Table 2.
Multilevel Linear Models Predicting Pleasantness of Encounters Throughout the Day From Encounters With Different Social Partners
| Variable | B | SE |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | ||
| Intercept | 4.69*** | 0.03 |
| Within-person effectsa (encounter-level) | ||
| Friend | (Ref.) | (Ref.) |
| Romantic partner | −0.05** | 0.02 |
| Family member | −0.06*** | 0.02 |
| Other social partner | −0.25*** | 0.02 |
| Between-person effectsb | ||
| Friend | (Ref.) | (Ref.) |
| Romantic partner | −0.01 | 0.18 |
| Family | −0.11 | 0.17 |
| Other social partner | −0.25 | 0.20 |
| Covariates | ||
| Agec | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Genderc | −0.04 | 0.06 |
| Educationc | −0.02 | 0.02 |
| Healthc | 0.10*** | 0.03 |
| Minority statusc | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| % of friends in social convoyc | 0.04 | 0.13 |
| In-person contactd | 0.09*** | 0.01 |
| Random effects | ||
| Intercept VAR (Level 2: Assessment) | 0.17*** | 0.01 |
| Intercept VAR (Level 3: Participant) | 0.15*** | 0.01 |
| Residual VAR | 0.32*** | 0.00 |
| −2 log-likelihood | 34276.3 |
Notes. Encounters n = 17,486 from 313 participants. Pleasantness of encounters was a continuous outcome 1 (unpleasant) to 5 (pleasant).
aThe predictor was a categorical variable representing different social partners which was recoded as four dummy variables.
bThe person mean variables representing the proportion of encounters across the study that each participant had encounters with different types of social partners.
cParticipant-level covariates.
dEncounter-level covariates.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.