Julie M. Koch * Lindsay Murrell * Douglas Knutson * Dillon J. Federici Table 2 Correlation Between Character Strengths and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) Love Curiosity Hope 1 Zest Love Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Curiosity Pearson correlation .650** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N Hope Pearson correlation .766** .730** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N Zest Pearson correlation .671** .785** .808** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N SWB Pearson correlation .467** .387** .357** .429** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N SWB .650** .766** .671** .467** .000 .000 .000 .000 252 252 252 252 252 1 .730** .785** .387** .000 .000 .000 252 252 252 252 252 1 .808** .357** .000 .000 252 252 252 252 252 1 .429** .000 252 252 252 252 252 1 252 252 252 252 252 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ing 18% of the variation in well-being. Table 2 reflects these results. Table 3 Correlation Between Social Group Participation (SG) and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) for all Participants Social group participation and subjective well-being. Preliminary analysis showed this relationship to be linear with both variables normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05). A positive significant relationship between social group participation and well-being was found, r(250) = .197, p < .01. Table 3 illustrates this finding. 18 SWB SG Pearson correlation .197** Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 252 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING