Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1999, Vol. 67, No. 5, 746-754 0022-006X/99/S3.00

Multilevel Daily Process Designs for Consulting and Clinical Psychology:

A Preface for the Perplexed

Glenn Affleck Alex Zautra

University of Connecticut Health Center Arizona State University

Howard Tennen and Stephen Armeli

University of Connecticut Health Center
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The next 3 articles in this issue use multilevel statistical procedures to analyze data collected in daily
process studies of (a) stress and coping, (b) binge eating, and (c) chronic pain experience. Important
differences in the methods and procedures of these studies illustrate the many options available to
investigators and data analysts. This article serves as a preface to help readers who are new to these
studies' methodology appreciate their novel contributions to the literature in consulting and clinical
psychology. Four frequently asked questions are addressed concerning the design of daily process
studies, the distinctive meaning of a within-person finding, the possibility that self-monitoring studies are
measurement reactive, and complexities in the use of multilevel statistical procedures for analyzing
person-day data sets.

Patient readers of the next three articles (Feldman, Downey, &
Shaffer-Neitz, 1999; Marco, Neale, Schwartz, Shiftman, & Stone,
1999; Steiger, Gauvin, Jabalpurwala, Seguin, & Stotland, 1999)
will come to share their authors' enthusiasm for the fresh insights
to be gained from multilevel analyses of daily process studies in
clinical and consulting psychology. We dare this prediction not
merely because we have been cultivating the same field and
welcome this chance, however indirectly, to praise our own labors.
We promise even those new to these studies' methods and proce-
dures that they will acquire novel information about topics that are
well represented in the annals of this journal: stress and coping
(Marco et al., 1999), chronic pain (Feldman et al., 1999), and
eating disorders (Steiger et al., 1999). Readers will find excellent
illustrations of data-collection strategies and methods that are
rapidly gaining currency in the literature. They will also be treated
to the kinds of findings that make these labor-intensive studies
worthwhile. The articles themselves also provide an introduction
to methods for multilevel, mixed-model data analysis, which are
Glenn Affleck and Howard Tennen, Department of Community Medi-
cine, University of Connecticut Health Center; Alex Zautra, Department of
Psychology, Arizona State University; Stephen Armeli, Department of
Psychiatry, University of Connecticut Health Center.
Partial support for the preparation of this article came from the National
Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases (Grant
R0141687) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(Grants T32-AA07290 and P50-AA03510).
We are grateful to Charles Hall and Bruce Smith for their help with
software applications for multilevel modeling.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Glenn
Affleck, Department of Community Medicine (MC-6205), University of
Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut 06030. Electronic
mail may be sent to affleck@nsol.UCHC.edu.
746
becoming increasingly popular options for the statistical treatment
of experimental (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1997) and longitudinal
(Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987) data.
To hedge our bet, we offer this preface on the multilevel
analysis of data from daily process designs. It keeps our promise
to the inviting editor to provide a nontechnical commentary on
basic issues. Those wanting a more advanced treatment of this
topic can read several outstanding commentaries and guides on
these methods written for and by behavioral scientists (e.g., Jac-
card & Wan, 1993; Kenny et al., 1997; Schwartz & Stone, 1998;
Stone, Kessler, & Haythornthwaite, 1991; West & Hepworth,
1991). We can also recommend several well-informed articles and
books on multilevel applications (Hofmann, 1997; Kreft & de
Leeuw, 1998; Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996; Singer,
1998). To these authors, we are indebted for helping us reduce at
least some of our own perplexities about these approaches. We
borrow our organization from Kreft and de Leeuw's method of
posing frequently asked questions about multilevel models. The
questions we have chosen are ones we have asked ourselves
repeatedly and heard repeatedly from colleagues and students.
They concern the design of daily process studies, the distinctive
meaning of a "within-person" finding, the possibility that self-
monitoring studies are "measurement reactive," and complexities
in the use of multilevel statistical techniques for analyzing daily
process data.
How Should a Daily Process Study Be Designed?
Feldman et al.'s (1999) daily diary study, Steiger et al.'s (1999)
experience-sampling study, and Marco et al.'s (1999) ecological
momentary assessment study each qualifies as a daily process
study. This means that their repeatedly measured dependent vari-
ables are thought to change in meaningful ways from day to day
 MULTILEVEL DAILY PROCESS DESIGNS
(or within a day) and are measured prospectively at daily (or
within-day) intervals. Each major dependent variable in the fol-
lowing investigations is arguably a daily process; they include
mood, stressful occurrences and their appraisals, chronic pain
intensity, social interactions, self-critical thoughts, disordered eat-
ing episodes, and coping strategies. Together, the authors submit a
compelling rationale for the frequent measurement of these pro-
cesses: (a) to capture as closely as possible their "real-time"
occurrences or moments of change; (b) to reduce recall bias; (c) to
mitigate some forms of confounding by using participants as their
own controls; and (d) to establish temporal precedence to
strengthen causal inference, to name a few reasons (see also
Tennen & Affleck, 1996).
The procedural differences among the studies illustrate options
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
available to daily process researchers.1 The studies differ first in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
how they scheduled participant responding. Feldman et al. (1999)
use an interval-contingent method, asking participants to describe
the day once each night. Marco et al. (1999) use a signal-
contingent method, which asks participants to respond to randomly
scheduled "beeps" emitted by a palmtop computer. Steiger et al.
(1999) use an event-contingent method, which requires partici-
pants to supply information whenever a social interaction occurs.
Wheeler and Reis (1991) and Stone et al. (1991) have offered
useful guidelines for selecting among these options.
