The majority of people in Norway are satisfied with their life. However, some groups in society report greater dissatisfaction with life and less frequently feel a sense of mastery and positive emotions.
The national statistics on quality of life enable comparisons of different groups’ This concerns respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction with life overall and with important areas of life, various aspects of psychological functioning and realisation of their potential, as well as the presence of positive and negative emotions. and follow developments over time. The Quality of Life Survey have now been conducted 5 consecutive years since the first survey in 2020.
People with a higher education and/or a high income and the working population are among the groups with highest life satisfaction and good quality of life. People living with a partner or spouse also tend to be more satisfied than the population average on many of the indicators included in the statistics.
Those outside the labour force or with health problems, and single people, are among the groups less satisfied with life and more likely to report a low quality of life. Non-heterosexuals are also among the most vulnerable groups.
Finances, marital status and health all impact on quality of life
On average, the Norwegian population rates overall life satisfaction slightly less than 7, on a scale from 0-10. When asked about satisfaction with various areas of life, such as own health, finances and place of residence, as well as about the sense of meaning in life, engagement, optimism and rewarding social relationships, all population averages ranged between 6 and 8 in 2024. Satisfaction with where you live scored highest (7.9), while satisfaction with physical health and financial situation received the lowest average scores (6.2) when including the responses of the entire population.
The statistics contain 12 indicators of subjective quality of life:
Average figures can obscure large variations, and it can often be more useful to look at how many are at the lower or upper ends of the scale. Moreover, it is important to consider what characterises those with a The responses to most indicators are grouped such that 0–5 indicates a low score/quality of life, 6–8 indicates a medium score/quality of life and 9–10 indicates a high score/quality of life. For more information, see the website page showing the quality of life statistics.. This varies with, for example, economic status, marital status, health status and sexual orientation.
You can explore the reported quality of life sorted into various characteristics below. You can select different quality of life indicators from the dropdown menu at the top of the page. Scroll past the graph to read more about selected groups of the population and their reported satisfaction with life.
All the figures for this visualization can be found in the Statbank.
11 selected quality of life indicators showing the distribution of low, medium, and high scores in percent, as well as the average acore, grouped by 11 characteristic groups (Sex, Age, Education Level, etc.) The 11 indicators are: 1. Life all in all In the bottom right corner, you will find icons to share the visualization with others, either as a URL or as an embed code. You can also share a customized view. Click on the download icon to download the visualization as an image (.png, .pdf, .ppt) or the data (.xls or .csv). Metadata: Data source: Availability: The service is optimized for larger screens, and some interactive elements may not be as user-friendly on mobile devices. The tool meets most universal design requirements, but data visualizations are inherently most useful for individuals with visual perception. If you require access to this content in an alternative format, please contact the designated representatives.
2. Physical health
3. Mental health
4. The place one lives
5. Leisure time available
6. Financial situation
7. Optimism for the future
8. Experience of meaning in life
9. Experience of commitment
10. Experience of mastery
11. Rewarding social relationships
User guide:
Select the indicator you wish to view from the dropdown menu at the top. You can read the values by hovering over each section.
Information and documentation about the figures can be found in the Quality of Life statistics.
All figures for this visualization can be found in these Statbank tables.
This interactive visualization is a pilot project testing an alternative and visual way of presenting figures from Statistics Norway. The solution has been developed with relatively low resource investment using third-party tools (here: Tableau Public). The aim is to gain experience with new dissemination formats and gather feedback from users.
Many young people feel that their life is not very worthwhile
Twenty-five per cent of the adult population report low satisfaction with life overall and 22 per cent report high satisfaction. Men and women generally report similar levels of quality of life on most indicators, however a larger proportion of women report low satisfaction with physical health compared to men, and men are somewhat less satisfied with their social relationships than women.
There are greater differences in subjective quality of life across the various age groups. Young adults more frequently report a poor quality of life than those who are slightly older. This applies to many areas, but young people in particular report low satisfaction with mental health, their economic situation, leisure time and sense of meaning in life. Between 37 and 47 per cent of 18–24-year-olds give low scores for these indicators, while the proportion with low scores in the general population ranges between 27 and 36 per cent. The age group 67–79 years reports the highest quality of life in most areas. The exceptions here are sense of mastery and optimism for the future, where a large proportion of older adults give low scores.
Also in the oldest age group, 80 years and over, we see some of the same patterns as in the age group 67–79 years. The oldest age group has relatively high scores in life satisfaction, sense of meaning in life and satisfaction with mental health and leisure time, but low scores in optimism for the future and sense of mastery. However, in the age group 80 years and over, several factors impact on the interpretation of the data, such as low response rates and considerable non-response bias, which means that the figures are not representative of all older people in the population. Persons living in institutions, for instance persons living in nursing homes, are not part of the sample, and the results are not representative for elderly living in institutions.
The survey population in the Quality of Life Survey is made up of adults living in private households. This means that people living in institutions are not included in the population that the survey is intended to represent. This applies to all age groups but has the greatest significance for the oldest age group, where a larger proportion live in an institution compared to the younger age groups. Additionally, several factors potentially make the older survey participants less representative of the population aged 80 and over. The Quality of Life Survey is conducted online, and the response rate for those aged 80 and over is low. An analysis shows a higher non-response bias for the oldest age group, meaning that the oldest respondents differ from those who do not participate in aspects such as education level and income. Furthermore, the non-response weight used to adjust for sample bias does not work well enough for the oldest age group. Older people are also less likely to respond to the survey than other age groups due to ill health, which means that we get few responses from older people in poor health. These factors must be taken into account when interpreting the results for the oldest age group in the Quality of Life Survey. Further details of the analyses of the representation of older people in the Quality of Life Survey are available here: Representation of older people in online surveys
Significance of marital status for quality of life
We know from previous surveys that single people often have poorer living conditions (see for example Barstad 2016 and Sandvik 2018) than those who live with a partner. This difference is also observed in self-reported quality of life in these statistics. People who live with a partner report a better quality of life than Single people are defined here as persons who are not married or cohabiting. in most areas.
In the Quality of Life Survey, we asked single people if they were in a relationship. We see that single people who are in a relationship often have a better quality of life than single people who are not in a relationship, either with or without children. There are particularly large differences when it comes to optimism for the future and satisfaction with physical health.
Among single parents, whether they are in a relationship or not, more than half are dissatisfied with their financial situation, indicating that it is difficult to make ends meet and that this is a financially vulnerable group.
We do not know for sure whether being in a relationship in itself improves the quality of life for single people, but it is reasonable to assume that having a confidant impacts on well-being. Single people are more often lonely than those who live with someone, and loneliness is associated with lower life satisfaction (Støren and Rønning 2021 p. 62). Single people who are not in a relationship are less satisfied with their social relationships than those in a relationship and couples who live together.
The geographical differences in quality of life in Norway are small, and there is also little difference when comparing central and less central municipalities. Compared to the least central municipalities, a slightly larger proportion of people in the most central municipalities have a high quality of life in terms of satisfaction with physical health, sense of mastery and rewarding social relationships. Conversely, a slightly larger proportion is satisfied with leisure time available in the least central municipalities compared to the most central ones.
People outside the labour force are less satisfied with life
People with a The lowest level of education is a completed primary/lower secondary education. This is followed by an upper secondary education, a short higher education (1–4 years) and a long higher education (over 4 years), the latter being the highest level. The average quality of life improves with each level of education. often experience a lower quality of life than those with a higher education. This applies to all quality of life indicators measured in these statistics except for satisfaction with leisure time available, where the pattern is not as clear.
