Table 3 .
Fixed effects for multilevel models predicting momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood (Hypothesis 2)
| Outcome Predictor |
Coef. | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI | t | df | p | Slopes > 0a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 2: Momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood | |||||||
| Intercept | 5.02 (0.06) | [4.91, 5.13] | |||||
| Day of study (L1) | 0.01 (0.01) | [– 0.01, 0.03] | 1.21 | 283.1 | .229 | 53% | |
| Model 2aNMR: Momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood | |||||||
| Intercept | β00 | 5.02 (0.05) | [4.91, 5.12] | ||||
| Day of study (L1) | β10 | 0.01 (0.01) | [– 0.01, 0.03] | 1.10 | 283.2 | .272 | |
| NMR (L2) | β01 | 0.67 (0.09) | [0.49, 0.85] | 7.34 | 300.8 | <.001 | |
| Day of study (L1) x NMR (L2) | β11 | – 0.003 (0.02) | [– 0.04, 0.03] | – 0.19 | 282.8 | .852 | |
| Model 2bNMR: Momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood | |||||||
| Intercept | β00 | 5.11 (0.08) | [4.95, 5.26] | ||||
| Day of study (L1) | β10 | – 0.01 (0.02) | [– 0.04, 0.02] | – 0.39 | 376.6 | .699 | |
| NMR (L2) | β01 | 0.73 (0.14) | [0.45, 1.00] | 5.18 | 352.6 | <.001 | |
| Sampling frequency (L2) | β02 | – 0.16 (0.10) | [– 0.37, 0.04] | – 1.56 | 308.1 | .119 | |
| Day of study (L1) x NMR (L2) | β11 | – 0.01 (0.03) | [– 0.06, 0.05] | – 0.30 | 371.8 | .766 | |
| Day of study (L1) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β12 | 0.03 (0.02) | [– 0.01, 0.07] | 1.46 | 303.0 | .146 | |
| NMR (L2) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β03 | – 0.12 (0.19) | [– 0.48, 0.24] | – 0.64 | 312.2 | .522 | |
| Day of study (L1) x NMR (L2) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β13 | 0.01 (0.04) | [– 0.06, 0.08] | 0.31 | 304.5 | .755 | |
| Model 2aPMM: Momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood | |||||||
| Intercept | β00 | 5.02 (0.05) | [4.92, 5.12] | ||||
| Day of study (L1) | β10 | 0.01 (0.01) | [– 0.01, 0.03] | 1.13 | 282.6 | .258 | |
| PMM (L2) | β01 | 0.74 (0.09) | [0.57, 0.91] | 8.35 | 294.8 | <.001 | |
| Day of study (L1) x PMM (L2) | β11 | – 0.03 (0.02) | [– 0.07, 0.003] | – 1.74 | 276.8 | .084 | |
| Model 2bPMM: Momentary pleasant-unpleasant mood | |||||||
| Intercept | β00 | 5.10 (0.08) | [4.95, 5.25] | ||||
| Day of study (L1) | β10 | – 0.005 (0.02) | [– 0.04, 0.03] | – 0.32 | 377.8 | .751 | |
| PMM (L2) | β01 | 0.71 (0.14) | [0.44, 0.98] | 5.17 | 349.9 | <.001 | |
| Sampling frequency (L2) | β02 | – 0.14 (0.10) | [– 0.34, 0.06] | – 1.38 | 307.3 | .170 | |
| Day of study (L1) x PMM (L2) | β11 | – 0.02 (0.03) | [– 0.07, 0.04] | – 0.67 | 370.3 | .502 | |
| Day of study (L1) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β12 | 0.03 (0.02) | [– 0.01, 0.07] | 1.33 | 303.6 | .185 | |
| PMM (L2) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β03 | 0.03 (0.18) | [– 0.32, 0.38] | 0.17 | 307.6 | .867 | |
| Day of study (L1) x PMM (L2) x Sampling frequency (L2) | β13 | – 0.02 (0.04) | [– 0.09, 0.05] | – 0.44 | 301.6 | .660 | |
Noccasions = 8778. Coef. = coefficient from multilevel Eqs. (4) to (9) in the text; L1 = Level 1 predictor; L2 = Level 2 predictor. The first day of the study was coded zero. The reference category for sampling frequency was the group with a low sampling frequency. NMR = negative mood repair; PMM = positive mood maintenance. The effect sizes were .0004 for Model 2; .10 for Models 2aNMR, 2aPMM, and 2bPMM; and .09 for Model 2bNMR
a Based on the assumption of normally distributed slope coefficients, this value indicates the estimated percentage of slope coefficients that are positive (Hox, 2010)