A second option concerns the actual method by which partici-
pants record their responses. Both Steiger et al. (1999) and Feld-
man et al. (1999) use the conventional "low-tech" paper-and-
pencil method. In the Marco et al. (1999) study, participants enter
their responses in a PSION palmtop computer, which time-stamps
the data entry.2 The many advantages of computer-assisted daily
reporting have been summarized by Stone and Shiftman (1994)
and include both the encouragement of compliance with demand-
ing reporting schedules and the ability to rule out "faked compli-
ance" with these schedules (Litt, Cooney, & Morse, 1998). Al-
though this innovative technology may not be for everyone—
whether because of limited resources, technical expertise, a low
tolerance for "cybernetic malfunction," or study samples for whom
the cognitive or real-life demands of this method may not be
suitable—it does undercut many of the "quality control" criticisms
of experience-sampling designs. This is not to imply that partici-
pants in Steiger et al. and Feldman et al.'s studies cannot be trusted
to follow the response protocol, but computer-assisted methods do
allow investigators to "trust but verify."
A third, and most critical, option that differentiates the three
studies is the frequency and duration of self-monitoring. Ideally,
and with adequate resources to do so, we would all like to measure
daily processes as frequently and for as long as possible, but there
are natural limits associated with participant burden and, perhaps,
measurement reactivity. Steiger et al.'s (1999) average participant
furnished between 3 and 4 daily reports for an average of 18 days.
Feldman et al. (1999) gathered 28 end-of-day reports. Marco et al.
(1999) followed their participants for 2 days, obtaining 10 reports
a day. These authors obviously differ in how they weigh the
trade-off in measurement frequency and duration.
Readers can note the implications of the frequency-duration
decision for the instrumentation and analysis of the three studies.
For example, because Feldman et al. (1999) had prejudged their
participants' pain intensity to vary so little over a month's time,
they decided, in effect, to "create" within-person variance in daily
747
pain ratings by having participants compare their own pain to their
average pain level. Unfortunately, because this report invokes
temporal comparison processes, which themselves are implicated
in coping with pain (Tennen & Affleck, 1997), its meaning is
complicated. Echoing previous findings (Affleck, Urrows, Tennen,
& Higgins, 1992), Marco et al. (1999) found that some important
coping responses did not vary for many study participants, who
used them too often or too rarely to permit within-person analyses.
Further, with such a short study time frame, their study participants
did not experience enough "stress episodes" corresponding with
their chronic strain classification (e.g., marital events for partici-
pants reporting chronic marital problems) to allow what would be
a most revealing analysis of the implications of strain-stressor
matching. And they must of course qualify their "null effects" of
coping by keeping open the possibility that coping takes longer
than a few hours to work its consequences.
In this vein, we remain as concerned as two of us were nearly a
decade ago (Tennen, Suls, & Affleck, 1991) that daily process
researchers will forsake descriptive inquiry in favor of a rush to
sophisticated hypothesis testing. Descriptive studies of the tempo-
ral organization of daily experiences are needed not only to inform
design decisions but also to serve as a starting point for theoretical
formulations. Yet we still know very little about the mundane
events and experiences in people's daily lives or how they are
patterned over time. Techniques of exploratory data analysis
(Tukey, 1977) can be insightfully applied to the description of
daily experience data. Our illustration of how chronic pain inten-
sity ratings are distributed and temporally organized (Affleck,
Tennen, Urrows, & Higgins, 1991; Tennen & Affleck, 1996) could
help answer questions concerning the optimal frequency and du-
ration of measurement of this daily process.
Why Go to All This Trouble to Uncover a
Within-Person Relation?
Because each group of authors collected data repeatedly and
frequently from participants, they were able to examine relations at
the within-person level over time (across-days or within-day ob-
servations). The analytic procedures used in these studies, however
different, furnish estimates of average within-person relations
between the intensively measured study variables while control-
ling for the influence of between-persons differences in the vari-
ables. To appreciate the novel contributions made by these articles
to the literature on stress and coping, chronic pain, and eating
disorders requires a firm understanding of the difference between
an across-persons association and a within-person association. We
1
See Wheeler and Reis (1991), Stone et al. (1991), and Stone and
Shiffman (1994) for a more detailed discussion of these alternatives.
2
Many published studies have demonstrated the feasibility and reliabil-
ity of the PSION Organizer (PSION, Ltd., London, England) as a pro-
grammable self-monitoring device (e.g., Affleck et al., 1998; Affleck,
Urrows, Tennen, Higgins, & Abeles, 1996; Apter et al., 1997; Carney,
Tennen, Affleck, DelBoca, & Kranzler, 1998; Hyland, Kenyon & Howarth,
1993; Kamarck et al., 1998; Stone et al., 1994, 1998; Swendson et al., in
press; Totterdell, Reynolds, Parkinson, & Briner, 1993). These investiga-
tions include assessments of daily or momentary coping, mood, social
interactions, drinking, smoking, fatigue, sleep quality, pain, and asthma
symptoms.
 748 AFFLECK, ZAUTRA, TENNEN, AND ARMELI
and several other investigators have commented extensively on
this fundamental distinction (e.g., Larsen & Kasimatis, 1991;
Shiffman & Stone, 1998; Tennen & Affleck, 1996; West & Hep-
worth, 1991). Nevertheless, we continue to witness enough con-
fusion about it among our colleagues (not to mention the occa-
sional manuscript or grant application reviewer) to warrant another
reminder.
We suspect that the unique contributions of within-person stud-
ies remain underappreciated in part because of our discipline's
tradition of nomothetic inquiry or because of our search for lawful
relations among variables across populations of persons. The no-
mothetic approach can be contrasted with the idiographic ap-
proach, which pursues relations among variables within a single
individual over time or across situations and has occasionally been
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
used in some extraordinarily well-documented and revealing case
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
studies (Hokanson, Tate, Niu, & Stader, 1994; Potter & Zautra,
1997). The overall success of the nomothetic approach to psycho-
logical research has had an untoward effect. Until quite recently,
within-person inquiries have been eschewed or have at least shown
benign neglect.