We also see clear differences in quality of life when comparing people with different income levels. The proportion reporting a low quality of life is much larger in The lowest interquartile range for income distribution in the population, adjusted for household size. than in The highest interquartile range for income distribution in the population, adjusted for household size.. Unsurprisingly, the biggest differences between income groups are in questions about financial satisfaction. More than half of those in the lowest income group report low satisfaction, compared to 16 per cent in the highest income group. However, the lowest income group scores lower on all the indicators in the statistics compared to higher-earning groups, i.e. also on indicators not directly associated with economic prosperity, such as sense of meaning in life, engagement and rewarding social relationships.
Employment appears to significantly affect our satisfaction with life. There is a big difference in quality of life when comparing unemployed and disabled people with those in employment. In these groups, more than half report low satisfaction with life overall, compared to 22 per cent among the working population, as shown in Figure 3. Old-age pensioners are no longer working due to their stage of life and make up one of the groups with the highest quality of life on several indicators.
People with disabilities make up a group with health problems who are either fully or partially outside the labour force. People with People who report having health problems or illnesses that have lasted or are expected to last for at least six months and these create limitations in performing everyday activities. and those with People who have had symptoms of psychological problems (anxiety and depression) in the last 14 days are defined based on self-reported responses to whether they have been troubled by nervousness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, melancholy or have been very worried (Hopkins Symptom Check List-5)., regardless of employment status, are among the groups with the largest proportion reporting low satisfaction with life, at 40 and 60 per cent respectively in 2024.
Non-heterosexuals are a vulnerable group
People with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual are also among the groups with the poorest quality of life. More young people than older people report having a Non-heterosexual respondents in this survey are those who selected gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, sexually fluid or other sexual orientation as opposed to heterosexual when asked which category best describes them., but even when comparing people within the same age group, non-heterosexuals consistently score lower than heterosexuals. This finding is consistent with previous analyses of non-heterosexuals’ subjective quality of life and more objective living conditions.
Immigrants are often highlighted as a vulnerable group as well. In terms of quality of life, this varies slightly from indicator to indicator, but the This is made of up individuals who have themselves immigrated. Norwegian-born with immigrant parents are not included in the group with an immigrant background. Immigrants are further grouped by country of birth in one of the following two categories: 1) EU28/EEA, Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 2) Asia, Africa, Latin America, Oceania excluding Australia and New Zealand, and European countries other than EU28/EEA/Switzerland<br> do not differ much from the rest of the population on many of the indicators. In response to questions about satisfaction with their financial situation, leisure time available and social relationships, immigrants, and particularly those from Africa and Asia for example, more often report low satisfaction. Immigrants are a non-homogenous group and the proportions shown in the tables somewhat obscure the sometimes major differences in quality of life between immigrants with different country backgrounds and varying periods of residence in Norway.
Measuring quality of life in turbulent times
The national Quality of Life Survey has been conducted five years in a row in the period 2020–2024. The first three surveys just happened to coincide with major changes in the global situation. The first of these three surveys was conducted during lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020. The following year, in March 2021, various restrictions were in place in Norway and some parts of the country, such as Oslo, went into lockdown again. The survey in March 2022 was conducted just after the war in Ukraine broke out. The global situation during the survey in March 2023 was more stable, but it was also a time of strong price growth and rising interest rates.
It is difficult to know exactly what impact the various factors have had on the results of the surveys, but it is likely that they have led to more stress and worry among the population than is normally the case. Nevertheless, the Quality of Life Survey shows that satisfaction with life and the sense of mastery, engagement and various emotions have been relatively stable over the period.
A slight decrease was observed from 2020 to 2021 for some indicators, including satisfaction with life overall, physical and mental health, sense of meaning in life, engagement and rewarding social relationships. This decrease may be because by the time of the 2021 survey, the population had been living with the pandemic for a year, and some areas were once again in lockdown during this period. For most of these variables, the level from 2021 remained fairly stable for the remainder of the period, but for life satisfaction, the level has increased steadily since 2021. The population’s life satisfaction went from 7.0 in 2020 to 6.6 in 2021, but has increased to 6.9 in 2024, and are almost back on the level from 2020.
