EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS Vol. 11, No. 3, 2018, 553-574 ISSN 1307-5543 – www.ejpam.com Published by New York Business Global An Indicator of One’s Life Satisfaction Thomas L. Saaty1, H. J. Zoffer2,∗, Lirong Wei3 1 Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, Distinguished University Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S.A 2 Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Business Administration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S.A 3 Department of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S.A Abstract. How satisfied is each of us with the fulfillment of his life? In this paper after a thor- ough search of the literature about satisfaction, 58 criteria and subcriteria related to satisfaction or fulfillment were identified and arranged in a hierarchic structure. A process of prioritization known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process is used with the structure, putting in judgments from knowledgeable people to derive priorities for the criteria and subcriteria. A template was then de- veloped for the reader to rate his satisfaction on each of the subcriteria in the structure to obtain an overall measure of satisfaction with their life. Someone who feels they have a perfect life would get 100%. The template can be used by any individual to determine what grade they get in life satisfaction. Readers can get the model to assess the reader’s level of life-satisfaction proposed in this paper at https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ao0b6FaIKSXM_AiH8x7JG5E09QCV. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 90B50 Key Words and Phrases: Satisfaction with life, the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Self-assessment 1. Introduction Throughout human history, death has always been associated with sorrow and sadness, unless it is the death of someone thought to be a criminal, although the mother of that criminal may feel sad for her loss. The fear of death is often the feeling of not becoming what one planned to be. But we all know that we are going to die some time and that everyone else will also die. Why are we not more accepting of the inevitable? In cases of prolonged illness, death is a relief and is not associated with great sorrow. Yet if we realize that we are satisfied with our lives at a certain point and that is not going to change much if we live longer, ∗Corresponding author. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v11i3.3313 Email addresses: saaty@katz.pitt.edu (T. L. Saaty), zoffer@katz.pitt.edu (H. J. Zoffer), liw90@pitt.edu (L. Wei) http://www.ejpam.com 553 c© 2018 EJPAM All rights reserved. T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 554 we may learn to be more accepting of death at a certain point of deterioration. People in great pain often want their lives to be terminated by a doctor and some countries like Switzerland and Holland and states in the US like Oregon and Washington have legit- imized euthanasia and assisted suicide. Is there a way to assess how satisfied one is with one’s life to date? If so, does it make sense to think about how close one has come to meeting one’s personal aspirations? Just thinking about how close we have come to achieving our goals or met the hopes that are most important to us could be important in determining how satisfied we are with our efforts to date and how accepting we are of the reality of forthcoming death. In most cases, the onset of a certain age, which may vary by person, suggests some looking backwards at the productive stages in our lives, where one becomes responsible, at least in part, for how one’s life has developed. As we move from dependency to independence, there is opportunity to control a higher and higher proportion of what we achieve, how we spend our time, and what relationships we develop. And yet how many of us try to assess whether the outcomes of our lives match the ex- pectations we have for ourselves. There has been no immediate process available whereby we can articulate what we wanted for ourselves in a wide variety of aspects or to measure how close we have come to meeting those aspirations. There has been no process available to measure what is most important to us in our lives, both in tangible and intangible areas, and how close we have come or not come to climbing those mountains. If our goals could be articulated, progress towards meeting them measured, and the relative importance of each goal clearly articulated, we could assess the self-defined success level of our lives. If we rank high on such a scale, would we be more willing to accept death as the final act in the drama that is our life? If we fall short, can we use the rest of our lives to areas where we need to make changes, so that what has been more closely parallels what we wanted to have been? However, today there is a way of achieving this kind of assessment. It is called the Analytic Hierarchy Process and it has been available since the latter end of the last cen- tury to gather the necessary information and evaluate it sufficiently accurately to permit us to