Psychology and Aging Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1992. Vol. 7. No. 4, 609-621 0882-7974/92/$3.00

Assessing Retirement Satisfaction and Perceptions of Retirement Experiences

Frank J. Floyd Stephen N. Haynes

Michigan State University University of Hawaii
Elizabeth Rogers Doll, David Winemiller, Carolyn Lemsky,
Tria Murphy Burgy, Mary Werle, and Nancy Heilman
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 retire-
ment, current sources of enjoyment, and leisure and physical activities. Study 2 examined a hetero-
geneous sample of men (n = 159) and women (n = 243) retirees. Factor analyses produced internally
consistent subscales. Moderate, but acceptable, test-retest reliability was demonstrated. Satisfac-
tion scores correlated with concurrent measures and, together with pre- and postretiremen! experi-
ences, 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 counselors and mental health professionals in designing inter-
marks the transition into the later stage of life for millions of ventions and prevention programs for retired individuals.
Americans each year. The retirement experience can lead ei- The purpose of our research was to develop a questionnaire
ther to new goals, interests, and activities or to stress, rapid for assessing both current retirement satisfaction and percep-
physical deterioration, and depression (Dorfman & Moffett, tions of retirement-related experiences predictive of adjustment
1987; Matthews & Brown, 1987; Morse, Dutka, & Gray, 1983; and well-being in later life. The content of the questionnaire
Seccombe & Lee, 1986). As many as one third of retirees have draws on previous descriptive research on retirement (e.g., Atch-
difficulty adjusting to retirement and undergo a decrease in life ley, 1976; Beck, 1982; Parnes et al, 1985) and incorporates the
satisfaction as a result of the transition (Atchley, 1976; Elwell & reports of retirees and professionals working with older per-
Maltbie-Crannell, 1981; Harris & Associates, 1979). Compared sons.
with workers, retirees report less social support for personal
problems and more symptoms of psychological distress (Bosse,
Aldwin, Levenson, & Ekerdt, 1987; Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, Theoretical Framework
& Workman-Daniels, 1990) and are more likely to use medical
services (Boaz & Muller, 1989). Also, in some circumstances, We used life span development theory and life span transi-
retirement is a risk factor for suicide in older persons (Kirsling, tion theory (e.g., Baltes, 1987; Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990) to guide
1986; Rothberg, Ursano, & Holloway, 1987). Despite its impor- the design of the questionnaire. According to these perspec-
tance, studies of adult development for older persons frequently tives, whereas much development in childhood involves pro-
neglect the role of the retirement experience or limit their analy- gressing through inexorable stages of maturation driven by bio-
sis to a single aspect of retirement such as global satisfaction or logical development, personal development in adulthood is
economic changes (Parnes & Less, 1985). multidirectional and consists of a series of transitions brought
Systematic assessment of the retirement experience is ham- about by experiences. The most significant experiences for pro-
pered by the lack of a comprehensive, parsimonious, and psy- moting change and development are the major life events that
chometrically sound assessment instrument. The availability alter the individual's social roles, personal identity, goals, expec-
of such an instrument would not only help to stimulate more tations, and sources of rewards. These are the milestones that
research about factors affecting satisfaction and adjustment in mark the beginning of a new life stage for the individual and
later adulthood but would also be clinically useful to retirement present new demands and opportunities associated with devel-
opmental tasks. Unlike childhood developmental milestones,
which are relatively invariant, the principle of contextualism
This research was funded in part by a grant from the Andrus Foun- proposes that individual experiences surrounding adult transi-
dation. tions determine the meaning and impact of the transitions for
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to different persons. Thus, although transitions such as retirement
Frank J. Floyd, Psychology Department, 129 Psychology Research are "normative" and the event itself is usually predictable and
Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824- planned, the contexts for different individuals create differ-
1117. ences in how this transition comes about, the meaning of the
609
610 FLOYD ET AL.

event, the short-term adjustments required, and the long-term ments are associated with more positive adjustment in retire-
impact of the event on the individual's life. ment (Crowley, 1986; Streib & Schneider, 1971). Although offi-
The importance of retirement as a life transition is supported cial mandatory retirement policies are increasingly rare, seem-
both by cross-sectional studies contrasting groups of retirees ingly voluntary retirements are often premature (Ruhm, 1989)
and workers and by comprehensive longitudinal research fo- and may be prompted by poor health, job stress, or other cir-
cused on personal and social development in adulthood (e.g., cumstances not under the retiree's control (Parnes et al., 1985).
Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, & Ekerdt, 1987; Bosse, Aldwin, Lev- Furthermore, the precipitants of voluntary retirement have
enson, & Workman-Daniels, 1990; Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990; been shown to predict satisfaction in retirement (Levy, 1981;
Matthews & Brown, 1987). Our work adopts this formulation Walker, Kimmel, & Price, 1981). Thus, a third section of the
and draws on the supporting research to design a measure that questionnaire assesses perceptions of the retiree's reasons for
can be useful both for group studies of retirees and for idio- retirement.
graphic analysis to describe the satisfaction and adjustment of
individuals in retirement.
Assessing retirement as a life transition imposed a temporal
Satisfaction With Life in Retirement
perspective on the measure. That is, understanding the impact The most essential index of subjective well-being for an indi-
of the transition involved assessing past experiences and feel- vidual is the person's judgment about quality of life and life
ings surrounding the transition, present satisfaction in retire- satisfaction (Diener, 1984). Global indices of life satisfaction
ment, and prospects for future adjustment. These concerns sug- appear to be relevant for all age groups. However, global judg-
gested three general domains to evaluate: retirement experi- ments alone are not sensitive to domain-specific qualities of life
ences that affect the meaning and short-term impact of the (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976) and do not elucidate
event for the person, current satisfaction with life in retirement, which areas of life are salient for the individual in accounting
and factors associated with long-term adjustment. for current satisfaction and adjustment. To provide both a
global measure of overall satisfaction and a sensitive index of
Retirement Experiences specific sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, we included
a scale requiring subjects to give a global rating of general satis-
Similar to chance events, transition points are often experi- faction with life in retirement, and we also included several
enced as stressful occurrences that provoke disruption and dis- items evaluating satisfaction with specific areas of life in retire-
tress for the individual. However, others may experience the ment. The specific areas include several that are common to
transition as a challenge and an opportunity to relinquish unre- other life satisfaction scales (e.g., Frisch, Cornell, Villanueva, &
warding responsibilities and pursue new interests and sources Retzlaff, 1992), such as economic resources, and interpersonal
of pleasure. Accordingly, research and theory on coping with relationships, along with others that are particularly relevant to
stress (e.g., Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; McCubbin & Patterson, retirees, such as the quality of social services and access to trans-
1983; Taylor, 1983) emphasize the importance of understand- portation. To group these facets into more general scales, we
ing the individual's appraisal of the event. The appraisal pro- used factor analysis to guide the development of subscales of
cess includes both formulating a subjective meaning of the satisfaction. Thus, the final questionnaire assesses satisfaction
event as either a threat or a challenge and evaluating one's capac- with life in retirement at three levels of globality: overall ratings
ity to meet the demands of the situation. of retirement satisfaction, intermediate subscales for domains
A central issue in determining the subjective meaning of re- of life in retirement, and individual item ratings of specific
tirement for the individual is the significance of work in the life areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
of the person. Work provides the most central social and psy-
chological framework during adulthood (Henry, 1971). Thus, Rewards and Leisure Activities
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 Although the event of retirement can be an acute stressor,
included two sets of items in the questionnaire that evaluate retirement is also a stage of adulthood that continues for the
this domain. One section on preretirement work functioning remainder of the individual's life. Most measures of coping
includes items about the significance of work-related activities with stress (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), including a recent
as rewards before retirement. These are retrospective reports of measure designed to detect age-related changes in coping styles
job satisfaction and job involvement. Another section on ad- (Brandtstadter & Renner, 1990), assess skills and resources for
justment and change evaluates the retiree's own perception of adjusting to transitory difficulties (acute stressors) but do not
the acute stress associated with the event of retirement. These assess factors associated with long-term adaptation to major
ratings overcome a limitation with life-events scales (e.g., life changes. Long-term adaptation involves finding ample
Holmes & Rahe, 1967) that assume that a standard impact sources of rewards and gratifications that allow individuals to
score can be assigned to common life events. experience that they are getting enough out of life toward meet-
Events are judged as threats when they are perceived to be ok^t ing basic developmental goals (Fiske & Chiriboga, 1990). Main-
of the individual's control (Taylor, 1983). For retirement, the taining life satisfaction during retirement is associated with re-
issue of controllability involves the retiree's perceptions about placing rewards gained from work activities with rewarding
the precipitants of retirement. A common finding of research leisure activities so that the retiree maintains a stable ratio of
on retirement is that voluntary, as opposed to involuntary retire- reinforcements from pre- to postretijenwot (Friedman & Or-
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 611