The three studies by Feldman et al. (1999), Marco et al. (1999),
and Steiger et al. (1999) illustrate the hybridization of nomothetic
and idiographic inquiry. In mixing these approaches, investigators
ask, "Are there relations between variables within individuals over
time that generalize across individuals or that relate to differences
between individuals!" The virtues of combining these approaches
were first advanced by Seymour Epstein (1983) and reinforced by
Randy Larsen in his investigations of daily emotions and physical
symptoms (e.g., Larsen & Cowan, 1988; Larsen & Kasimatis,
1991).
We, like most, have been tempted to draw within-person infer-
ences from across-persons associations. For example, in early
cross-sectional studies of stressful life events, correlations between
the number of events and health problems were taken by many to
mean that when a person experiences a stressful event, he or she
would be more likely to become ill. No such inference can be made
without observing people when they are under stress and when
they are not. An across-persons correlation, moreover, can depart
markedly from a within-person correlation. We cannot emphasize
this enough. Tennen and Affleck (1996) and Kenny, Bolger, and
Kashy (in press) have demonstrated that between-persons and
within-person correlations can differ not only in magnitude but
also in direction and that a statistically significant positive
between-persons association can emerge when not a single indi-
vidual in the group shows a positive within-person association!
Yet it is precisely intraindividual questions that investigators and
clinicians often need to answer.
Although it is worth knowing that Feldman et al.'s (1999)
chronic pain patients who experience more pain also suffer
more emotional distress, it is equally important to know if some
or all of them are more distressed on a more painful day.
Perhaps even more important from the standpoint of causal
inference is whether they were more distressed the day after a
more painful day. Indeed, Feldman et al.'s interest in intrain-
dividual lagged relations is what transforms the associations
between these variables into processes; so do Steiger et al.'s
(1999) interest in social interactions occurring prior to, and
following, a binge eating episode and Marco et al.'s (1999)
interest in mood changes during times of the day that move
from being stress free to being stressful. Such bivariate pro-
cesses simply cannot be ascertained through between-persons
associations.
This design also provides the means of uncovering important
between-persons differences in within-person processes. Each
study features the ability to assess individual differences in some
form of "event reactivity" in its most natural within-person for-
mulation. Feldman et al. (1999) shed light on "pain reactivity"
(i.e., the extent to which an individual's increase in pain is matched
by a subsequent increase in negative mood) as well as "mood
reactivity" (i.e., the consequences of negative mood for pain in-
tensification). Marco et al. (1999) examine "stressor reactivity,"
that is, an individual's tendency to experience emotional distress
following a stressful occurrence. Steiger et al. (1999) are able to
describe reactivity to negative social encounters by assessing their
within-person relations with changes in self-criticism and negative
mood. The capacity to differentiate individuals according to these
and other reactivity processes is a compelling rationale for within-
person analysis.
Perhaps the most impressive finding in Steiger et al.'s (1999)
study is that eating disorder status accounts for significant varia-
tion in the within-person relation between negative social encoun-
ters and self-criticism. Individuals meeting criteria for a current
eating disorder experienced more negative encounters and self-
criticism than those with a previous history of eating disorders and
those with no eating disorder history. Yet the two eating disorder
groups remained alike in their inclination to exhibit self-criticism
following a negative social interaction, and both of these groups
differed from the group with no history of eating disorders. This
suggests a subtle vulnerability associated with having had an
eating disorder history that could not have been readily detected in
more conventional research designs. Steiger et al. provide an
intriguing model for research on other psychiatric disorders, in-
cluding more fine-grained tests of the hypothesis that a prior major
depressive episode leaves a psychological "scar" (Lewinsohn,
Hoberman, & Rosenbaum, 1989).
Are Self-Monitoring Studies Measurement Reactive?
How we answer this frequently asked question has important
implications for the external validity of daily process studies. Put
simply, do the findings we obtain generalize to persons who do not
spend their days monitoring their behavior so often and so exact-
ingly? Each of this issue's daily process studies asks a lot of its
participants: the nightly completion of questionnaires about one's
pain, social support, and mood for a month (Feldman et al., 1999);
the description, approximately every 40 min for 2 days, of one's
stressful problems, ways of coping with them, and mood (Marco et
al., 1999); and the recording for 2 or 3 weeks of every instance of
a social interaction lasting more than 10 min and answering
questions about its character and one's self-referential thoughts,
mood, and disordered eating behaviors (Steiger et al., 1999).
Marco et al. legitimately question whether such intensive self-
monitoring of behaviors, thoughts, emotions, and psychologically
significant events may have "reactive effects." Does it alter the
very states and experiences that are under study? Although calling
for studies on the reactivity of self-monitoring methods, they cite
encouraging evidence from two studies of chronic pain monitoring
that show no average changes in pain level over the study period.
 MULTILEVEL DAILY PROCESS DESIGNS
Steiger et al. admit the possibility of their procedure's "demand
characteristics" but discount their systematic effect on the results.
We are not so sure.
Those of us engaged in the study of everyday life are keenly
aware of the limits of laboratory investigations; indeed, we use
these to our advantage in extolling the virtues of our field research
designs. Hence, we raise the problem of ecological validity: the
danger that "laboratory studies actually exaggerate the contours of
life, to which our theories are therefore more likely to give unrep-
resentative prominence" (Duck, 1980, p. 232).
