What is savoring?

Savoring is conceptualized as “the capacity to attend to, appreciate, and enhance the positive experiences in one’s life” (Bryant & Veroff, 2007, p. xi). Reflecting the notion that “happiness does not consist in things themselves but in the relish we have of them” (de La Rochefoucauld, 1796, p. 51), the ability to cultivate positive feelings via savoring is considered an essential antecedent of well-being (Bryant, 2021). Savoring encompasses three temporal orientations: one can savor future positive experiences before they occur (anticipation), savor present positive experiences as they unfold (savoring the moment), or savor past positive experiences after they are over (reminiscence). Moreover, anticipating, savoring the moment, and reminiscing all act to create or regulate positive feelings in the here-and-now.

Correlates of savoring

A wealth of research has found that individual differences in savoring ability are positively related to well-being, e.g., happiness, life satisfaction, positive affect, and optimism (Smith & Bryant, 2017), and are negatively related to ill-being, e.g., depressive symptoms and negative affect (Ford et al., 2017). The ability to recognize and appreciate positive experience also promotes resilience in dealing with adversity (Sytine et al., 2019) and buffers people from the deleterious effects of stress (Hou et al., 2017). In addition, experimental studies have documented the psychological benefits of structured interventions that teach people savoring skills (Smith & Hanni, 2019). Moreover, research has found a variety of behaviors that are associated with savoring. These include: (a) focusing attention on sensory-perceptual details of positive experiences to deepen awe or pleasure (Sato et al., 2018); (b) recalling past positive memories to create positive feelings (Bryant et al., 2005); (c) actively building memories of ongoing positive events to facilitate present and future enjoyment (Smith & Bryant, 2013); (d) outwardly expressing one’s feelings and sharing them with others to boost positive affect (Lambert et al., 2013); and (e) deliberately engaging in self-congratulation to enhance pride (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Collectively, these behaviors accentuate positive emotions, increase well-being, and decrease symptoms of negative affect and depression (Bryant, 2021).

Savoring is also related to personality traits and various individual differences. For example, extraversion and dispositional affect intensity are positively related to savoring ability, whereas hopelessness and neuroticism are negatively related (Bryant, 2003). Dispositional optimism is positively related to the tendency to savor by counting one’s blessings, whereas dispositional pessimism is positively related to the tendency to engage in kill-joy thinking, which dampens positive affect and reduces enjoyment of positive experiences (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Higher levels of wisdom are associated with a greater tendency to savor by building memories and sharing feelings with others and with a lower tendency to engage in kill-joy thinking (Beaumont, 2011). Moreover, people with secure attachment styles tend to respond to positive experiences in ways that amplify their positive emotions more than people with insecure attachment styles (Gentzler et al., 2010), and greater dispositional impatience is associated with use of savoring strategies that undermine enjoyment (Smith & Bryant, 2013).

At a micro level, daily diary research has shown that positive events enhance mood by increasing momentary savoring. Thus, experiencing positive events does not increase well-being unless one also savors these outcomes (Jose et al., 2012). Furthermore, experience-sampling studies indicate that savoring facilitates well-being across the adult lifespan (Growney et al., 2025), and prospective research shows that savoring ability attenuates declines in well-being among older adults (Stephens et al., 2025). Savoring ability is also positively correlated with internal locus of control, value fulfilment, self-esteem, and happiness, and is negatively correlated with neuroticism, guilt, anhedonia, and hopelessness (Bryant, 2003).

Moving beyond self-report measures, neuropsychological research has documented the critical role savoring plays in the regulation of positive emotions. For example, participants instructed in how to savor positive pictures showed increased picture-elicited neural responses that persist over time, compared to those who passively viewed these images (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021). When experiencing random gain or loss feedback while performing a task, participants who had greater savoring ability had smaller reductions in their neural responses to reward across trials, compared with participants who had less savoring ability (Irvin et al., 2022). Research also suggests that deficits in the ability to savor mental imagery play a role in the development and maintenance of depression (Jackson et al., 2024).