bach, 1974; Howard, 1982). Thus, to assess the potential for sized urban area, and several small towns throughout the Midwest.
long-term adaptation, we included a section in the question- Retirement was denned as "an age-related reduction in employment,"
naire that asked respondents to judge sources of enjoyment in so some of the subjects were employed part time. The sample was
retirement. Additionally, because leisure and activities are im- roughly equally divided between men and women.
portant ways to counteract the stress of boredom (Fiske & Chir-
iboga, 1990), the final section of the questionnaire asks about Procedure
current leisure and physical activities.
Initial item development. First, a set of potential items was compiled
from semistructured interviews with 30 subjects. The interview sched-
Development and Initial Validation ule included six open-ended questions covering current activities,
This article presents a two-part study focused on the develop- sources of rewards, components of current satisfaction, preretirement
ment and initial validation of the questionnaire. The first part work functioning, adaptation and change associated with retirement,
and reasons for retirement. The interviewers were trained to use stan-
(Study 1) consisted of item development and item analyses to
dard follow-up probes, they completed practice interviews, and they
select items for the final questionnaire. The second part (Study were supervised continuously to ensure uniformity in the procedures.
2) included initial factor analyses to develop subscales of the The interviews lasted approximately 20-30 min during which the re-
three sections assessing reasons for retirement, satisfaction with spondents were encouraged to speak freely about their own experi-
life in retirement, and sources of enjoyment in retirement. Ad- ences in retirement. Tape recordings of the interviews were indepen-
ditionally, we examined internal consistency, test-retest reliabil- dently reviewed by two members of the research team who generated a
ity, the intercorrelations among the subscales, the correlations questionnaire item to assess each of the points raised by the retirees.
of the questionnaire scores with measures of life satisfaction Other items suggested by the research literature, but not raised in
and marital satisfaction, and the associations between reasons the interviews, were added to the questionnaire so that at least four
for retirement and satisfaction and adjustment in retirement. items were included to address each of the six areas covered in the
interview. To make the questionnaire inclusive but parsimonious,
An overarching goal was to develop a measure appropriate
highly specific, idiosyncratic activities and sources of rewards were
for use with both women and men and for people from all levels
summarized with questions about more general topics, such as activi-
of socioeconomic status (SES). To date, research on retirement ties with family, activities with friends, and satisfaction with social
has not adequately described the experiences of women retirees services. Grammatical conventions were standardized across all items,
(Hatch, 1990), and evidence is mixed about the extent to which and a standard 4-point or 6-point Likert-type rating format was
men and women differ in retirement satisfaction (Gratton & adopted. The specific anchors for each of the rating scales matched the
Haug, 1983; Seccombe & Lee, 1986). Thus, we examined content of the particular item, but most items required a rating of
gender differences for all scores, and we explored possible either frequency, importance, or degree of satisfaction. The anchors
gender effects in all analyses. Regarding SES, previous research reflected a range from never to often, very unimportant to very impor-
suggests that SES not only determines financial security and tant, or very dissatisfied to very satisfied. The general instruction state-
ment and the specific instructions for each section were written to be
the quality of services obtainable but also may be associated
as concise and unambiguous as possible, and large printing and an
with different preferences and practices regarding leisure and
uncluttered arrangement were used to make the questions easy to read
social relationships in retirement (Rosow, 1985). Thus, in the and thus reduce extraneous sources of error.
present research, we carefully sampled across socioeconomic Pilot testing. An initial version of the questionnaire was pilot tested
groups, and we evaluated the associations of SES variables with by administering it to 10 additional retirees who first answered the
the scores for retirement satisfaction and retirement experi- questionnaire, then completed an individual interview where the ques-
ences. tionnaire was reviewed to discover any items that were confusing, dif-
ficult to read, or offensive. Each subject also was questioned about
whether any other items should be included to adequately assess retire-
Study 1 ment experiences.
Study 1 involved several stages of interviews with retirees, A second pilot version, altered on the basis of the retiree's reactions,
was then sent to eight psychologists, social workers, and counselors
interviews with professionals working with older persons, and a
working at agencies that provide counseling to retired people who are
review of relevant literature to generate items. These were fol- experiencing adjustment problems. After reviewing the questionnaire,
lowed by pilot tests for early versions of the questionnaire to each professional was interviewed over the phone regarding clarity and
eliminate ambiguities and to select internally consistent sets of the need for additions or deletions. Once again, the suggestions were
items for each section of the questionnaire. incorporated into a final pilot version of the questionnaire that in-
cluded 110 items.
Item analysis. The 110-item pilot questionnaire was administered
Method
to 86 men and women from AARP and other retirement organiza-
Subjects tions. To ensure that the questionnaire was sensitive to the experiences
of people undergoing the transition into retirement, we recruited only
A total of 126 older persons participated in various stages of Study individuals who had been retired for 5 years or less. An item was re-
1. The majority of the subjects were recruited at meetings of local tained for the final scale if it showed sufficient response variability,
chapters of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and where both ends of the rating scale were endorsed by at least 5% of the
others came from industry- and university-based retirement organiza- sample. Also, to ensure internal consistency, the items measuring areas
tions and community senior centers. To locate a cross section of peo- of satisfaction and sources of enjoyment had to correlate at least .65
ple, the subjects were recruited from a large urban area, a medium- 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 their experiences regarding retirement. They were encouraged to an-
titled the Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI). The entire question- swer all items, but they were informed that they could skip items if they
naire is given in the Appendix, including the instructions, all items, wished. One item (Item 19) was an open-ended response that allowed
and all response scales. subjects to write in reasons for retirement not addressed i n other items.
We developed this item for counseling purposes so that the question-
naire would be sensitive to the unique experiences of some retirees, but
Study 2 the item was not included in any of the analyses. Additionally, five of
The purposes of Study 2 were to develop a scoring format and initial the items regarding satisfaction with marriage, family, and social ser-
norms for the RSI and to conduct initial psychometric evaluation of vices included a not applicable response option for subjects who were
the measure. unmarried or had no experiences in these areas (see Appendix). Be-
cause many of the subjects' protocols included occasional unanswered
or inapplicable items, analyses were conducted with all available re-
Method sponses to each item, and thus the ns for the analyses that follow vary.

Subjects
A sample of 402 retired individuals was recruited from retirement General Results
organizations in the same way as the sample for Study 1. For Study 2,
the organizations were located in urban, suburban, and rural settings Factor Analysis
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 To group individual items into subscales, three sets of factor
women was 67.49 years (SD = 6.20 years), and they had been retired a analyses were conducted on the three sections of the question-
mean of 4.28 years (SD = 3.07 years). The men reported a mean current naire measuring reasons for retirement (15 items), satisfaction
family income of $33,630 (SD = $18,010), and the women reported a with life in retirement (11 items), and sources of enjoyment (15
mean current family income of $28,390 (SD = $18,690). These reports items). Principal-components analyses were followed by vari-
reflected the pooled income from all sources for both spouses and thus max rotation of factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Sepa-
were higher than the preretirement earnings of each retiree. Un- rate analyses of the data from the men and the women pro-
married retirees reported a mean annual income of $18,880 (SD = duced highly consistent solutions; therefore we present only the
$10,910). Both the men and the women had retired from occupations
solutions for the combined sample of men and women. Also,
ranging from manual laborers to professionals. Scores on the Duncan
index of occupational status (Stevens & Featherman, 1981) ranged the analyses include only the subjects who answered all items
from 17.7 for assemblers to 87.1 for college teachers, with a mean of (n = 272), although analyses with the entire sample using mean
37.39 (SD = 16.82), which is associated with skilled trades and lower substitution to estimate missing ratings produced similar factor
management such as technicians, building managers, retail salesper- solutions. Table 1 displays the factor loadings and the composi-
sons, and factory supervisors. The sample also represented a wide tion of the subscales. To form independent subscales, we as-
range of educational backgrounds. Fourteen percent had less than a signed each item to only one subscale, the one associated with
high school education, 26.1% completed high school only, 31.9% com- its primary (highest) factor loading. As displayed in Table 1,
pleted trade school or some college, 12.9% obtained bachelor's degrees, some of the items showed nearly equal loadings on more than
and 14.7% obtained advanced degrees. Ninety-five percent of the men one factor, with no clear primary loading. In most cases, we
and 55% of the women were currently married. The sample consisted inspected the separate analyses with the men and the women
of 89% Whites, 10% African Americans, and 1% Asian Americans.
and assigned the item to the subscale on which it consistently
loaded highest. However, when no consistent priority was ap-
Measures parent, we assigned the item on the basis of both its conceptual
relevance to other items on the scale and its effect on the alpha
All subjects completed the 51 -item RSI and a demographic informa-
coefficients for the scales. Table 1 also lists the eigenvalue for
tion sheet. Additionally, to evaluate the concurrent validity of the RSI,
all retirees completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Em- each factor, the percent of variance accounted for, and the alpha
mons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985), a 5-item measure with a 7-point Likert coefficient for each scale.
response format. Married individuals also completed the Marital Satis-
faction Questionnaire for Older Persons (Haynes et al., 1992), a 26-item
questionnaire about marital adjustment and satisfaction with the mar- Reasons for Retirement
ital relationship.
The items assessing reasons for retirement produced four sig-
Procedure nificant factors labeled Job Stress (3 items), Pressure From Em-
ployer (4 items), Pursue Own Interests (4 items), and Retirement
The majority of the questionnaires were distributed at the close of Due to Circumstances (4 items). Together these factors ac-
organization meetings and were completed on site or returned by mail.
A subgroup of approximately 40 retirees completed the questionnaires counted for 61% of the variance in the reasons-for-retirement
in individual meetings that were part of another research project. An- items. With one exception, all items showed a primary loading
other subgroup of 65 subjects participated in a retest session 2 weeks on only one factor, with no secondary loadings above .40. Item
after the initial session. The subjects were informed that the purpose of 9 loaded similarly on Factors 1 and 2 but loaded slightly higher
the study was to develop a questionnaire that would be sensitive to on Factor 2, so the item was assigned to the second subscale.
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 613

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
Item 1 2 3 4 Item 1 2 3 4

Reasons for retirement Satisfaction with life in retirement (continued)