Should we not be equally concerned about the possible effect of
intensive self-monitoring on findings we then use to ground our
theories about the ecology of daily life? After all, are not behavior
therapists so confident that recording behavior regularly actually
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
changes the behavior being recorded that they use self-monitoring
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
as a therapeutic method? The success of this technique, (e.g.,
Rehm et al., 1981), even if limited to those who are motivated to
change their behavior, underscores the methodological challenge
of potential reactivity in daily experience studies.
There is some evidence that measurement reactivity associated
with self-monitoring may not be a significant problem (Vuchinich,
Tucker, & Harlee, 1988) and that such effects may be minimal
when more than one behavior is recorded and when participants
have no opportunity to review their daily recordings (Hayes &
Cavior, 1980). This is one more argument for using computerized
diaries, which conceal prior responses from review. Control
groups have not been included in daily process studies, but it is
hard to see how they alone could provide strong evidence for or
against measurement reactivity. One could compare the data on
one nightly questionnaire completed by a group that did not
self-monitor with the last day's data of a self-monitoring group,
but such a comparison places considerable weight on one day's
experience.
The presence or absence of linear trends in the data set, men-
tioned by Marco et al. (1999) are a good lead, but just that. Of
course, the absence of trends would be inconsistent with a reactive
effect of self-monitoring. Time trends in the data suggest reactiv-
ity, but these could be explained by other factors, including the
decay in responding from fatigue or boredom with the procedure
over time (Stone et al., 1991)—not so much a "reactivity" problem
as a problem of differential reliability in self-reports across
time—or the partial mapping of a longer cycle of secular change
in the states and events under study (Affleck et al., 1991). In our
own daily experience studies, we have found significant linear
trends. For example, 100 moderate-to-heavy drinkers who re-
corded "real-time" drinking in a palmtop computer for 30 days
evidenced a significant average decline in drinking over time,
despite having been asked not to change their drinking habits
during the study.
Besides addressing the general problem of reactive measure-
ment, we should also ask whether there are individuals who are
more or less reactive to these procedures. In our chronic pain
studies, we have examined individual differences in the trending of
daily reports of pain, mood, and stressful events (Affleck et al.,
1991; Affleck, Tennen, Urrows, & Higgins, 1994). The differences
were intriguing. Pain intensity ratings rose significantly over time
for 25% of the participants but dropped significantly for 30%,
negative mood ratings increased for 10% and decreased for 40%,
and reports of stressful daily events became more numerous for
749
15% and less numerous for 35%. These findings imply that aver-
age trend estimates could obscure possible opposing reactive ef-
fects of intensive self-monitoring.
The nature and determinants of individual differences in the
trending of daily experience data require more attention. Formu-
lating hypotheses for such studies can be aided by debriefing
participants about their reactions to these novel procedures. We
have learned that some chronic pain patients, by virtue of keeping
track of pain, events, and their coping efforts, were able to discover
their own "response contingencies." Some said they began to
assess the efficacy of their coping strategies by recording these
strategies and their pain at the end of each day. Could daily
measurement have a pain-reducing effect for these individuals yet
potentiate pain for others? We believe so. Just as downward trends
in pain may reflect changed coping strategies in response to daily
monitoring, so upward trends may result from an untoward effect
of daily monitoring on the availability of preferred coping strate-
gies. During debriefing, some patients said that they found mon-
itoring extremely aversive precisely because it forced them to keep
track of their pain. These were individuals who had found that their
most effective coping strategy was distraction (Endler & Parker,
1990), which is a common daily strategy for reducing the intensity
of chronic pain (Affleck et al., 1992; Keefe et al., 1997). Dispo-
sitionally, they might be what Miller (1987) called "blunters." By
forcing them to focus on their pain, we may have interfered with
a preferred coping strategy, which in turn may have increased
diary keepers' pain over time.
Such anecdotal evidence suggesting heterogeneous measure-
ment reactivity cannot be mitigated just by controlling for linear
trends in data analysis. We must at least admit the possibility that
by asking people to concentrate so intently on their experiences so
as to provide the best data possible, we might even create or
consolidate the very relations we then "discover." An emerging
experimental (Croyle & Uretsky, 1987; Salovey & Birnbaum,
1989) and field study (Larsen & Cowen, 1988) literature shows
that self-focused attention may itself create linkages between
stress, somatic symptoms, and emotional distress. For now, our
hypotheses are no more than informed speculation. We hope that
future investigators will examine in imaginative ways the possi-
bility that time-intensive research designs interact with the ecology
of daily life and for whom it may or may not.
How Should the Data Be Analyzed?
As a starting point, readers need to be familiar with the vernac-
ular of multilevel data analysis. Each of the following three studies
works with a multilevel data matrix. This means that the investi-
gators collected data from at least two sampling units hierarchi-
cally arranged such that one is "nested" in the other. With suffi-
cient amounts of these data in hand, they could draw reliable
statistical inferences about relations at each level of the analysis as
well as across the levels. In the parlance of multilevel modeling,
the repeated observations (the daily reports, the replies to the
"beeps," the responses following social interaction episodes) are
called Level 1 (or lower level) variables. These Level 1 observa-
tions are organized within Level 2 units, which in these studies
constitute persons. Their characteristics are called Level 2 (or
upper level) variables. A critical feature of a multilevel model is
that responses from the Level 1 observations are likely to be
 750 AFFLECK, ZAUTRA, TENNEN, AND ARMELI
nonindependent for each Level 2 unit. Whereas each study reports
analyses of relations between Level 1 observations, only Steiger et
al. (1999) analyzed the effects of a specific Level 2 variable—
eating disorder status—on Level 1 observations (intercepts) and
their interrelations (slopes). Their article reveals many instances of
such "cross-level" interactions.3
Do multiple levels of the data structure need to be taken into
account in some way if a sound within-person analysis is desired?
