The Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1 - 35

Place Identity and Student Flourishing

	 Table 3
	 Parameter Estimates Predicting Psychological Well-Being
	

Model 1	

Model 2	

Model 3

			

b	SE	ß	b	SE	ß	

b	SE	ß

	Intercept		

3.67	

.13		

.89	

.63

	Gender		

-.04	

.06	

	 Year in college		

-.05	

.08	

	 Racial minority		

-.03	

.07	

-.03	

1.19	

.63		

-.05	

-.03	

.05	

-.03	

.01	

.05	

.01

-.04	

-.07	

.07	

-.05	

-.05	

.07	

-.04

.01	

.06	

.01	

.03	

.06	

.02

	
Extraversion		

-	-	-	.23**	
.05	
.24	
.22**	
.05	
.22

	
Agreeableness		

-	-	-	.13	
.08	
.09	
.12	
.08	
.08

	
Conscientiousness	 -	-	-	.38**	
.08	
.26	
.36**	
.08	
.25
	
Neuroticism		

-	-	-	-.30**	
.07	
-.28	
-.32**	
.07	
-.30

	
Openness		

-	-	-	.24**	
.08	
.16	
.21*	
.08	
.14

	
Place identity		 -	-	-	-	 -	-	.13**	
.04	
.18
									

Note. *p < .05; **p < 0.1

as measures of effect size, indicate the size of
the indirect effects relative to the variation in
psychological well-being and place identity that
is not accounted for by gender, race, college
year, and the Big Five traits.
Figure 1 shows the coefficient values for this
model. Together, these variables accounted for
more than half of the variance in psychological
well-being, R2 = .51. The total effect of place identity on psychological well-being (c) was statistically significant, b = .13, β = .18, t(244) = 3.31,
p  = .001, 95% CI [.05, .20]. However, when
accounting for the mediators included in the
model, the direct effect (c') of place identity
ceased to be a statistically significant factor,
b = .06, β = .09, t(240) = 1.75, p = .081, 95%
CI  [-.01, .13]. Even so, statistically significant
indirect effects were observed for three of
the four potential mediators. The strongest
indirect effect of place identity on psychologi-

cal well-being was found via self-regulation,
b = .02, β = .03, 95% CI [.00, .05], followed by
positive affect, b = .02, β = .03, 95% CI [.00,
.05], and autonomy, b = .02, β = .03, 95% CI
[.00, .04].1

DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to evaluate whether
undergraduate flourishing would be associated
with the students' feelings that their campus
housing reflects their identity. Drawing on
Keyes' (2002, 2007) conceptualization of
flourishing, three outcomes were assessed:
emotional well-being (satisfaction with life),
social well-being (functioning as part of a wider
society), and psychological well-being (one's
1
Excluding the covariates from this analysis does not change
the overall pattern of results, although it does slightly increase
the magnitude of the indirect effects: positive affect, b = .03,
β = .05, 95% CI [.00, .07]; self-regulation, b = .03, β = .04, 95%
CI [.00, .06]; and autonomy, b = .02, β = .03, 95% CI [.00, .05].

V O L U M E 4 7 , NO. 1 * 2 0 2 0

35
Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 1