16. Too much stress at work .81 .19 .17 .11 28. Community agency
17. Difficulty with physical services .67 .20 .04
demands of job .77 .24 .05 .11 21. Financial situation .53 .18 .30
15. Disliked job .74 .38 .12 .12 22. Physical health .10 .84 .11
10. Pressured by employer .32 .75 .02 .23 26. Level of physical activity .21 .82 .05
1 1 . Offered incentives by 20. Marriage .16 -.12 .82
company .20 .73 .16 .02 23. Spouse's health -.07 .25 .60
8. Laid off, fired, or hours 24. Quality of residence .34 .41 .46
reduced .20 .67 .11 .34 25. Relations with extended
9. Difficulties with people family .20 .39 .38
at work .49 .53 .08 .29
12. Wanted time with family -.01 .18 .83 .09 Eigenvalue 3.59 1.35 1.09
13. Wanted time to pursue % variance 33 12 10
own interests .13 -.14 .76 .09 Alpha .78 .72 .57
18. Spouse wanted partner's
retirement .08 .31 .57 -.12 Sources of enjoyment
14. Wanted to make room 50. Can be alone more .73 -.14 .14
for younger people .27 .26 .42 .34 4 1 . No boss .72 .27 .02
4. Reached mandatory 43. Less stress .68 .20 .23
retirement age -.05 .21 -.05 .75 49. More relaxed .63 .32 .36
5. Poor health .48 .10 .01 .62 48. More time to think .55 .13 .52
6. Spouse's poor health .16 .35 .12 .55 37. Not having to work .55 .33 -.01
7. Could finally afford 47. Being careful .45 .46 .33
retirement .33 -.11 .39 .52 44. Retirement groups .27 .75 -.06
Eigenvalue 5.31 1.63 1.11 1.04 46. Volunteerism -.06 .73 .16
% variance 35 11 7 7 39. More time with friends .20 .66 .35
Alpha .80 .79 .66 .61 38. More time with family .22 .60 .24
45 Tiitic for activities . 3? 4Sj
3£.
C1
Jl .*t
Satisfaction with life in retirement 36. Freedom to pursue own
interests -.01 .09 .87
29. Government services .80 .02 .02 42. More travel .24 .26 .46
30. Personal safety .73 .09 .21 40. Control over own life .41 .42 .45
27. Access to transportation .71 .19 -.01
Eigenvalue 5.95 1.38 1.05
% variance 40 9 7
Alpha .82 .83 .65
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 were assigned to the third subscale, Satisfaction With Marriage
and Home Life.
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
Sources of Enjoyment
With Health and Activity (2 items), and Satisfaction With The sources of enjoyment section also produced three signifi-
Marriage and Home Life (4 items). These three factors ac- cant factors labeled Reduced Stress/Responsibilities (7 items),
counted for a total of 55% of the variance in the satisfaction Social Activities (5 items), and Freedom and Control (3 items),
ratings. The factor solution showed relatively good simple struc- which accounted for a total of 56% of the variance in these
ture with the exception of Item 24, "quality of residence," and items. Although Item 48, "more time to think," showed similar
Item 25, "relations with extended family," each of which ob- loadings on Factors 1 and 3, it consistently loaded slightly
tained only moderate loadings on both Factors 2 and 3. Because higher on Factor 1 for both the men and the women; therefore it
both items loaded slightly higher on Factor 3 in the separate was retained on the first subscale. Similarly, Item 40, "control
analyses with the men and the women and because they signifi- over own life," loaded only moderately on all three factors but
cantly reduced the alpha coefficient for the second scale, they 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 between testings. Test-retest correlations were computed for
subscale. Item 47, "being carefree," loaded similarly on Factors the overall mean satisfaction scores, the three sets of factor
1 and 2 and was assigned to the first subscale, Reduced Stress/ scores, and the other individual items measuring preretirement
Responsibility, because it was most similar conceptually to the work functioning, adaptation and change associated with retire-
other items on that scale. ment, and participation in activities.
The correlations are given in Table 2. In general, the reliabil-
Scoring ity was higher for the factor scores and the mean satisfaction
Scores for the factor-analytically-derived subscales were cal- score than for the single-item ratings. The correlations for the
culated as the mean of the ratings for the items making up the two testings ranged from r = .56 to r = .77 (mean r = .68) for the
subscale. Additionally, overall mean scores were calculated for multiple-item scales and from r = .45 to r = .71 (mean r = .62) for
all 11 items measuring satisfaction with aspects of retirement the single-item ratings. Although the correlations are moderate,
(a = .81). If a subject failed to answer an item, the mean scores only one of the factor scales, satisfaction with services, and two
were calculated from the remaining items. The individual rat- of the single-item ratings produced correlations below r = .60.
ings of current activities (3 items), preretirement work function- The two single items asked the retirees to make complex judg-
ing (3 items), and adaptation and change associated with retire- ments concerning preretirement expectations about retirement
ment (2 items), along with the global rating of overall satisfac- and concerning overall changes in their lives from pre- to post-
tion with retirement, were treated as single-item scores. The retirement.
mean scores and standard deviations for the men and the
women are given in Table 2.
Test-Retest Reliability Concurrent Validity
Test-retest reliability was evaluated with the subsample of 65 Concurrent validity was assessed for five scores from the RSI
subjects who completed the RSI twice, with a 14-day interval that assess current satisfaction in retirement: the overall mean

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Test-Retest Correlations for
Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI) Scores
Men Women
(« = 159) (« = 243) Test-retest
correlations
Section and variable M SD M SD (ii = 65)
Retirement satisfaction
Services subscale 4.93 0.59 4.88 0.75 .56
Health subscale 4.46 0.95 4.59 1.03 .66
Marriage/Home Life subscale 4.89 0.65 4.98 0.82 .71
Mean of satisfaction ratings 4.82 0.52 4.83 0.69 .66
Global satisfaction rating 5.29 0.85 5.15 0.99 .67
Preretirement work functioning
Job gratification 4.72 1.18 4.60 1.34 .65
Job satisfaction 4.76 1.18 4.77 1.23 .68
Anticipated satisfaction 5.09 0.89 4.86 1.07 .45
Adjustment and change
Initial adjustment 4.90** 1.23 4.33 1.56 .71
Pre-post improvement 4.87 0.92 4.72 1.16 .50
Sources of enjoyment
Reduced Stress and
Responsibilities subscale 2.83 0.70 3.04* 0.74 .64
Social Activities subscale 2.93 0.66 3.11* 0.64 .64
Freedom and Control subscale 3.27 0.61 3.34 0.65 .70
Reasons for retirement
Job Stress subscale 2.23 1.31 2.03 1.40 .75
Pressure From Employer
subscale 1.87 1.20 1.60 1.12 .77
Pursue Own Interests
subscale 3.04 1.23 2.68 1.38 .74
Circumstances subscale 2.66 1.21 2.43 1.27 .65
Current activities
Leisure with friends 3.43 0.71 3.60* 0.58 .67
Leisure with family 3.27 0.73 3.38 0.72 .62
Physical activities 3.27 0.76 3.26 0.83 .60