We can say yes, and without qualification. Each group of authors
did so, albeit using somewhat different approaches. Before at-
tempting to encapsulate the important details of each study's
data-analytic strategy, we offer this brief tour of approaches that
have been used most often by contributors to the daily process
literature.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
One early method, called idiographic regression analysis, cal-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
culates separate time-series regression equations for each individ-
ual in the study (Affleck et al., 1994; Suls, Wan, & Blanchard,
1994; Ward & Leigh, 1993; West & Hepworth, 1991). Although
this procedure quite effectively discloses the range of individual
differences in the parameters of interest, its capacity to account for
these differences by Level 2 person variables that do not change
over time (stable traits and characteristics) is a topic of controversy
(cf. West & Hepworth's, 1991, advocacy of meta-analysis with
Jaccard & Wan's, 1993, criticism of this method). Moreover,
because some Level 1 variables may not change enough for some
participants (e.g., the individual uses the same coping strategy each
day), it may not be possible to incorporate these in all of the
individual regression analyses. Other techniques, which circum-
vent some of these problems, rely on pooling the data, generating
a data matrix in which each row represents a single observation
and the number of rows equals the number of persons times the
number of observations.
Disregarding the person level and analyzing the pooled obser-
vations as if they were independent units of analysis would be
misleading because it mixes variance due to differences across
persons with variance that is due to changes within persons over
time. To overcome this problem, early studies used a pooled
regression technique known as least squares dummy variable
(LSDV) analysis (e.g., Harrington et al., 1993; Suls et al., 1994).
This method controls for between-persons differences in the data
pool by entering dummy variables for each person (minus one) to
identify the source of the observation. This, in effect, centers the
pooled data set and furnishes estimates of average within-person
relations, free of differences between persons in mean levels of the
variables (i.e., each person's intercept). A key liability of this
technique is that it does not allow for an inspection of individual
differences in the within-person relations between variables (i.e.,
each person's slope). Its ignorance of individual differences in
slopes introduces error in the estimates of the within-person
relations.
There is another key limitation of the LSDV approach that was
not well appreciated in its early applications. The dummy variables
used to identify between-persons differences in the data set treated
these differences as a fixed factor, meaning that inferences could
be made only to the specific sample of persons providing the
observations. Those of us who grew up on analysis of variance and
regression techniques did not encounter this problem before, ex-
cept in reference to levels of an independent variable. From Hays
(1988), we learned that if we did not randomly select levels of the
independent variable, we could not generalize our findings to
levels other than those selected expressly for study. This is not a
problem for some designs. When gender is the factor, we don't
mind limiting our inferences to men and women! However, when
"participants" is made a fixed factor, and unless we have the whole
population of interest under wing, the restricted inference exacts a
toll on our conclusions. We hope it is also clear that because this
approach ignores interindividual differences, it is also limited in its
ability to examine Person X Observation interactions.
These limitations are overcome by the more recently developed
methods that allow data analysts to treat persons and daily obser-
vations as independent sampling units and as random effects. This
general class of statistical methods—which can truly be called
multilevel modeling (MLM)—have been called random-effects
models (Laird & Ware, 1982), hierarchical linear models (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992), multilevel models (Goldstein, 1987), random
coefficient models (de Leeuw & Kreft, 1986), and random regres-
sion models (Bock, 1989).
MLM allows one to estimate the Level 1 effects of one daily
observation on another and to model the Level 2 effects of indi-
vidual differences that may "modify" the strength and direction of
the relation. An important advantage of these statistical methods is
their ability to handle "unbalanced" designs in which participants
provide varying numbers of Level 1 observations (especially crit-
ical for Steiger et al.'s, 1999, event-contingent study) and missing
Level 1 observations (especially critical for Marco et al.'s, 1999,
signal-contingent study and Feldman et al.'s, 1999, interval-
contingent study).
One regrettable shortcoming of most applications of MLM in
the psychology literature is that the reliability of measurement is
assumed to be perfect. Kenny and Zautra (1995) have recently
developed another method of multilevel analysis that provides a
means of estimating error in repeated measures. This approach,
called TSE (for trait-state-error), uses structural equation model-
ing to partition the variance of measures into three independent
components: (a) trait variance, which identifies stable individual
differences in the measures over time; (b) state variance, which
identifies differences between persons that change over time; and
(c) error in measurement. Zautra et al. (1995) tested the TSE model
in a longitudinal data set comprising 10 monthly assessments of
myofascial face pain and emotional distress in 110 women. This
approach ignores differences in the slope of the regression line
between participants, assuming that the relation between variables
is approximately the same for all. How much of a problem this
assumption causes in practice has yet to be studied, and the
applicability of TSE models in typical daily process studies that
have dozens of repeated measures and some missing data points is
uncertain. Statistical innovations in the combination of latent vari-
able modeling with MLM (e.g., MacCallum, Kim, Malarkey, &
3
Multilevel models can take other forms and are not limited to Person X
Observation daily process designs. For example, persons could be Level 1
units nested within Level 2 units of schools, treatment facilities, or any
other grouping of persons that would make each person's responses more
like other members of the group than members in other groups. Multilevel
models could include three or more nested levels (e.g., days nested within
persons and persons nested within settings or days nested within waves of
measurement and waves of measurement nested within persons).
 MULTILEVEL DAILY PROCESS DESIGNS
Kiecolt-Glaser, 1997) will undoubtedly soon find their way into
the psychological literature.