look at what our lives have consisted of compared to what we might have proposed for them had we written a strategic plan for them many decades ago. In passing, we note that people may be biased favorably or unfavorably with regard to their expectations about their self-assessment of the satisfaction they have derived from various behaviors. Does that invalidate the judgments that would be required in this exercise for people to genuinely understand their own actions? The same behavior of an individual assessed by an outsider does not matter because it is the evaluation of the per- son making the assessment that governs the outcome. His or her happiness is best known to them alone. One of the values of this exercise is that it can be explored without anyone else knowing the outcome and this would encourage honesty. Where one has failed to T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 555 meet one’s expectations, there is now an opportunity to assess the degree of failure and modify the outcome, if possible, by either changing behavior or seeking new outlets for one’s energy. Our objective is to permit a person to effectively measure their current satisfaction with life to date. We have the hope that their self-assessment with their life satisfaction will permit them to accept death with greater equanimity, because their goals in life would have effectively been met. If the self-assessment is negative, there may still be time to remedy the problem areas of dissatisfaction. We have identified the areas that have an impact on satisfaction with life. We have also identified categories to which these factors belong and what the relative importance of is of each one. If one is not accepting of one’s life satisfaction, we have developed, using AHP, the impact that each factor has on life’s satisfaction, thereby permitting the user to modify those high priority behaviors that have the most impact on moving one’s self-assessment from negative to positive. This approach allows one to assess one’s current satisfaction with life, identify the important factors which control one’s life happiness and make corrections that most effectively improve those phenomena. 2. Literature Review Life satisfaction has been studied extensively in the psychology literature. Many au- thors have discussed various dimensions of life satisfaction in a wide variety of situations. A summary of the approaches taken by those authors that are most relevant to our study follows. Literature [4] conducted research on measures of life satisfaction for evaluation of the quality of life inventory. They considered 17 items including health, self-regard, philosophy of life, standard of living, work, recreation, learning, creativity, social service, civic action, love relationship, friendships, relationship with children, relationship with relatives, home, neighborhood and community. Literature [1] studied relationships of several variables with job and life satisfaction to deal with work-family conflict of workers. Their proposed variables to measure life satisfaction include job satisfaction, job involvement, family, instrumental assistance from family, emotional substance from family, work interfering with family and family interfer- ing with work. Literature [2] grouped domains that have been used widely by Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale into seven classifications as: material well-being (food, housing, income, clothes etc.), health (Intellect performance, physical strength, personal health etc.), pro- ductivity (achieve success, employment, house-work, job, school, vocation, work etc.), intimacy (child interaction, children, family, friends, marriage, partnerships, relatives, sex life, spouse, etc.), safety (control, amount of privacy, financial security, legal and T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 556 safety, etc.), community (area you live in, city, clubs belongs one to, community, coun- try, education, helping others, social life, etc.), emotional well-being (beautiful things, free-time activity, fun, hobbies, leisure, spiritual, reading, recreation, religion, sports or games, etc.). Literature [16] focused on judgments of life satisfaction with samples of students in California. In their satisfaction rating research, aspects of life contain job, academic oppor- tunities, financial situation, personal safety, social life, outdoor activities, natural beauty, overall climate, cultural opportunities, summer weather and winter weather. Literature [5] studied life satisfaction and eight different domains in adult northern Sweden by questionnaires. They investigated eight different domains involving ability to manage self-care activities (dressing, hygiene, and so on), leisure, vocational situation, financial situation, sexual life, family life, and contacts with friends and acquaintances. In 2002, literature [6] assessed life satisfaction with 10 domains to do research on a sample of adults (18-64 years old) in Sweden. Similarly, the 10 different domains were vocation, economy, leisure, contacts, sexual life, ADL (activities of daily life), family life, partner relationship, somatic health, psychological health. Literature [8] investigated relationship of the sense of community and life satisfaction and concluded that they are highly related only in small towns and cities. Literature [7] studied Students Life Satisfaction Scale and investigated reports on high levels of global satisfaction, which is thought to be especially associated with some inter- personal and intrapersonal mental health indicators. Literature [9] have reviewed the literature of youth life satisfaction for youth up to age 19 and provided with extensive research review to show how life satisfaction among youth are related to various criteria: demographic variables, social desir- ability, personality, physical health (exercise, substance abuse), productivity (em- ployment, goals and motivation, achieving personal standards, hope, self-efficacy), rela- tionships (parental marital status, siblings, social support, parenting style, family func- tioning), environment (environmental quality, relocation, life events), culture (accul- turation, cross-cultural comparisons, cultural values), risk-taking (violence, victimiza- tion, sexual behavior/pregnancy), disabilities (physical disabilities, mental disabilities), psycho-physiological problems (eating disorders, obesity), and psychopathology (de- pression, loneliness, suicide, emotional disturbance, insomnia). Literature [3] assessed life satisfaction among college students in different nations to measure the relationship of life satisfaction with specific domains including finance, friends, and family. We also investigated many other relevant studies’s domains of life satisfaction that we T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 557 could not detail because of space limitations. Considering the factors proposed in previous studies and our own panel’s deliberation, we selected 58 factors and grouped them into 5 levels, including the goal, in a hierarchy as criteria and subcriteria. In examining prior research on life satisfaction criteria, there does not seem to have been to date an effort to prioritize the relative importance of these criteria. There has been no attempt to measure the individual or collective impact of these identified criteria on life satisfaction. By using the Analytic Hierarchy Process we can not only measure the impact of each criterion, but also consider the effect of both tangible and intangible factors. 3. Method 3.1. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Summary [14] The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a modeling and measurement method as well as a scientific approach to measure tangibles and intangibles that is used to deter- mine the relative importance of a set of activities or criteria. The novel aspect and major distinction of this approach is that by using it, the parties are able to structure and pri- oritize any complex, multi-person, multi-criteria, and multi-period problem hierarchically. The overall goal is to resolve the conflict. Using a method which relies on the judgments of the participants, priorities are derived for the elements in each level of the hierarchy with respect to an element (e.g., a criterion or property they share) in the next higher level. To quantify the judgments, a matrix of pairwise comparisons of the activities is con- structed where the entries indicate the strength with which one element dominates another with respect to a given criterion. This scaling formulation is translated into a principal eigenvalue problem which results in a normalized and unique vector of priority weights for each level of the hierarchy (always with respect to an element in the next level above) which in turn results in a single composite vector of weights for the entire hierarchy. This vector measures the relative priority of all entities in the lowest level that enables the accomplishment of the highest objective of the hierarchy. These relative priority weights can provide guidelines for the allocation of resources among the entities at the lower levels of the hierarchy. When hierarchies are designed to reflect likely environmental scenar- ios, corporate objectives, current and proposed product/market alternatives, and various marketing strategy options, the AHP can provide a framework and methodology for the determination of a number of key corporate and marketing decisions of the firm [15, 17]. By way of further elaboration, each pair in the comparisons is evaluated separately as to the degree to which one item of a pair dominates the other with respect to each of the elements (or properties) in the next upper level of the hierarchy. The smaller or lesser one is used as the unit and the larger one is estimated as a multiple of that unit. To provide a numerical judgment in making such pairwise comparisons, a reliable and workable scale T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 558 is needed. We assume that the elements involved in the comparison are homogeneous by having the same order of magnitude; i.e., their relative weights do not differ by more than 9. Otherwise, they are separated into clusters with a common element from one cluster to the next. The 9-point scale used in typical Analytic Hierarchy studies is given in Table 1 [10]. We have assumed that an element with weight zero is eliminated from comparison because zero can be applied to the whole universe of factors not included in the decomposition. Table 1: Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers. Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation 1 Equal Importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective 2 Weak or slight 3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly fa- vor one activity over another 4 Moderate plus 5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly fa- vor one activity over another 6 Strong plus 7 Very strong or demonstrated importance An activity is favored very strongly over another; its dominance demon- strated in practice 8 Very, very strong 9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation 1.1 − 1.9 When activities are very close a decimal is added to 1 to show their difference as appropriate A better alternative way to assigning the small decimals is to compare two close activities with other widely con- trasting ones, favoring the larger one a little over the smaller one when using the 1 − 9 values. Reciprocals of above If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers as- signed to it when compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when com- pared with i A logical assumption By way of validation of this scale that has been mathematically derived from stimulus T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 559 response theory [10–12], here is an example developed by a group of 30 people that shows that the scale works well on homogeneous elements of many real life problems. A matrix of paired comparison judgments was used some time ago to estimate relative drink consumption in the United States. To make the comparisons, the types of drinks are listed on the left and at the top of Table 2, and judgment is made as to how strongly the consumption of a drink on the left dominates that of a drink at the top. For example, when coffee on the left is compared with wine at the top, it is thought that coffee is consumed extremely more and a 9 is entered in the first row and second column position. A 1/9 is automatically entered in the second row and first column position, because when the second drink is compared with the first, it has the reciprocal value. If the consumption of a drink on the left does not dominate that of a drink at the top, the reciprocal value is entered. Again in comparing coffee and water in the first row and eighth column position, water is consumed more than coffee slightly and a 1/2 is entered there. Correspondingly, a value of 2 is entered in the eighth row and first column position. At the right of Table 2, we see that the derived values and the actual values (obtained from various pages of the Statistical Abstract of the United States) are close by nearly any measure of closeness. Table 2: Relative Consumption of Drinks. Drinks Coffee Wine Tea Beer Sodas Milk Water Derived priorities Actual relative consumption Coffee 1 9 3 1 1/2 1 1/2 0.142 0.133 Wine 1/9 1 1/3 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.019 0.014 Tea 1/3 3 1 1/4 1/5 1/4 1/5 0.046 0.040 Beer 1 9 4 1 1/2 1 1 0.164 0.173 Sodas 2 9 5 2 1 2 1 0.252 0.267 Milk 1 9 4 1 1/2 1 1/2 0.148 0.129 Water 2 9 5 1 1 2 1 0.228 0.240 Hierarchic synthesis is obtained by a process of weighting and adding down the hier- archy leading to a multilinear form. The hierarchic composition principle is a theorem in the AHP that is a particular case of network composition (see [13], p.131) which deals with the cycles and loops of a network. 3.2. The Analytic Hierarchy Process Model of Life Satisfaction Our analysis has lead us to the following list of factors that are fundamental in the evaluation of personal satisfaction. We also hope that this list is sufficiently general and inclusive to represent the advantages of using the AHP as a primary tool of analysis. The list is then followed by a hierarchic Figure 1 that stratifies the factors from the more T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 560 to the less general. It is then followed by the tables of paired comparisons from which all the priorities are derived. The judgments were made by an international panel of 5 knowledgeable people with diverse set of backgrounds and cultures who spent much time in debating each judgment and its value. • Goal: Degree of fulfillment-What level of satisfaction has the following criteria made your life more worthwhile? • Criteria: Life and birth environment - Our existence. Other people - Caring about people in general and how they are treated. Individual - How well is one satisfied with oneself? • Environment subcriteria: Physical - The satisfaction it provides us. Human rights - How free people are to satisfy their needs. • Other people subcriteria: Social - It includes respect from people in the community and charity. Relationships - How having relationships with others provides satisfac- tion for one. Individual subcriteria: Body - Physical