Note. Asterisks indicate significantly higher mean scores based on / tests following significant multivar-
iate effects.
* p < .05. ** p < .01, two-tailed.
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 615

score for the satisfaction items, the three subscale scores derived ment, fewer sources of enjoyment in retirement, and poorer
from these items, and the global rating of retirement satisfac- functioning in physical, social, and leisure activities than peo-
tion. Validity was indicated by the correlations of the five scores ple who retired voluntarily. In contrast, the voluntary retirees
with the Satisfaction With Life Scale and for the married retir- who obtained relatively high scores on the Pursue Own Interests
ees with total satisfaction scores on the Marital Satisfaction factor should report an easier transition to retirement, higher
Questionnaire for Older Persons. These correlations are pre- satisfaction, more sources of enjoyment, and positive adjust-
sented in Table 3 together with the intercorrelations among the ment in retirement.
five retirement satisfaction scores for comparison purposes. Because most people reported multiple reasons for retire-
The correlations for the women are given above the diagonal, ment and because only high scores, but not necessarily low
and those for the men are below the diagonal. scores, on a factor should be meaningfully related to retirement
With one exception, all of the validity coefficients (the corre- satisfaction and experiences, we interpreted the factor scores in
lations with the criteria) were highly significant and indicated an ipsative fashion and selected the most important reason for
that the RSI scores share from 9% to 41% of variance with the retirement for each subject. Of the 369 respondents with com-
Satisfaction With Life Scale and the Marital Satisfaction Ques- plete data on the reasons for retirement section of the question-
tionnaire for Older Persons. As shown in Table 3, the validity naire, 317 (86%) could be assigned to one of four groups on the
coefficients were roughly equal for the men and the women on basis of having made relatively higher ratings on one of the four
both criteria, and they were somewhat higher for the total satis- factors included in the reasons for retirement section. The
faction index and the global rating of retirement satisfaction group assignment thus indicated that the respondent identified
than for the three subscale scores. Also, the validity coefficients a primary reason for retirement as either escaping from job
were similar to or greater in magnitude than the intercorrela- stress (n = 53), desiring to pursue own interests (n = 154), re-
tions among the RSI satisfaction subscale scores. The specific- sponding to the employer's pressure to retire (n = 21), or having
ity of the factor scores was supported by the exceptionally high circumstances (e.g., age and health) mandate retirement (n =
correlation between the Satisfaction With Marriage and Home 89). The remaining 52 subjects obtained equal factor scores on
Life subscale and the Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for at least two of the factors and were excluded from these anal-
Older Persons (r = .64 and r = .65 for the women and the men, yses.
respectively).
A series of one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MAN-
OVAs) contrasted the groups on the other five sections of the
Reasons for Retirement questionnaire. Significant multivariate effects were followed up
To evaluate the validity and utility of the reasons for retire- with univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc
ment scales, we assessed whether ratings of reasons for retire- Scheffe tests. The M ANOVAs revealed significant differences
ment showed expected relationships with other aspects of retire- among the four groups of retirees on four of the five sections of
ment satisfaction and experiences. We expected that those who the questionnaire: preretirement work functioning, F(9,796) =
rated the Job Stress factor as a particularly important reason for 9.09, p < .001; adjustment and change, F(6,574) = 3.02, p < .01;
retirement would endorse relatively less preretirement job satis- satisfaction with life in retirement, F(\5, 853) = 2.26, p < .01;
faction and relatively greater rewards from reduced job stress in and current sources of enjoyment, F(9, 798) = 4.15, p < .001.
retirement than other retirees. Research on involuntary retire- The univariate results for these variables are summarized in
ment suggested that persons who obtained relatively high Table 4. Only the ratings of involvement in activities failed to
scores on the Pressure From Employer factor should report a differ across any of the groups, F(9,870) = 1.11, ns.
more difficult transition period, less satisfaction with retire- 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 2 3 4 5
1. Mean of satisfaction items _ .86 .73 .74 .37 .57 .47
2. Satisfaction With Services subscale .77 — .40 .46 .29 .47 .34
3. Satisfaction With Health subscale .83 .50 — .38 .30 .35 .11*
4. Satisfaction With Marriage/Home
Life subscale .69 .26 .41 — .38 .50 .64
5. Global retirement satisfaction rating .45 .26 .44 .31 — .50 .51
6. Satisfaction With Life Scale .48 .42 .37 .30 .53 .47
7. MSQFOP* .56 .33 .32 .65 .41 .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 We had no expectations about either particularly positive or

