However, as noted in the results given earlier, the two items with
the poorest reliability required the subjects to retrospect about
complex emotional experiences and attitudes that occurred
around the time of retirement, and these items may prove to be
unreliable even under more favorable conditions. Also, the one
factor score with low reliability involved evaluations of satisfaction with services and may be particularly susceptible to instability because of positive or negative recent experiences. Of
course, both the internal consistency of subscales and the testretest reliability of all scores could have been improved by increasing the number of items used to assess each variable. However, our goal of constructing a comprehensive yet parsimonious measure required that we compromise between
reducing extraneous items and including enough items to obtain reliable measures of the constructs of interest.
Scores can be interpreted by referring to the means and standard deviations listed in Tables 1 and 2. As a normative sample,
the subjects in Study 2 represent a wide range of the population
on the basis of occupational status, income, education, urban
and suburban locations, and racial and ethnic composition.
However, because we recruited subjects primarily through organizations, the sample possibly represents only those people who
are relatively active participants in retirement organizations
and senior-citizens clubs. Also, because the questionnaire focuses on understanding the transition from full-time employment to retirement, it is probably inappropriate for persons
who had unstable or part-time employment histories, and no
data were collected on these persons in the current research.
Any comparison with the norms should recognize these possible limitations on generalizability. Furthermore, changes in government benefits and private-pension policies as well as im-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

618

FLOYD ET AL.

provements in the quality of worklife might alter general trends

in retirement timing and retirement practices (e.g., McDaniels,
1989). Thus, some components of the questionnaire may only
be relevant for recent cohorts of retirees. For example, one item
regarding reasons for retirement refers to reaching mandatory
retirement age, but fewer and fewer settings have mandatory
retirement policies. However, because the majority of the questionnaire items focus on subjective domains of retirement experiences involving subjective ratings of satisfaction and importance rather than reports of actual events, it should be relevant
to various work settings and retirement policies.
Furthermore, the sparse gender differences and associations
with length of retirement, SES, and employment status suggest
that the RSI assesses variables that cut across these characteristics as well. The few gender effects that did occur are consistent
with a picture of a slightly more difficult initial adjustment for
women (e.g., Seccombe & Lee, 1986) and emphasize the importance of social contacts for women (e.g., Dorfman & Moffett,
1987). Regarding SES, an interesting pattern emerged suggesting that the higher SES retirees were more satisfied with services than the lower SES retirees, probably because they are
able to afford better quality services, but that the lower SES
retirees experienced more enjoyment from reduced stress and
social relationships in retirement. Although the retirees who
were employed part time did not show differences from the
nonemployed retirees on most of the RSI scores, including the
satisfaction ratings, the fact that the retirees with jobs rated
alternative sources of enjoyment as relatively less important
than did the other retirees raises the question of whether employment inhibits receiving enjoyment from other areas of life
in retirement or whether those who find relatively few sources
of enjoyment seek part-time work. Extended evaluation of these
issues and the processes that account for why and explain how
different retirees achieve different types of adjustment to retirement was beyond the scope of this article, which focused on
developing an instrument for describing retirement experiences and satisfaction. We hope that the availability of this assessment instrument will help to spark increased research addressing causal factors and processes of change and adjustment
to this important life transition.
References
Atchley, R. C. (1976). The sociology of retirement. Cambridge, MA:
Schenkman.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611-626.
Beck, S. H. (1982). Adjustment to and satisfaction with retirement.
Journal of Gerontology, 37, 616-624.
Boaz, R. E, & Muller, C. F. (1989). Does having more time after retirement change the demand for physician services? Medical Care, 27,
1-15.
Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., & Ekerdt, D. J. (1987).
Mental health differences among retirees and workers: Findings
from the Normative Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 2,383-398.
Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R,, & Workman-Daniels, K.
(1990). Differences in social support among retirees and workers:
Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 5,
41-47.
Brandtstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimi-