Readers will be treated to some state-of-the-art methods of
MLM in the following articles. Feldman et al. (1999) use a
"two-stage" weighted least squares approach to parameter estima-
tion (see Kenny et al., 1997), which uses the more familiar least
squares estimation method. Kenny et al. have demonstrated con-
vergence between the solutions provided by this procedure and
those reached by hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) maximum
likelihood estimates (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Marco et al.
(1999) use the SAS (Statistical Analysis System) PROC MIXED
procedure to model within-person relations as maximum likeli-
hood estimates. Although intimidating to learn, the SAS applica-
tion has the capacity to eliminate "correlated error" in the residu-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
als, an eventuality that can lead to the misestimation of standard
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
errors and hence the parameter's level of statistical significance.
Because time-dependent data are likely to be autocorrelated, mean-
ing that a score for one observation is correlated more highly with
the score on the following observation than with more distant
observations, the appropriate modeling of the residuals is a critical
task for daily process investigators.
Steiger et al. (1999), using the increasingly popular HLM pro-
gram (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), reveal how far a multilevel
modeling strategy can be pushed and introduce a host of novel
statistical concepts to those trained in traditional methods of data
analysis. Particularly important to appreciate are their strategies for
estimating "variances explained" by the differences between and
within persons in the study variables and the incorporation of
Level 2 (person) predictors of the variance in individual intercepts
and slopes. As is underscored by Kreft and de Leeuw (1998) and
Singer (1998), MLM estimates of variance explained should not be
confused with the familiar R2 estimate of variance explained in
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equations. Rather, the
modeling procedure concentrates on the ability of explanatory
variables, either lower level or upper level variables, to reduce the
residual variances (or the "variance components") of the Level 1
and Level 2 equations.
Consider, for example, Steiger et al.'s (1999) finding that eating
disorder status explains 12% of the variance in the relation be-
tween interaction tone and self-criticism. They begin by modeling
the variance in the Level 1 self-criticism observations without any
predictors and find that roughly 61% of its total variance occurred
within persons (and 39% between persons). Then they demonstrate
with a Level 1 model that about 46% of the within-person variance
in self-criticism could be reduced by knowing the tone of the
immediately preceding interaction. This value is similar computa-
tionally to the R2 estimate in standard regression; that is, it repre-
sents the difference between the residual variances of the Level 1
model without a predictor and the Level 1 model with the predic-
tor, divided by the residual variance for the no-predictor model.
Note that the 46% figure thus refers to the reduction in the residual
within-person variance (which itself represented 61% of the total
variance), not of the total variance, of self-criticism. Finally they
use a Level 2 model to show that 12% of the slope variance (i.e.,
the variance in self-criticism captured by interaction tone) could be
explained by eating disorder status. Obviously, the ever-shrinking
denominators in MLM procedures to estimate reductions in vari-
ance components must be followed very carefully to draw the
correct interpretations of effect sizes.
751
Moreover, Kreft and de Leeuw (1998) cautioned that these
MLM variance estimation techniques are not as straightforward as
they might appear, especially when Level 1 slopes are allowed to
vary randomly. Having occasionally seen evidence in our own
analyses of Kreft and de Leeuw's prediction that the addition of
another random effects variable could actually increase the ran-
dom variance component in the model, we concur. Such compli-
cations rarely, if ever, occur with the variance estimates supplied
by single-level regression analysis.
"Variable centering" is another feature of Steiger et al.'s (1999)
analysis that will require further scrutiny as MLM applications
proliferate in the psychological literature. For OLS regression,
Aiken and West (1991) stressed the importance of centering, or
subtracting the "grand mean" from the raw score, to avoid incor-
rect interpretations of the intercept of a significant interaction term.
This practice, and its implications, is more complicated in MLM
because two forms of centering are possible: one using the grand
mean across all observations and the other using each individual's
own mean (known as "group" or "cluster" centering). For some of
their analyses, Steiger et al. report group centering; this allowed
them to examine how deviations from each person's average
interaction tone figured in that person's mood or self-criticism.
Centering interaction tone scores around the grand mean would
have addressed a different question. Several MLM experts (e.g.,
Hofmann & Gavin, in press; Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998) have rightly
cautioned that centering procedures can influence both the "esti-
mation and meaning of the hierarchical linear model as a whole"
(Hofmann, 1997, p. 738).
The designation of a variable as "random" or "fixed" figures
prominently in the data analyses of the three studies. To remind the
reader, a variable whose effect is "fixed" is not allowed to gener-
alize to a "population" of such effects. A variable whose effect is
"random" is allowed to generalize to a population of such effects
whose mean is zero and whose standard deviation is unknown. In
our critique of LSDV regression, we introduced the distinction
between fixed and random effects and of the importance of allow-
ing "person" to vary as a random effect. Each study addresses this
issue and treats "person" as a random variable. This, in itself,
represents progress in the application of MLM techniques in
psychological research.
Marco et al. (1999) and Feldman et al. (1999) also allow in
blanket fashion all within-person relations (slopes) to vary as
random coefficients, meaning that they too are drawn from, and
can be generalized to, a "population" not of persons but of within-
person relations. Steiger et al. (1999) take an empirical approach,
conducting statistical tests of parameter variance to ascertain
whether a random or a fixed effects designation for a given
variable better fits the data. This is a step in the analysis of
multilevel data that can be missed and which may affect the
results. A fixed effect is more efficient to compute because it does
not estimate error in the equations that estimate the size of the
regression coefficient. In doing so, however, the fixed effect may
misspecify the relationship. As is illustrated by Steiger et al.'s
presentation, multilevel analysis software programs such as HLM
and SAS PROC MIXED provide the means of testing whether the
fit of the model to the data improves significantly when the
variable or variables are treated as fixed or random. A growing
literature also is concerned with how estimation of random effects
 752 AFFLECK, ZAUTRA, TENNEN, AND ARMELI
for specific variables may be sensitive to minor changes in the
parameters (e.g., VanLeeuwen, 1997).