As cross-cultural research on savoring has expanded, researchers have adapted the original English version of the SBI for use in other countries, including China, Egypt, France, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Romania, Russia, Spain, Thailand, and Turkey (Bryant, 2021). The present study was designed to expand this list to include Poland.

Participants

Participants were 574 Polish adults who were recruited by Pollster, a Polish survey company. The average age of participants was 38.1 years (SD = 14.5), 76% of participants were women, 41.1% ended their formal education at high school, and 30.5% lived in a village or a city with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants. Note that our sample was larger than the samples reported in roughly 70% of the studies included in a review of 1,750 psychometric validation articles (White, 2022).

Ethical statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki regarding the rights of research participants. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, SWPS University, Poznań, protocol 2024-245.

Measures

The present study was designed to validate a Polish-language version of the Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI; Bryant, 2003), which was published in English. A Polish-language version of this scale was developed by a research team that included members who were fluent in both Polish and English. First, the English-language items of the scale were translated by a team member who was fluent in both Polish and English. These translated items were then back-translated by another team member who was also fluent in both Polish and English. Questions and differences of opinion about these translations were then discussed by the full team. Following this, the scale was administered to a sample recruited by Pollster (n = 26), who were compensated for providing feedback on the items. No problems in terms of comprehensibility, clarity of items, response scale, etc., were reported.

The SBI comprises 24 items that measure three constructs – anticipating, savoring the moment, and reminiscing – with eight items for each construct. Half of the items for each construct are positively worded, e.g., ‘I know how to make the most of good times,’ and half are negatively worded, e.g., ‘I cannot capture the joy of happy moments.’ English and Polish versions of the original 24-item scale are included in the online supplemental materials on the Open Science Framework (OSF) site. Our goal was to develop a briefer version of the scale to reduce the demand on respondents, something that may be important for surveys measuring multiple constructs.

Participants also completed measures to provide a basis to examine the convergent validity of the new scale. We administered Polish-language versions of the following:

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Łaguna et al., 2007); the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Jankowski, 2015); the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, which has two subscales, Presence of Meaning in Life and Search for Meaning in Life (MLP, MLS; Kossakowska et al., 2013); the 8-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD-8), a measure of depression (ESS, 2022); the Authenticity Scale, which was scored as a single total score (Gutral et al., 2024); the Mental Health Continuum Questionnaire, which was scored as a single total score (MHC; Karaś et al., 2014); and a 4-item version of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item questionnaire (GAD-7), a measure of anxiety (Spitzer et al., n.d.). With the exception of the CESD-8 and the GAD-7, participants responded to the items using a five-point scale with endpoints labeled 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). For the CESD-8 and GAD-7, participants used the standard four-point scales (0 to 3). The items for each measure were presented in a random order, and the measures were also presented in a random order.

Data availability

All data are available via the Open Science Framework. The OSF site for this study includes a fully annotated SPSS file and an accompanying codebook, and a csv data file. The URL is: https://osf.io/fvsn8/view_only=3c15a328dde946c3a7f1a626ab676426

Confirmatory factor analyses of SBI items

First, using Mplus v.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) we conducted a maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a full-information estimator (FIML) that examined the fit between the full 24-item data set and the original five-factor model, which included three substantive factors and two methods factors, one for positively valent items and the other for negatively valent items (Bryant, 2003). Confirming earlier work with the original SBI, this analysis found that the five-factor model fit the data well, χ²(224) = 535.7, CFI = .932, TLI = .916, SRMR = .053, RMSEA = .049, 90% CI [.044, .055].

Nevertheless, our goal was to produce a briefer version of the SBI. An inspection of the coefficients from the analysis of the 24-item scale suggested that a 12-item scale consisting of the four positively worded items from each of the three subscales would be appropriate. Moreover, using only positively worded items avoided the need to include method factors, reduced respondent burden by including fewer items, and eliminated the potential confusion involved in endorsing high levels of savoring ability by rejecting negative items. Previous researchers have used only the positively worded items of the SBI to create a 12-item English version (Samios et al., 2022) and a 12-item Mandarin Chinese version (Lin et al., 2011). The English- and Polish-language versions of the 12 items we selected are presented in Table 1.