Group Differences in Retirement Satisfaction and Experiences negative experiences for people who retired primarily because
When Primary Reason for Retirement Involved Job of circumstances, and the results showed that this group tended
Stress (JS), Employer Pressure (EP), Pursuit of to score consistently with the least extreme groups across all of
Own Interests (OI), or Circumstances (C) the domains. The one exception was the significantly lower
scores on the Satisfaction with Health subscale for the circum-
Ffor Scheffe stances group (M = 4.37) versus the own-interests group (M =
Variable group effect contrasts
4.76), which was consistent with the fact that retirement be-
Retirement satisfaction cause of poor health was one of the items used to assign people
Mean of satisfaction items 6.90*** OI > JS, C to the circumstances group.
Services subscale 4.58** OI > JS, C
Health subscale 4.59** OI>C
Marriage/Home Life subscale 4.21** OI>JS Association With Demographic Characteristics
Global satisfaction rating 2.21
Preretirement functioning A final set of analyses examined the associations of the RSI
Job gratification 19.17*** JS < OI, EP, C factor scores and single-item scores with several demographic
Job satisfaction 20.09*** JS < OI, EP, C variables. First, a series of ANOVAs contrasting the men and
Anticipated satisfaction 2.24
Adjustment and change the women on all variables showed five significant differences.
Initial crisis 3.33* EP>OI Compared with the men, the women anticipated less satisfac-
Pre-post improvement 4.95** EP < JS, OI tion in retirement, F(l, 400) = 5.73, p < .05, and they reported
Sources of enjoyment more stress immediately following retirement, F(l, 351) =
Reduced Stress and 13.22, p < .001 (see Table 2 for means). However, the women
Responsibilities subscale 4.08** JS>EP
Social Activities subscale 2.01 also reported spending more time in leisure activities with their
Freedom and Control subscale 3.86** OI> EP friends, F(l, 373) = 2.46, p < .05, and they rated two sources of
enjoyment more important than did the men: reduced stress
Note. JV= 317. All ScheffS contrasts are significant at p < .05. and responsibilities in retirement, F(\, 406) = 6.52, p < .05, and
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001, two-tailed.
social activities, F(l, 406) = 5.28, p < .05.
Next, the RSI variables were correlated with length of retire-
primarily to escape job stress reported relatively poor work ment, education, income for the year before retirement, and
adjustment but positive retirement experiences. As shown in current annual income. We expected that higher satisfaction
Table 4, this group was distinguished from the other retirees by and enjoyment would be associated with longer time spent in
reporting the lowest levels of preretirement job gratification retirement and higher levels of SES. Eighty correlations each
(M= 3.73, grand M = 4.72) and job satisfaction (M = 3.64, were calculated for the men and the women, and the majority
grand M= 4.73), but they reported the highest level of current of these correlations were near zero. None of the correlations
enjoyment from reduced job stress (M = 3.21), which was signif- with length of retirement were significant, but three of the RSI
icantly higher than the subscale score for reduced job stress by variables showed similar patterns of significant correlations
the group who retired because of pressure from the employer with the SES variables for both the men and the women. As
(Af=2.64). expected, higher scores on the Satisfaction with Services sub-
The results for those who indicated being pressured into in- scale were associated with higher current income for both the
voluntary retirement also were consistent with expectations. men, r(l 58) = .38, p < .01, and the women, r(242) = .35, p < .01,
These retirees reported the most negative initial crisis period and with higher income before retirement for the women,
immediately following retirement (M = 3.65), which signifi- r(242) = .33, p < .01. However, higher scores for the subscale
cantly differed from the ratings of initial crisis by the retirees assessing enjoyment from reduced stress and responsibilities
who chose to pursue their own interests (M= 4.71). The pres- were associated with lower levels of education for both the men,
sured group also reported less positive long-term changes from r(158) = -.23, p < .01, and the women, r(242) = -.26, p < .01,
pre- to postretirement (M= 3.95) as compared with both the and with lower preretirement income, r(242) = —.31, p < .01,
job-stress (M = 4.94) and the own-interests groups (M = 4.87), and lower current income, r(242) = —.29, p < .01, for the
and they rated having freedom and control less positively than women. Similarly, higher scores on the subscale assessing en-
the own-interests group (M = 2.99 vs. M = 3.42). joyment from social interactions were associated with less edu-
In contrast, the voluntary retirees who endorsed the desire to cation for the men, r(158) = -.43, and the women, r(242) =
pursue their own interests as the most important reason for -.37, p < .01; lower income before retirement for the men,
retirement reported relatively positive satisfaction with life in Kl 58) = -.27, and the women, r(242) = -.37, p < .01; and lower
retirement. This group obtained an overall mean satisfaction current income for the men, r(158) = -.28, and the women,
score (M = 4.96) that was significantly higher than the means r(242) =-.40, p<.0\.
for the groups who retired because of job stress (M = 4.58) and Finally, to evaluate whether being employed part time had
because of circumstances (M = 4.71). Similarly, as shown in any effects on the retirees' reports, a series of M ANOVAs con-
Table 4, the own-pursuits group obtained higher scores on each trasted 45 subjects who were employed part time with the re-
of the three satisfaction subscales than either or both of the maining nonemployed subjects on each of the six sections of the
job-stress and circumstances groups. questionnaire. No significant effects were obtained for preretire-
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 617

ment work functioning, adjustment and change, reasons for A limitation of the validity findings is that they are subject to
retirement, satisfaction with life in retirement, or current lei- inflation because of the shared-method variance among the
sure and physical activities. A significant multivariate effect self-report measures. For example, recollections about reasons
was obtained for sources of enjoyment, .F(3, 332) = 5.09, p < for retirement are likely to be biased to be consistent with or to
.01. The univariate tests indicated that the part-time employees explain current satisfaction and adjustment (Parnes et al.,
obtained significantly lower scores than the nonemployed sub- 1985). Validation against independent criteria, such as em-
jects on all three subscales, enjoyment from reduced stress and ployer records, health records, or ratings by family members
responsibilities, M= 2.59 versusM= 2.99, F(l, 334)= 6.1 l,p< and friends, should be explored in future research with the
.001; enjoyment from social activities, M = 2.72 versus M = measure. However, because the RSI is designed to assess the
3.07, F(l, 334) = 5.00, p < .001; and enjoyment from increased subjective dimension of retirement experiences, consisting of
freedom and control, M - 3.08 versus M = 3.36, .F(l, 334) = retirees' impressions and sentiments about retirement, rather
3.17,/><.005. than an objective indication of retirement experiences and ad-
justment, deviations from external criteria would not necessar-
ily indicate that the RSI is inaccurate or invalid. Instead, such
General Discussion differences might help to identify biases in retirees' perceptions
Our goal was to develop a useful questionnaire for assessing and clarify how actual events are mediated by perceptions in
satisfaction in retirement and perceptions of retirement experi- influencing satisfaction and adjustment.
ences relevant to postretirement adjustment for older persons. Regarding reliability, the 2-week test-retest reliability was
By incorporating reports in six domains—preretirement work adequate for the factor scores but was poor for some of the
functioning, adjustment and change, reasons for retirement, single-item ratings. Although single-item variables can be ex-
satisfaction with life in retirement, sources of enjoyment in re- pected to be less reliable than multiple-item scales, perhaps this
tirement, and leisure and physical activities—the RSI provides is particularly true when using psychological questionnaires
a comprehensive view of retirees' perceptions of the impact of with elderly people who are particularly subject to sources of
retirement as a life transition. This standard measure should be measurement error attributable to unfamiliarity with psycho-
useful for research focused on understanding patterns of ad- logical instruments and vision impairments. Reliability proba-
justment in retirement and factors that influence postretire- bly would have been better if we had administered the ques-
ment satisfaction. Additionally, the questionnaire could be tionnaire under more optimal testing conditions involving indi-
used in counseling settings as a brief screening device to iden- vidual assistance rather than informal group meetings.
However, as noted in the results given earlier, the two items with
tify relevant problems and issues for intervention.
the poorest reliability required the subjects to retrospect about
In addition to describing the rationale for the scale and its
complex emotional experiences and attitudes that occurred
composition, our article focuses on developing and validating
around the time of retirement, and these items may prove to be
factor-analytically-derived subscales for three sections of the
unreliable even under more favorable conditions. Also, the one
questionnaire: reasons for retirement, satisfaction with life in
factor score with low reliability involved evaluations of satisfac-
retirement, and sources of enjoyment. The factor solutions pro- tion with services and may be particularly susceptible to insta-
vided guidelines for constructing subscales with nonoverlap- bility because of positive or negative recent experiences. Of
ping items, and the validity data for these subscales were en- course, both the internal consistency of subscales and the test-
couraging. In particular, regarding the three satisfaction and retest reliability of all scores could have been improved by in-
the three sources of enjoyment subscales, the relevance of using creasing the number of items used to assess each variable. How-
the subscales as opposed to only global measures of satisfaction ever, our goal of constructing a comprehensive yet parsi-
or enjoyment was demonstrated by several differences in their monious measure required that we compromise between
associations with life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, gender, reducing extraneous items and including enough items to ob-
and SES. For example, the subscale assessing satisfaction with tain reliable measures of the constructs of interest.
marriage and home life showed the highest correlation with Scores can be interpreted by referring to the means and stan-
another measure of marital satisfaction; only the Satisfaction dard deviations listed in Tables 1 and 2. As a normative sample,
with Services subscale was associated with income, and the the subjects in Study 2 represent a wide range of the population
men and the women differed on the enjoyment subscales re- on the basis of occupational status, income, education, urban
lated to reduced stress and social activities but not the subscale and suburban locations, and racial and ethnic composition.
assessing freedom and control. Similarly, the four factors in- However, because we recruited subjects primarily through orga-
cluded in the reasons for retirement section were useful for nizations, the sample possibly represents only those people who
identifying a primary reason for retirement for most retirees are relatively active participants in retirement organizations
that was associated with preretirement experiences and short- and senior-citizens clubs. Also, because the questionnaire fo-
and long-term adjustment in retirement. The significant differ- cuses on understanding the transition from full-time employ-
ences among the groups identified from these scores were con- ment to retirement, it is probably inappropriate for persons
sistent with much of the early research showing more positive who had unstable or part-time employment histories, and no
adjustment and satisfaction following voluntary retirements data were collected on these persons in the current research.
motivated by new interests and goals as opposed to involuntary Any comparison with the norms should recognize these possi-
retirements and those motivated by negative attitudes about the ble limitations on generalizability. Furthermore, changes in gov-
job (e.g., Levy, 1981; Walker et al, 1981). ernment benefits and private-pension policies as well as im-
618 FLOYD ET AL.