ability to achieve realistic goals. Mind - Sufficient mental capacity to enjoy and experience life-fulfilling activities. • Physical: Food - For better health and enjoyment. Shelter and housing - Degree of protection from severe elements of nature. Garden - Growing plants and vegeta- bles and enjoying their beauty and substance. Pets - Love for animals. Climate - Satisfaction about the type of weather one lives in. • Human rights: Freedom / Liberty / Personal Safety - Opportunity for people to express their instinctual selves in a safe manner. Equality - Having the same op- portunities, rights, and status. Fraternity - Caring about others as one cares about oneself. • Social: Respect from people in the community - Being appreciated and recognized in the communities that one is a member of, like communities based on knowledge, ethnicity, religion and other specialized communities. Charity - Giving one’s own resources to support people or causes that the donors believe in. • Relationships: Having children and / or adopting children- Provides the feeling of nurturing, belonging and continuity. Children’s accomplishments - Pride and satis- faction in giving children the love and opportunity to succeed. Immediate family - Provides a loving environment and a support system (partners, children and parents). Extended family - Makes one feel part of a broader system (Sisters and brothers and in laws). Other family relatives - Further extension of relations. Friends - People one chooses to share one’s life with. Service providers - Doctor, lawyer, housekeeper, plumber and the confidence and respect one has in and for them. Community - How actively one is involved in groups of which one is a member? Volunteer work - Giving back to the community without regard to remuneration. T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 561 • Body: Health - One’s physical well-being. Strength Physical ability to do whatever you were able to previously and what you want to do in the future. • Mind: Psychological - Mental and emotional capacity of people to support their goals. Status - Professional standing of someone relative to others. Education and experience - Opportunity to learn through academic, work and street experience. Leisure - Opportunity to enjoy time available for personal pleasure. Spiritual - Reli- gious or non-religious beliefs used to understand inexplicable phenomena. Memory - Memory is the process in which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved. • Psychological: Motivation and self-drive - Having discipline and the willingness to work consistently to achieve one’s goals in life. Balanced personality - Emotional, career and relationship stability to achieve a desired level of satisfaction. Personal achievement - Fulfillment of one’s goals in life. Attainment of career objectives - Sufficient mental ability to make progress in fulfilling one’s career aspirations. Self- image - Personal perception of one’s impact on the groups to which one belongs. Empathy - Appreciation of the feelings, values, and commitments of others. Lead- ership - Ability to take action and influence others. Risk-taking - Willingness to pursue objectives whose outcomes are uncertain. Creative thinking - The ability to imagine new concepts through problem identification and idea generation. • Status: Recognition - Appreciation by others for one’s contributions. Wealth - Sufficient resources to meet one’s lifestyle expectations. Influence and power - Ability to affect the behavior and actions of others. Education and experience: Career aspirations - Satisfaction from pursuing meaningful work. Educational attainment - Seeking the desired level of knowledge and skill to reach one’s personal and work aspirations. • Leisure: Sex - Quality and quantity of one’s intimate relationships. Art - Appreci- ation of style and beauty. Music - Appreciation of beauty, harmony and expression of emotion through sound. Watch TV, movies, opera, ballet, and reading. Enjoy expression of artistic skills of other people. Speakers - Enjoy learning and entertain- ment of shared ideas and experiences. Sports and challenging activities - Actively or passively experiencing athletic activities and adventures. Hobbies - Optional activ- ities for personal satisfaction. Travel - Opportunity to experience different cultures and places. Couch potato - Relaxing and enjoying oneself without specific purpose and action. Pairwise comparisons are shown in Table 3 - 16. In each matrix, the element on the left side is compared according to its dominance over each element at the top with respect to the criterion listed in the top left box of the matrix. We also constructed an Excel. file in questionnaire form that anyone can fill in and test their life satisfaction without assistance. It is shown in Figure 2. People can fill in the last line under each cover criterion with scales we defined at the top (Outstanding 1.0, Excellent T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 562 Table 3: Pairwise Comparisons of Criteria with Respect to Degree of Fulfillment. Degree of fulfillment Individual Life and birth environment Other people