Accordingly, we conducted a CFA to examine the fit between our data and a three-factor model with four items measuring each factor. This analysis revealed that the proposed three-factor model fit the data well, χ²(51) = 210.2, CFI = .925, TLI = .903, SRMR = .047, RMSEA = .074, 90% CI [.064, .084]. The validity of this three-factor model was further supported by the fact that it fit the data significantly better than a single-factor model (Δχ²(3) = 163.4, p < .001). Standardized factor loadings from the three-factor CFA are presented in Table 1.

Similar to the results for the original 24-item English-language SBI (Bryant, 2003), the correlations between the factors in the CFA for the 12-item Polish SBI were: .84 between Anticipation and Savoring the Moment (original .61); .77 between Anticipation and Reminiscence (original .56), and .64 between Savoring the Moment and Reminiscence (original .86). Similar to the findings from the original American sample, savoring the moment shares between 44% and 70% of its variance with the other savoring temporal domains in the Polish sample (compared to 31% to 74% shared variance in the original American sample).

Given the fact that there were more women in our sample than there were men, on an exploratory basis we examined the invariance of the three-factor solution between women and men. These analyses showed that the factor structures of the SBI were the same for women and men. A summary of these analyses is presented in the Supplementary materials.

Based on these analyses, we computed separate scores representing anticipatory savoring, momentary savoring, and savoring via reminiscence. Using responses to the 12-item Polish SBI, anticipatory savoring was defined as the mean response to the first four items in Table 1, momentary savoring was defined as the mean response to the next four items in Table 1, and savoring via reminiscence was defined as the mean response to the last four items in Table 1. Recall that these items were administered to participants in a random order.

Summary statistics for the three subscales and full scale were: Anticipate, M = 3.61, SD = .69, ω = .72; Momentary, M = 3.52, SD = .72, ω = .77; Reminisce, M = 3.82, SD = .70, ω = .77; and full scale, M = 3.65, SD = .59, ω = .86. Correlations between the subscales were Anticipate–Momentary, .624; Anticipate–Reminisce, .558, and Momentary–Reminisce, .476. All p values were < .001. The reliability coefficients indicate that all measures had what Shrout (1998) defined as “moderate” reliability (.61 to .80), and the total score had “substantial” reliability (.81 or greater). Moreover, the means for all measures of savoring were between 3.0 and 4.0, suggesting that floor and ceiling effects were not pronounced for these measures. Summary statistics and correlations for all measures are presented in a supplemental table.

Validating measures: descriptive statistics and correlations with savoring

Summary statistics for the measures used to assess the construct validity of our measure of savoring ability, as well as correlations between these validating measures and the three savoring subscales are presented in the supplemental table. Supporting the validity of the Polish-language SBI as a measure of savoring ability, all three subscales and the total score were negatively related to anxiety (GAD-7 scores) and depression (CESD-8 scores). Also, as expected, the ability to savor was positively related to self-esteem, satisfaction with life, the total score of the Mental Health Continuum scale, authenticity, presence of meaning in life, and search for meaning in life.

Multiple regressions: savoring on well-being

Scores on the three SBI subscales were significantly correlated with each other and with all measures of well-being. Given this, we were interested to know how the SBI subscale scores were related to well-being when these relationships were examined simultaneously. To address this issue, we conducted a series of regression analyses in which scores for measures of well-being were regressed onto scores for the three savoring subscales. Based on previous research demonstrating the centrality of momentary savoring (Bryant, 2003, 2021), we expected that the ability to savor the moment would be related more strongly to well-being than the ability to savor via anticipation or reminiscence.