provements in the quality of worklife might alter general trends lative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Ag-
in retirement timing and retirement practices (e.g., McDaniels, ing, 5, 58-67.
1989). Thus, some components of the questionnaire may only Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W L. (1976). The quality of
be relevant for recent cohorts of retirees. For example, one item American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
regarding reasons for retirement refers to reaching mandatory Crowley, J. E. (1986). Longitudinal effects of retirement on men's well-
retirement age, but fewer and fewer settings have mandatory being and health. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 95-113.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95,
retirement policies. However, because the majority of the ques-
542-575.
tionnaire items focus on subjective domains of retirement expe- Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
riences involving subjective ratings of satisfaction and impor- Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
tance rather than reports of actual events, it should be relevant 71-75.
to various work settings and retirement policies. Dorfman, L., & Moffett, M. (1987). Retirement satisfaction in married
Furthermore, the sparse gender differences and associations and rural women. The Gerontologist, 27, 215-221.
with length of retirement, SES, and employment status suggest Elwell, F, & Maltbie-Crannell, A. D. (1981). The impact of role loss
that the RSI assesses variables that cut across these characteris- upon coping resources and life satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of
tics as well. The few gender effects that did occur are consistent Gerontology, 36, 223-232.
with a picture of a slightly more difficult initial adjustment for Fiske, M., & Chiriboga, D. A. (1990). Change and continuity in adult life.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
women (e.g., Seccombe & Lee, 1986) and emphasize the impor-
Friedman, E. A., & Orbach, H. L. (1974). Adjustment to retirement. In
tance of social contacts for women (e.g., Dorfman & Moffett,
A. Silvano (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry: Vol. 1. The foun-
1987). Regarding SES, an interesting pattern emerged suggest- dations of psychiatry (pp. 609-645). New York: Basic Books.
ing that the higher SES retirees were more satisfied with ser- Frisch, M. B., Cornell, J., Villanueva, M., & Retzlaff, P. J. (1992). Clini-
vices than the lower SES retirees, probably because they are cal validation of the Quality of Life Inventory: A measure of life
able to afford better quality services, but that the lower SES satisfaction for use in treatment planning and outcome assessment.
retirees experienced more enjoyment from reduced stress and Psychological Assessment, 4, 92-101.
social relationships in retirement. Although the retirees who Gratton, B., & Haug, M. R. (1983). Decision and adaptation: Research
were employed part time did not show differences from the on female retirement. Research on Aging, 5, 59-76.
nonemployed retirees on most of the RSI scores, including the Harris, L., & Associates (1979). 1979 study on American attitudes to-
satisfaction ratings, the fact that the retirees with jobs rated ward pensions and retirement: A nationwide survey of employees, re-
tirees, and business leaders. New York: Johnson & Higgins.
alternative sources of enjoyment as relatively less important
Hatch, L. R. (1990). Effects of work and family on women's later-life
than did the other retirees raises the question of whether em- resources. Research on Aging, 12, 311-338.
ployment inhibits receiving enjoyment from other areas of life Haynes, S. N., Floyd, F. J., Lemsky, C., Rogers Doll, E., Winemiller, D,
in retirement or whether those who find relatively few sources Heilman, N., Werle, M., Murphy Burgy, T, & Cardone, L. (1992).
of enjoyment seek part-time work. Extended evaluation of these The Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons. Psycholog-
issues and the processes that account for why and explain how ical Assessment, 4, 473-482.
different retirees achieve different types of adjustment to retire- Henry, W E. (1971). The role of work in structuring the life cycle.
ment was beyond the scope of this article, which focused on Human Development, 14,125-131.
developing an instrument for describing retirement experi- Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating
ences and satisfaction. We hope that the availability of this as- Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
sessment instrument will help to spark increased research ad- Howard, J. H. (1982). Adapting to retirement. Journal of the American
dressing causal factors and processes of change and adjustment Geriatrics Society, 30, 488-500.
Kirsling, R. A. (1986). Review of suicide among elderly persons. Psy-
to this important life transition.
chological Reports, 59, 359-366.
References Lazarus, R. S., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping
in aging. American Psychologist, 38, 245-254.
Atchley, R. C. (1976). The sociology of retirement. Cambridge, MA: Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New
Schenkman. York: Springer.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmen- Levy, S. M. (1981). The adjustment of the older woman: Effects of
tal psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Devel- chronic ill health and attitudes toward retirement. International
opmental Psychology, 23, 611-626. Journal of Aging and Human Development, 12, 93-110.
Beck, S. H. (1982). Adjustment to and satisfaction with retirement.
Matthews, N. A., & Brown, K. H. (1987). Retirement as a critical life
Journal of Gerontology, 37, 616-624.
event. Research on Aging, 9, 548-557.
Boaz, R. E, & Muller, C. F. (1989). Does having more time after retire-
McCubbin, H. I, & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Family stress and adapta-
ment change the demand for physician services? Medical Care, 27,
tion to crisis: A double ABCX model of family behavior. In D. H.
1-15.
Olson & B. C. Miller (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook (Vol. 1,
Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., & Ekerdt, D. J. (1987).
Mental health differences among retirees and workers: Findings pp. 87-106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
from the Normative Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 2,383-398. McDaniels, C. (1989). The changing workplace: Career counseling strate-
Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R,, & Workman-Daniels, K. gies for the 1990's and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
(1990). Differences in social support among retirees and workers: Morse, D. W, Dutka, A. B., & Gray, S. H. (1983). Life after early retire-
Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 5, ment. Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
41-47. Parnes, H. S., Crowley, J. E., Haurin, R. J., Less, L. J, Morgan, W R.,
Brandtstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flex- Mott, F. L., & Nestel, G. (1985). Retirement among American men.
ible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimi- Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 619