Other indicators appear to be more affected by strong price growth and rising interest rates. Overall, the population’s satisfaction with their own financial situation fell from 6.5 in 2021 to 6.2 in 2023 and 2024. The change in the perception of personal finances differs across groups, with a particular decline in satisfaction among young people, the unemployed, students and single parents. In contrast, older adults and pensioners have not experienced a decline in satisfaction with their financial situation since 2022.
Greatest change in satisfaction with physical health
Comparing the average level of each quality of life indicator in 2024 with the level in 2020, we see that some indicators have changed more than others over the past 5 years. The greatest change is found in satisfaction with physical health, which has decreased by 0.4 points over the past 5 years (in 2024, the average is 6.2, compared to 6.6 in 2020). Satisfaction with mental health and satisfaction with available leisure time have also changed significantly, both decreasing by 0.3 points. Satisfaction with mental health is 6.9 in 2024, compared to an average of 7.2 in 2020. Satisfaction with available leisure time is 6.8 in 2024, compared to 7.1 in 2020.
The indicators that have changed the least in 2024 compared to 2020 are overall life satisfaction (which decreased during the pandemic but then increased to about the same level again) and whether one experiences their social relationships as rewarding. Both indicators have average scores in 2024 that are 0.1 points below the average score in 2020.
Greater change in life satisfaction for some groups
Looking at the level of life satisfaction for different groups in the population in 2024 compared to 2020, we see that life satisfaction has changed more over the past 5 years for some groups than for others.
The groups that have had the strongest decline in average life satisfaction between 2020 and 2024 are immigrants from the EU/EEA, Switzerland, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For this group, life satisfaction has decreased by 0.5 points, from 7.2 in 2020 to 6.7 in 2024. Satisfaction has also decreased significantly for people in the second lowest income quartile (a decrease of 0.3 points, from 7.0 to 6.7) and people aged 25-44 years (a decrease of 0.3 points, from 6.8 to 6.5 in average life satisfaction). Several groups have had a slightly smaller decline in life satisfaction, by 0.2 points (e.g., employed individuals, people aged 45-66 years, people with long-term health problems, or less central municipalities). For others, life satisfaction has been more stable (0.1 points or no change, e.g., people in the highest income quartile, people aged 67 years or older).
The quality of life statistics are based on data from the national Quality of Life Survey, which has been conducted annually by Statistics Norway since 2020. The survey consists of an online questionnaire with various questions about quality of life and living conditions. Links are also given to registry data that provide background information such as education level, income and country background. The annual Quality of Life Survey includes a representative sample of 40 000 people aged 18 and over, with a response rate of between 38 and 44 per cent. Due to some non-response bias, the responses are weighted to ensure they are representative of the population in Norway. You can read more about the collection of data here: Quality of Life Survey 2022 (lenke til doknotatet!)
References
Barstad, A. (2021). Blir vi stadig mer ensomme? Hentet fra: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/blir-vi-stadig-mer-ensomme
Barstad, A. (2016). Opphopning av dårlige levekår. Rapporter 2016/32. Statistisk sentralbyrå. Hentet fra: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/285523?_ts=1588ffd8b60
Hattrem, A. (red.) (2022). Økonomi og levekår for lavinntektsgrupper 2022. Rapporter 2022/45. Statistisk sentralbyrå. Hentet fra: https://www.ssb.no/inntekt-og-forbruk/inntekt-og-formue/artikler/okonomi-og-levekar-for-lavinntektsgrupper-2022/_/attachment/inline/4540b19c-5970-459f-90c5-87303795d7ad:9a49f11a05b66f7672557598b1ec60d746c4b6aa/RAPP2022-45.pdf
Sandvik, L. (2018). Enslige mer utsatt for fattigdomsproblemer. Hentet fra: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/enslige-mer-utsatt-for-fattigdomsproblemer
Støren, K. og Rønning E. (2021). Livskvalitet i Norge 2021. Rapporter 2021/27. Statistisk sentralbyrå. Hentet fra https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/levekar/artikler/livskvalitet-i-norge-2021