lative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5, 58-67.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W L. (1976). The quality of
American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Crowley, J. E. (1986). Longitudinal effects of retirement on men's wellbeing and health. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 95-113.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95,
542-575.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
71-75.
Dorfman, L., & Moffett, M. (1987). Retirement satisfaction in married
and rural women. The Gerontologist, 27, 215-221.
Elwell, F, & Maltbie-Crannell, A. D. (1981). The impact of role loss
upon coping resources and life satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of
Gerontology, 36, 223-232.
Fiske, M., & Chiriboga, D. A. (1990). Change and continuity in adult life.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, E. A., & Orbach, H. L. (1974). Adjustment to retirement. In
A. Silvano (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry: Vol. 1. The foundations of psychiatry (pp. 609-645). New York: Basic Books.
Frisch, M. B., Cornell, J., Villanueva, M., & Retzlaff, P. J. (1992). Clinical validation of the Quality of Life Inventory: A measure of life
satisfaction for use in treatment planning and outcome assessment.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 92-101.
Gratton, B., & Haug, M. R. (1983). Decision and adaptation: Research
on female retirement. Research on Aging, 5, 59-76.
Harris, L., & Associates (1979). 1979 study on American attitudes toward pensions and retirement: A nationwide survey of employees, retirees, and business leaders. New York: Johnson & Higgins.
Hatch, L. R. (1990). Effects of work and family on women's later-life
resources. Research on Aging, 12, 311-338.
Haynes, S. N., Floyd, F. J., Lemsky, C., Rogers Doll, E., Winemiller, D,
Heilman, N., Werle, M., Murphy Burgy, T, & Cardone, L. (1992).
The Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons. Psychological Assessment, 4, 473-482.
Henry, W E. (1971). The role of work in structuring the life cycle.
Human Development, 14,125-131.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating
Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
Howard, J. H. (1982). Adapting to retirement. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 30, 488-500.
Kirsling, R. A. (1986). Review of suicide among elderly persons. Psychological Reports, 59, 359-366.
Lazarus, R. S., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping
in aging. American Psychologist, 38, 245-254.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New
York: Springer.
Levy, S. M. (1981). The adjustment of the older woman: Effects of
chronic ill health and attitudes toward retirement. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development, 12, 93-110.
Matthews, N. A., & Brown, K. H. (1987). Retirement as a critical life
event. Research on Aging, 9, 548-557.
McCubbin, H. I, & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Family stress and adaptation to crisis: A double ABCX model of family behavior. In D. H.
Olson & B. C. Miller (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook (Vol. 1,
pp. 87-106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McDaniels, C. (1989). The changing workplace: Career counseling strategies for the 1990's and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morse, D. W, Dutka, A. B., & Gray, S. H. (1983). Life after early retirement. Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Parnes, H. S., Crowley, J. E., Haurin, R. J., Less, L. J, Morgan, W R.,
Mott, F. L., & Nestel, G. (1985). Retirement among American men.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

619

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Parnes, H. S., & Less, L. J. (1985). Introduction and overview. In H. S.

Parnes, J. E., Crowley, R. J. Haurin, L. J. Less, W R. Morgan, F. L.
Mott, & G. Nestel, Retirement among American men. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Rosow, I. (1985). Status and role change through the life cycle. In R. H.
Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social
sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62-93). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Rothberg, J. M., Ursano, R. J., & Holloway, H. C. (1987). Suicide in the
United States military. Psychiatric Annals, 17, 545-548.
Ruhm, C. J. (1989). Why older Americans stop working. TheGerontologist, 29, 294-299.

Seccombe, K., & Lee, G. R. (1986). Gender differences in retirement

satisfaction and its antecedents. Research on Aging, 8, 426-440.
Stevens, G, & Featherman, D. L. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 10, 364-395.
Streib, G. F., & Schneider, S. J. (1971). Retirement in American society.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of
cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38,1161-1173.
Walker, J. W, Kimmel, D. C, & Price, K. F. (1981). Retirement style and
retirement satisfaction: Retirees aren't all alike. International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 12, 267-281.