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2. Not surprisingly given the zero-order correlations between savoring and well-being, all the regression models were statistically significant. Of particular note was the fact that savoring via reminiscence was not significantly related to any measure of well-being in these analyses. As expected, the most consistent predictor of well-being was momentary savoring, which was significantly related to all measures of well-being except for search for meaning in life. Anticipatory savoring was significantly related to five of the eight measures of well-being, although these regression coefficients were somewhat smaller than the coefficients for momentary savoring.

Relationships between the three subscales and well-being

In addition to validating the a priori psychometric structure of the proposed scale, the present results also provide support for the construct validity of the 12-item Polish-language SBI as a measure of savoring ability. Replicating and extending prior work, savoring ability was positively correlated with self-esteem, life satisfaction, mental health, authenticity, and perceived meaning in life and was negatively correlated with anxiety and depression. In addition, relationships between the SBI subscales and well-being differed, suggesting that the subscales of the Polish SBI measure distinct aspects of savoring.

Distinguishing savoring from related constructs

Although savoring is positively related to well-being, it is important to delineate the conceptual boundaries of savoring and to distinguish it from related but separate constructs, such as coping, positive rumination, mindfulness, and flow. Whereas coping entails the regulation of negative feelings in response to negative experience, savoring involves the regulation of positive feelings either reactively in response to positive events or feelings, or proactively by deliberately seeking out or creating positive experience (Bryant, 2021). Although savoring can support coping efforts by serving as a “breather” or “sustainer” (Lazarus et al., 1980) or by enhancing positive emotions (Samios et al., 2020), being able to cope with bad times does not mean that one is able to savor good times (Bryant, 1989). In other words, just because people are not “down” does not mean they are “up.”

Some styles of savoring also overlap conceptually with positive rumination, which involves a tendency to react to positive affective states with repetitive thoughts about one’s positive qualities, positive affective experience, and favorable life circumstances (Feldman et al., 2008). Nevertheless, given that positive rumination reflects what people “generally think and do” when they feel happy (Feldman et al., 2008, p. 511), positive rumination embodies a more stable cognitive trait, whereas savoring is a process involving both cognitive and behavioral responses to specific positive events or emotions that vary across situations (Bryant & Veroff, 2007).

Savoring is also distinct from mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). When people savor, they are mindful of positive experience, but their attention is not necessarily open to all external or internal stimuli, and unlike the more passive, receptive state of being mindful, when people savor they actively attempt to alter ongoing experience. As Beaumont (2011) noted, “mindfulness involves present-moment awareness of one’s experiences, whereas savoring involves regulating and prolonging the positive aspects of those experiences” (p. 160). Although people must be mindfully aware of ongoing positive experiences to savor them, just because they are mindfully aware of an ongoing positive experience does not guarantee they will savor it (Ritchie & Bryant, 2012).

Savoring also shares experiential features of flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), which occur when people’s skills match the demands of a task in which they are engaging. In such activities, people lose a sense of both themselves and the passage of time, and they are totally absorbed in the task at hand. Compared to flow activity, savoring entails more conscious attention to the ongoing experience. Self-awareness disrupts the process of flow (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), whereas self-awareness is at the heart of savoring. In contrast to flow, an essential defining feature of savoring is a pervasive meta-awareness of pleasure, as well as conscious attention to the experience of pleasure (Bryant, 2021).

Limitations and future directions

The present study has several limitations. First, we relied on concurrent self-report measures to examine relationships between our Polish adaptation of the SBI and measures of well-being and distress. Although informative, future research is needed examining relationships between the Polish-language SBI and behavioral and neuropsychological measures. Prospective research designs are also needed. Such research could broaden the evidence base and expand the nomological net of constructs to which the Polish-language SBI is related. We have no reasons to believe that the results of such studies would be different from the results of studies using the original, English-language SBI, but it is possible that they may differ.

The present study collected data on only a single occasion. This meant that although the three subscales of our new measure were internally reliable, the stability of scores across time could not be estimated. Stability across time can be evaluated both relatively, e.g., test-retest reliability, and absolutely, i.e., how similar a person’s scores are across time. Both require multiple assessments, which will require further research.