One of the many useful suggestions in Singer's (1998) instruc-
tional guide on how to use the SAS "mixed model" program to
furnish the kinds of estimates provided by HLM software is the
value of writing down the linear equations ahead of time, one for
each level of analysis. The following articles provide such equa-
tions, and the importance of doing so prior to analysis of multilevel
models cannot be overstated because many problems in estimation
can be avoided early on. One of the advantages of the HLM
statistical package is that it requires an explicit statement of the
linear model to be estimated.
We are confident that readers will witness a steady increase in
the publication frequency of multilevel daily process studies. The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
next wave of studies will undoubtedly attempt to transfer these
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
methods to clinical intervention outcome studies with the capacity
to test genuinely new hypotheses. One illustration of such an
application is a study that three of us have initiated. In that study,
we are examining the mechanisms of action in two brief interven-
tions for problem drinkers. Participants are using electronic inter-
viewers to describe their fleeting emotions, social pressure to
drink, and interpersonal conflict. After 3 baseline weeks of daily
self-monitoring, participants are randomly assigned to one of three
treatment conditions: (a) coping skills training, which identifies
new ways of responding to emotions, social pressure to drink, and
interpersonal conflict; (b) brief motivational intervention, which
explores readiness to change problem drinking; or (c) a waiting-list
control group. A second 3-week self-monitoring period follows the
intervention. Although both coping skills training and the motiva-
tional intervention should result in reduced drinking, we anticipate
a greater change in the within-person association between drinking
and interpersonal conflict, positive and negative emotions, and
social pressures to drink for participants treated with the coping
skills approach. Another illustration of a multiwave daily process
design for intervention outcomes is a series of studies in progress
by Francis Keefe and colleagues on the effects of several inter-
vention strategies (e.g., exercise, cognitive-behavioral interven-
tion, and couples-oriented intervention) on chronic pain patients'
within-person relations among daily pain, mood, and coping (F.
Keefe, personal communication, November 1998). Such designs
invite application of three-level hierarchical models, nesting daily
observations within multiple occasions of daily data collection
within persons (Schwartz & Stone, 1998). Procedures for evalu-
ating within-person changes across time and conditions are high on
the list of emergent statistical applications of MLM (H. Berkoff,
personal communication, November 1998; Raudenbush, Brennan,
& Barnett, 1995).
In closing, readers who are wondering how much more to invest
in learning about MLM applications, or when to do so, may wish
to consider its place in Mason's (1995) predictable course of
heralded new statistical innovations:
A new statistical formulation is introduced.. .seems to answer a
widely perceived need. . .and is [then] promulgated as The Answer. In
response. . .practitioners accord the methodology high status. Gradu-
ate students learn some portion of it. So do young professors. Older
ones consider how close they are to retirement before deciding how
much to invest in it. Then comes the reaction. It is said that the new
method is like some other, previously used method in various ways.
Critics begin to ask, "Do we really get different answers (from the
way we used to do it, and already understand)?..." Disaffection sets
in. The assumptions are not always met and often seem unjustifiable
in the context of a particular problem.... Perhaps the approach
becomes identified with a particular school of substantive thought,
and that perspective is found wanting. The high water mark has been
reached and the tide of enthusiasm begins to ebb. But the ark comes
to rest somewhere on the side of the mountain, at an elevation that
differs from its former resting place, because in fact, the new meth-
odology has something genuine to offer, and because it continues to
evolve as generalizations, extensions, and refinements of understand-
ing are offered. It is not just the same old thing in a new package,
(p. 221)
References
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Urrows, S., & Higgins, P. (1991). Individual
differences in the day-to-day experience of chronic pain: A prospective
daily study of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Psychology, 10,
419-426.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Urrows, S., & Higgins, P. (1994). Person and
contextual features of stress reactivity: Individual differences in relations
of undesirable daily events with mood disturbance and chronic pain
intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 329-340.
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Urrows, S., Higgins, P., Abeles, M, Hall, C.,
Karoly, P., & Newton, C. (1998). Fibromyalgia and women's pursuit of
personal goals: A daily process analysis. Health Psychology, 17, 40-47.
Affleck, G., Urrows, S., Tennen, H., & Higgins, P. (1992). Daily coping
with pain from rheumatoid arthritis: Patterns and correlates. Pain, 51,
221-229.
Affleck, G., Urrows, S., Tennen, H., Higgins, P., & Abeles, M. (1996).
Sequential daily relations of sleep, pain intensity, and attention to pain
among women with fibromyalgia. Pain, 68, 363-368.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Apter, A., Affleck, G., Reisine, S., Tennen, H., Barrows, E., Willard, A., &
ZuWallack, R. (1997). Perception of airways obstruction in asthma:
Sequential daily analyses of symptoms, PEFR, and mood. Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 99, 605-612.
Bock, R. (1989). Multilevel analysis of educational data. New York:
Academic Press.
Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear
models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147-158.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carney, M., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., DelBoca, F., & Kranzler, H. (1998).
Levels and patterns of alcohol consumption using timeline follow-back,
daily diaries, and real-time electronic interviewers. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 59, 447-454.
Croyle, R. T., & Uretsky, M. (1987). Effects of mood on self-appraisal of
health status. Health Psychology, 6, 239-253.
de Leeuw, I., & Kreft, I. (1986). Random coefficient models for multilevel
analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 57-85.
Duck, S. (1980). Personal relationships in the 1980's: Toward an under-
standing of complex human society. Western Journal of Speech Com-
munication, 44, 114-119.