Priorities Individual 1 7 4 0.6955 Life and birth environment 1/7 1 1/4 0.0754 Other people 1/4 4 1 0.2291 Table 4: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Life and Birth Environment. Life and birth environment Human rights Physical Priorities Human rights 1 4 0.8 Physical 1/4 1 0.2 Table 5: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Other People. Other people Relationship Social Priorities Relationship 1 4 0.8 Social 1/4 1 0.2 Table 6: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Individual. Individual Body Mind Priorities Body 1 1/3 0.25 Mind 3 1 0.75 Table 7: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Body. Body Health Strength Priorities Health 1 4 0.8 Strength 1/4 1 0.2 0.9, Very Good 0.8, Good 0.7, Fair 0.6, Average 0.5, Below average 0.4, Poor 0.3, Very poor 0.2, Unacceptable 0.1, and finally Irrelevant 0.0). When one factor is inapplicable for a user, the influences of other factors will be reallocated to make them sum to one. The questionnaire can then compute the total life satisfaction degree automatically. The questionnaire in Figure 2 can be downloaded and used to assess the reader ’s level of life-satisfaction at https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ao0b6FaIKSXM\_AiH8x7JG5E09QCV The meaning of the final value of the satisfaction index is by determining where it falls between outstanding and unacceptable. T. L. Saaty, H. J. Zoffer, L. Wei / Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math, 11 (3) (2018), 553-574 563 Table 8: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Mind. Mind Spiritual Education and Ex- perience Leisure Psychological Status Memory Priorities Spiritual 1 1/6 1/2 1/6 1/3 1 0.0467 Education and Experi- ence 6 1 6 4 3 6 0.3923 Leisure 2 1/6 1 1/6 1/4 3 0.0969 Psychological 6 1/4 6 1 4 1/5 0.1876 Status 3 1/3 4 1/4 1 1/2 0.1050 Memory 1 1/6 1/3 5 2 1 0.1715 Table 9: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Physical. Physical Food Shelter and Housing Garden Pets Climate Priorities Food 1 3 8 8 8 0.5131 Shelter and Housing 1/3 1 8 7 6 0.3052 Garden 1/8 1/8 1 1/3 1/5 0.0312 Pets 1/8 1/7 3 1 3 0.0857 Climate 1/8 1/6 5 1/3 1 0.0648 Table 10: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Human Rights. Human rights Freedom,Liberty,personal safety Equality Fraternity Priorities Freedom,Liberty,personal safety 1 7 7 0.7778 Equality 1/7 1 1 0.1111 Fraternity 1/7 1 1 0.1111 Table 11: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Social. Human rights Respect from people in community Charity Priorities Respect from people in community 1 1/6 0.1429 Charity 6 1 0. 8571 4. Conclusions Using this approach we have provided a new analytical tool for structuring and mea- suring the relative importance of each factor in a hierarchy. No other approach more REFERENCES 564 effectively measures the importance of each factor and its relationship to all other factors. While much of the earlier research has identified numerous factors affecting life satisfac- tion, prior to the availability of the AHP there has been no way to effectively measure the influence and importance of each factor as it affects and is affected by other factors. There are several reasons why this is important. One is that it makes it possible to include in a single hierarchy both tangible and intangible factors and to measure their rel- ative importance in affecting life satisfaction. If desired, known measurements of tangible factors can be effectively and optimally used in making the quantitative comparisons. In fact the priorities can be obtained from the measurements by dividing each measurement by the sum of all the measurements involved. The second reason is that language alone cannot adequately describe the outcome of interaction of many influences. The net result of many influences that differ in intensity so that they cycle with feedback cannot be captured by using words only. Numbers are needed to capture the multitude of interacting and cycling influences. References [1] Gary A Adams, Lynda A King, and Daniel W King. Relationships of job and fam- ily involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4):411–420, 1996. [2] Robert A Cummins. The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social indicators research, 38(3):303–328, 1996. [3] Ed Diener and Marissa Diener. Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self- esteem. In Culture and well-being, pages 71–91. Springer, 2009. [4] Michael B Frisch, John Cornell, Michael Villanueva, and Paul J Retzlaff. Clinical validation of the quality of life inventory. a measure of life satisfaction for use in treatment planning and outcome assessment. Psychological assessment, 4(1):92, 1992. [5] Axel R Fugl-Meyer, Inga-Britt Bränholm, and Kerstin S Fugl-Meyer. Happiness and domain-specific life satisfaction in adult northern swedes. Clinical rehabilitation, 5(1):25–33, 1991. [6] Axel R Fugl-Meyer, Roland Melin, and Kerstin S Fugl-Meyer. Life satisfaction in 18-to 64-year-old swedes: in relation to gender, age, partner and immigrant status. Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 34(5):239–246, 2002. [7] Rich Gilman and E Scott Huebner. Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3):293–301, 2006. REFERENCES 565 [8] Miretta Prezza and Stefano Costantini. Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in three different territorial contexts. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 8(3):181–194, 1998. [9] Carmel L Proctor, P Alex Linley, and John Maltby. Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of happiness studies, 10(5):583–630, 2009. [10] Thomas L Saaty. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3):234–281, 1977. [11] Thomas L Saaty. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw, 281, 1980. [12] Thomas L Saaty. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage- ment science, 32(7):841–855, 1986. [13] Thomas L Saaty. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS Publication, 1996. [14] Thomas L Saaty. Mathematical principles of decision making (Principia mathematica decernendi). RWS publications, 2010. [15] Thomas L Saaty and Luis G Vargas. The possibility of group choice: pairwise com- parisons and merging functions. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(3):481–496, 2012. [16] David A Schkade and Daniel Kahneman. Does living in california make people happy? a focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5):340– 346, 1998. [17] Yoram Wind and Thomas L Saaty. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7):641–658, 1980. REFERENCES 566 Figure 1: Network of Degree of Fulfillment. REFERENCES 567 Table 12: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Relationship. R el at io n sh ip H av in g ch il - d re n a n d (o r) a d o p t- in g ch il - d re n C h il d re n ’s a cc om p li sh - m en ts Im m ed ia te fa m il y E x te n d ed fa m il y O th er fa m il y re la - ti ve s F ri en d s S er v ic e p ro v id er s C om m u n it y V o lu n te er w or k P ri or it ie s H av in g ch il d re n an d (o r) ad op ti n g ch il d re n 1 7 5 7 8 2 7 8 8 0 .3 6 13 C h il d re n ’s a cc om p li sh - m en t 1 /7 1 4 6 8 4 9 7 7 0 .2 1 83 Im m ed ia te F am il y 1 /5 1 / 4 1 7 8 5 9 9 9 0 .1 7 99 E x te n d ed fa m il y 1 /7 1 / 6 1 /7 1 2 1/ 6 1/ 3 1/ 4 1 /4 0 .0 1 85 O th er fa m - il y re la ti ve s 1 /8 1 / 8 1 /8 1/ 2 1 1/ 7 1/ 5 1/ 4 1 /6 0 .0 1 37 F ri en d s 1 /2 1 / 4 1 /4 6 7 1 7 3 5 0 .1 0 17 S er v ic e p ro v id er s 1 /7 1 / 9 1 /9 3 5 1/ 7 1 5 1 0 .0 4 03 C o m m u n it y 1 /8 1 / 7 1 /9 4 4 1/ 3 1/ 5 1 1 /3 0 .0 2 75 V o lu n te er w o rk 1 /8 1 / 7 1 /9 4 4 1/ 5 1 3 1 0 .0 3 88 REFERENCES 568 Table 13: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Psychological. P sy ch o lo g ic al M ot iv a ti o n an d se lf - d ri ve B a la n ce d p er so n al it y P er so n al a ch ie ve - m en t A tt ai n m en t of ca re er ob je ct iv es S el f- im ag e E m p at h y L ea d er sh ip R is k - ta k in g C re at iv e th in k in g P ri or it ie s M o ti va ti on a n d se lf - d ri ve 1 4 1 4 6 1 4 3 1/ 4 0. 17 28 48 B al an ce d p er so n a li ty 1/ 4 1 1 /4 1/ 5 1/ 2 1/ 4 1/ 4 1/ 3 1/ 8 0. 02 34 77 P er so n al ac h ie ve - m en t 1 4 1 1 3 2 6 6 2 0. 19 49 15 A tt ai n m en t of ca re er ob je ct iv es 1/ 4 5 1 1 4 1 6 4 1 0. 14 76 06 S el f- im a ge 1/ 6 2 1 /3 1/ 4 1 1/ 2 1/ 3 1/ 3 1/ 5 0. 03 23 51 E m p a th y 1 4 1 /2 1 2 1 1 2 1/ 8 0. 08 22 94 L ea d er sh ip 1/ 4 4 1 /6 1/ 6 3 1 1 2 1/ 2 0. 06 31 82 R is k -t ak in g 1/ 3 3 1 /6 1/ 4 3 1/ 2 1/ 2 1 1/ 2 0. 05 15 2 C re at iv e th in k in g 4 8 1 /2 1 5 8 2 2 1 0. 23 18 07 REFERENCES 569 Table 14: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Status. Status Recognition Wealth Influence and power Priorities Recognition 1 4 4 0.6608 Wealth 1/4 1 1/2 0.1311 Influence and power 1/4 2 1 0.2081 Table 15: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Education and Experience. Education and experience Career aspirations Educational attainment Priorities Career aspirations 1 1/2 0.3333 Educational attainment 2 1 0.6667 REFERENCES 570 Table 16: Pairwise Comparisons of Subcriteria of Leisure. L ei su re S ex A rt M u si c W a tc h T V , m ov ie s, op er a an d b a ll et , an d re ad in g S p ea ke rs S p or ts a n d ch a ll en gi n g a ct iv it ie s H ob b ie s a n d in ve n - ti on s T ra ve l C ou ch p ot at o P ri or it ie s S ex 1 5 5 6 7 4 3 5 5 0. 33 66 A rt 1/ 5 1 1 1 3 1 1/ 3 1/ 3 1/ 3 0. 05 28 M u si c 1/ 5 1 1 3 4 1 1/ 3 4 1/ 2 0. 08 93 W at ch T V , m ov ie s, op er a , b a l- le t, a n d re ad in g 1/ 6 1 1 /3 1 2 1 1/ 3 1/ 3 1/ 3 0. 04 33 S p ea ke rs 1/ 7 1 / 3 1 /4 1/ 2 1 1/ 4 1/ 4 1/ 4 1/ 4 0. 02 45 S p or ts a n d ch al le n g in g ac ti v it ie s 1/ 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1/ 3 0. 08 22 H o b b ie s an d in ve n - ti on s 1/ 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 5 1/ 3 0. 13 40 T ra ve l 1/ 5 3 1 /4 3 4 1/ 3 1/ 5 1 1/ 5 0. 06 22 C ou ch p o ta to 1/ 5 3 2 3 4 3 3 5 1 0. 17 51 REFERENCES 571 Figure 2a: Individual Life Satisfaction Rating Model, Part I. REFERENCES 572 Figure 2b: Individual Life Satisfaction Rating Model, Part II. REFERENCES 573 Figure 2c: Individual Life Satisfaction Rating Model, Part III. REFERENCES 574 Figure 2d: Individual Life Satisfaction Rating Model, Part IV.