Appendix
Retirement Satisfaction Inventory
Please answer the following questions as carefully as possible. You may choose not to answer some questions, but you are encouraged to answer as
many as possible.
1. Before retirement, how gratifying did you find your job compared to other areas of your life?
1
4
3
very
ungratifying
somewhat
somewhat
ungratifying
ungratifying
gratifying
2. Before retirement, how satisfied were you with your job?
1
2
3
very
dissatisfied
somewhat
dissatisfied
dissatisfied

4
somewhat
satisfied

gratifying

5
satisfied

6
very
gratifying

6
very
satisfied

3. Before retirement, how satisfied did you expect to be with retirement?

1
2
3
How important were each of the following in your decision to retire? (If a question does not apply to you, mark "very unimportant")
4. I reached mandatory retirement age.
1
2
very
unimportant
unimportant
5. I was in poor health.
1

3
somewhat
unimportant

4
somewhat
important

5
important

6. My spouse was in poor health.

1
2

7. I could finally afford it.

1

8. I was laid off, fired, or my hours were cut back.

1
2

9. I was experiencing difficulties with people at work.

1
2

13. I wanted more time to pursue my interests (such as hobbies and travel).
1
2
3
4
(Appendix continues on next page)

10. I was pressured to retire by my employer.

1
2
11. I was offered incentives to retire by my company.
1
2
12. I wanted to spend more time with my family.
1
2

6
very
important

620

FLOYD ET AL.

14. I wanted to make room for younger people.

1
2

15. I disliked my job.

1

17. I had difficulty handling the physical demands of my job.

1
2
3

18. My spouse wanted me to retire.

1
2

16. I experienced too much stress at work.

1
2

( r!i

ic

1 pi

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

jo n^hcr cnsid ' t'"r (plw tplain)'

1

Please indicate your current level of satisfaction with the following areas of your life:
20. My marriage
0
not
applicable

1
very
dissatisfied

2
dissatisfied

3
somewhat
dissatisfied

4
somewhat
satisfied

5
satisfied

6
very
satisfied

2 1 . My financial situation
1

23. The health of my spouse

0
1

24. The quality of my residence

1

25. Relationships with other family members (such as children, brothers and sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews)
0
1
2
3
4

26. My level of physical activity

1

27. My access to transportation

1

22. My physical health

28. Services from community agencies and programs

0
1
2

29. Services from government aid programs (such as social security, medicare, subsidized housing, and nutrition programs)
0
1
2
3
4
5

30. My personal safety

1

3 1 . After retirement, how easy or difficult were the first few months?
1
2
3
very
difficult
somewhat
difficult
difficult

4
somewhat
easy

32. Overall, how does your life since retirement compare with your life before retirement?
1
2
3
4
much
worse
somewhat
somewhat
worse
worse
better
33. How often do you participate in leisure activities with friends?
1
2
never
seldom
34. How often do you participate in leisure activities with your family?
1
2

3
sometimes

5
easy

6
very
easy

5
better

6
much
better
4
often

621

RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES

35. How often do you participate in physical activities (such as dancing, bicycling, or walking)?
1
2
3
How important is each of the following in making your retirement enjoyable?
36. Freedom to pursue my own interests

unimportant

slightly
unimportant

moderately
important

very
important

37. Not having to work

1
38. Spending more time with my family

1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

39. Spending more time with my friends

1
40. More control over my own life

1
41. No boss

1
42. More travel

1
43. Less stress

1
44. Being with a group of other retired persons

1
45. More time for activities

1
46. Participation in volunteer organizations

1
47. Being carefree

I
48. More time to think

1
49. More relaxed

1
50. Can be alone more

5 1 . Overall, how satisfied are you with your retirement right now?
1
2
3
very
dissatisfied
somewhat
dissatisfied
dissatisfied

4
somewhat
satisfied

5
satisfied

6
very
satisfied

Received October 30, 1991

Revision received June 2, 1992
Accepted June 25, 1992