Australia has an ageing population and the age of retirement is lowering. As a result a greater proportion of the population will be retired, and more time will be spent in retirement. Adjustment to retirement is usually not problematic. The phenomenon of retirement migration to sunbelt destinations for improved lifestyle is well documented, both in Australia and in many other Western nations, with the majority reporting satisfaction with the move. Those who relocate after retirement for lifestyle considerations usually are younger, have good health, financial resources, and control over decisions compared to those who do not relocate. The literature provides some understanding of adjustment to retirement, but far less is known of adjustment to relocation, particularly following retirement. This study aimed to investigate the psychological adjustment processes of people who relocate following retirement and considered two main research questions. The first question was to determine whether the psychological health of those who relocate after retirement is poorer than that of those who do not relocate. The second question was to identify a model that best describes the factors that predict positive psychological health when relocation follows retirement. Models based on the literature on relocation adjustment and the coping literature were used to propose a conceptual model. A cross-sectional research approach was adopted to investigate these research questions for groups at three time frames: before retirement, after retirement, and after retirement and relocation. The three groups were compared on self-report measures of psychological health (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ12), psychological well-being (Ryff), satisfaction, and other related variables. The well-being instrument by Ryff measured six subscales of well-being, namely, Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations With Others, Purpose in Life, and Self-Acceptance. For the postrelocation group, coping was measured using Feifel and Strack's Life Situation Inventory to measure the strategies of Problem Solving, Avoidance and Resignation. Other variables measured various aspects of participants' relocation experience. The study found that relocation after retirement is problematic. There is evidence that GHQ, measures of well-being, and satisfaction measures were lower for the postrelocation group than for those who had retired but not relocated. Some measures of well-being were lower for the postrelocation group than for those who were yet to retire. Although this result points to an adverse impact for relocation, these results should be accepted with some caution since the nature of the design is cross-sectional. A structural equation model (SEM), guided by the conceptual model, was found to fit the data. Life Satisfaction, driven by Comparison of current and previous health, finances, lifestyle, and environment before retirement and relocation and also by satisfaction with lifestyle, health, and finances, had most effect on Postrelocation Psychological Health, directly and also indirectly through Coping. Environment (based on satisfaction with the environment and locational knowledge) also had indirect effects on Postrelocation Psychological Health through coping and through life satisfaction. The effects of environment need to be thought of as separate but highly interrelated with satisfaction. Coping was defined by negative aspects of coping (Avoidance and Resignation), and poor Social Support and Education, since Problem Solving was not significant. The research findings based on the model suggest that in terms of the well-being subscales, the sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment (Environmental Mastery) is most at risk. Those who relocate are also at risk of having lower positive evaluation of self and past life (Self-Acceptance), although they are also at risk on the other four well-being subscales. A number of possible theoretical explanations of the processes that take place for relocation after retirement are offered. Two possibilities are that relocation following the transition of retirement, in combination, may cause too much change at the one time, or that the individual might have difficulties if the person-environment fit is too discrepant. Locational knowledge through visiting and researching the new location was found to be a proactive and preventative approach to set expectations, although often there may be considerable incongruence between what people expect and what occurs. Most at risk are those with lower satisfaction with health, finances and lifestyle, and those who have experienced a decline in these factors, those with poorer education and less locational knowledge, those who lack support from family and friends in the new setting, and those who use avoidance and resignation as coping strategies. It is important to acknowledge several methodological limitations of the study. The need to use a cross-sectional design, self-report data from questionnaires, and the psychometric limitations of some instruments are three restrictions on the data. The violation of multivariate normality in the data analysis also meant that the results need to be accepted with some caution. Notwithstanding these limitations, this study provides a useful contribution to our understanding of the psychological processes involved in adjusting to the transitions of retirement and relocation. It seems clear from this study that relocating after retirement is often problematic. This is the first study to compare psychological health and psychological well-being of those who relocate following retirement and those who stay after retirement. Although further research is needed to refine the measures and extend the variables, this study provides an analysis of the impact of relocation following retirement on psychological health and on the six subscales of psychological well-being, and provides a model to explain the relative contributions of factors that predict psychological health after retirement and relocation.