Parnes, H. S., & Less, L. J. (1985). Introduction and overview. In H. S. Seccombe, K., & Lee, G. R. (1986). Gender differences in retirement
Parnes, J. E., Crowley, R. J. Haurin, L. J. Less, W R. Morgan, F. L. satisfaction and its antecedents. Research on Aging, 8, 426-440.
Mott, & G. Nestel, Retirement among American men. Lexington, Stevens, G, & Featherman, D. L. (1981). A revised socioeconomic in-
MA: Lexington Books. dex of occupational status. Social Science Research, 10, 364-395.
Rosow, I. (1985). Status and role change through the life cycle. In R. H. Streib, G. F., & Schneider, S. J. (1971). Retirement in American society.
Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62-93). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of
Rothberg, J. M., Ursano, R. J., & Holloway, H. C. (1987). Suicide in the cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38,1161-1173.
United States military. Psychiatric Annals, 17, 545-548. Walker, J. W, Kimmel, D. C, & Price, K. F. (1981). Retirement style and
Ruhm, C. J. (1989). Why older Americans stop working. TheGerontolo- retirement satisfaction: Retirees aren't all alike. International Journal
gist, 29, 294-299. 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 3 4 6
very ungratifying somewhat somewhat gratifying very
ungratifying ungratifying gratifying gratifying
2. Before retirement, how satisfied were you with your job?
1 2 3 4 5 6
very dissatisfied somewhat somewhat satisfied very
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied 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 3 4 5 6
very unimportant somewhat somewhat important very
unimportant unimportant important important
5. I was in poor health.
1 2 3 4 5
6. My spouse was in poor health.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I could finally afford it.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I was laid off, fired, or my hours were cut back.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I was experiencing difficulties with people at work.
1 2 3 4 5
10. I was pressured to retire by my employer.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I was offered incentives to retire by my company.
1 2 3 4 5
12. I wanted to spend more time with my family.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I wanted more time to pursue my interests (such as hobbies and travel).
1 2 3 4 5
(Appendix continues on next page)
620 FLOYD ET AL.

14. I wanted to make room for younger people.

1 2 3 4 5 6
15. I disliked my job.
1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I experienced too much stress at work.
1 2 3 4 5 6
17. I had difficulty handling the physical demands of my job.
1 2 3 4 5 6
18. My spouse wanted me to retire.
1 2 3 4 5 6
( r!i ic 1 pi
jo n^hcr c«nsid ' t'"r (plw tplain)'

1 2 3 4 5 6
Please indicate your current level of satisfaction with the following areas of your life:
20. My marriage
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
not very dissatisfied somewhat somewhat satisfied very
applicable dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied
2 1 . My financial situation
1 2 3 4 5 6
22. My physical health
1 2 3 4 5 6
23. The health of my spouse
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. The quality of my residence
1 2 3 4 5 6
25. Relationships with other family members (such as children, brothers and sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. My level of physical activity
1 2 3 4 5 6
27. My access to transportation
1 2 3 4 5 6
28. Services from community agencies and programs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
29. Services from government aid programs (such as social security, medicare, subsidized housing, and nutrition programs)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. My personal safety
1 2 3 4 5 6
3 1 . After retirement, how easy or difficult were the first few months?
1 2 3 4 5 6
very difficult somewhat somewhat easy very
difficult difficult easy easy
32. Overall, how does your life since retirement compare with your life before retirement?
1 2 3 4 5 6
much worse somewhat somewhat better much
worse worse better better
33. How often do you participate in leisure activities with friends?
1 2 3 4
never seldom sometimes often
34. How often do you participate in leisure activities with your family?
1 2
 RETIREMENT SATISFACTION AND EXPERIENCES 621
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
1 2 3 4
unimportant slightly moderately very
unimportant important important
37. Not having to work
1 2 3 4
38. Spending more time with my family
1 2 3 4
39. Spending more time with my friends
1 2 3 4
40. More control over my own life
1 2 3 4
41. No boss
1 2 3 4
42. More travel
1 2 3 4
43. Less stress
1 2 3 4
44. Being with a group of other retired persons
1 2 3 4
45. More time for activities
1 2 3 4
46. Participation in volunteer organizations
1 2 3 4
47. Being carefree
I 2 3 4
48. More time to think
1 2 3 4
49. More relaxed
1 2 3 4
50. Can be alone more
1 2 3 4
5 1 . Overall, how satisfied are you with your retirement right now?
1 2 3 4 5 6
very dissatisfied somewhat somewhat satisfied very
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Received October 30, 1991

Revision received June 2, 1992
Accepted June 25, 1992