Endler, N., & Parker, I. (1990). The multidimensional assessment of
coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 58, 844-854.
Epstein, S. (1983). A research paradigm for the study of personality and
emotions. In M. Page (Ed.), Personality—Current theory and research:
1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 91-154). Lincoln: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press.
Feldman, S., Downey, G., & Shaffer-Neitz, R. (1999). Pain, negative
mood, and perceived support in chronic pain patients: A daily diary
 MULTILEVEL DAILY PROCESS DESIGNS
study of people with relax sympathic dystrophy syndrome. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 000-000.
Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social re-
search. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harrington, L., Affleck, G., Urrows, S., Tennen, H., Higgins, P., Zautra,
A., & Hoffman, S. (1993). Temporal covariation of soluble interleukin-2
receptors, daily stress, and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 36, 199-203.
Hayes, S. C., & Cavior, N. (1980). Multiple tracking and the reactivity of
self-monitoring: II. Positive behaviors. Behavior Therapy, 11, 283-296.
Hays, W. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hofmann, D. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical
linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
Hofmann, D., & Gavin, M. (in press). Centering decisions in hierarchical
linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
zational science. Journal of Management.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hokanson, J., Tate, R., Niu, X., & Stader, S. (1994). Illustration of
concomitant time series analyses in a case of somatoform disorder.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 413-437.
Hyland, M., Kenyon, C., & Howarth, P. (1993). Diary keeping in asthma:
Comparison of written and electronic methods. British Medical Journal,
306, 487-489.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. (1993). Statistical analysis of temporal data with
many observations: Issues for behavioral medicine data. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 15, 41-50.
Kamarck, T., Shiffman, S., Smithline, L., Goodie, J., Paty, J., Gnys, M., &
Yi-Kuan Jong, J. (1998). Effects of task strain, social conflict, and
emotional activation on ambulatory cardiovascular activity: Daily life
consequences of recurring stress in a multiethnic adult sample. Health
Psychology, 17, 17-29.
Keefe, F., Affleck, G., Lefebvre, J., Starr, K., Caldwell, D., & Tennen, H.
(1997). Coping strategies and coping efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis: A
daily process analysis. Pain, 69, 35-42.
Kenny, D., Bolger, N., & Kashy, D. (in press). Traditional methods for
estimating multilevel models. In D. Moskowitz & S. Hershberger (Eds.),
Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data:
Method and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1997). Data analysis in social
psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Linzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kenny, D., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait-state model for multiwave data.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 52-59.
Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London:
Sage.
Laird, N., & Ware, J. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data.
Biometrics, 38, 963-974.
Larsen, R., & Cowan, G. (1988). Internal focus of attention and depression:
A study of daily experience. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 237-249.
Larsen R., & Kasimatis, M. (1991). Day-to-day physical symptoms: Indi-
vidual differences in the occurrence, duration, and emotional concomi-
tants of minor daily illnesses. Journal of Personality, 59, 387-424.
Lewinsohn, P., Hoberman, H., & Rosenbaum, M. (1989). Probability of
relapse after recovery from an episode of depression. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 97, 251-264.
Litt, M., Cooney, N., & Morse, P. (1998). Ecological momentary assess-
ment (EMA) with treated alcoholics: Methodological problems and
potential solutions. Health Psychology, 17, 48-52.
Littell, R., Milliken, G., Stroup, W., & Wolfinger, R. (1996). SAS system
for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
MacCallum, R., Kim, C., Malarkey, W., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. (1997).
Studying multivariate change using multilevel models and latent curve
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 215-253.
Marco, C. A., Neale, J. M., Schwartz, J. E., Shiffman, S., & Stone, A.
(1999). Coping with daily events and short-term mood changes: An
753
unexpected failure to observe effects of coping. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 67, 000-000.
Mason, W. (1995). Comment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 20, 221-227.
Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a question-
naire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 345-353.
Potter, P., & Zautra, A. (1997). Stressful life events' effects on rheumatoid
arthritis disease activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 65, 319-323.
Raudenbush, S., Brennan, R., & Barnett, R. (1995). A multivariate hier-
archical model for studying psychological change within married cou-
ples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161-174.
Rehm, L., Kornblith, S., O'Hara, M., Lamparski, D., & Romano, J. (1981).
An evaluation of major components in a self-control therapy for depres-
sion. Behavior Modification, 5, 459-490.
Salovey, P., & Birnbaum, D. (1989). Influence of mood on health-relevant
cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 539-551.
Schwartz, J., & Stone, A. (1998). Strategies for analyzing ecological
momentary assessment data. Health Psychology, 17, 6-16.
Shiffman, S., & Stone, A. (1998). Introduction to the special edition:
Ecological momentary assessment in health psychology. Health Psy-
chology, 17, 3-5.
Singer, J. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models,
hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educa-
tional and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-355.
Steiger, H., Gauvin, L., Jabalpurwala, S., Seguin, J. R., & Stotland, S.
(1999). Hypersensitivity to social interaction in bulimic syndromes:
Relationship to binge eating. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 67, 765-775.
Stone, A., Broderick, I., Porter, L., Krupp, L., Gnys, M., Paty, I., &
Shiffman, S. (1994). Fatigue and mood in chronic fatigue syndrome
patients: Results of a momentary assessment protocol examining fatigue
and mood levels and diurnal patterns. Annals of Behavioral Medi-
cine, 16, 228-234.
Stone, A., Kessler, R., & Haythornthwaite, J. (1991). Measuring daily
events and experiences: Decisions for the researcher. Journal of Per-
sonality, 59, 575-608.
Stone, A., Schwartz, J., Neale, S., Shiffman, S., Marco, C., Hickcox, M.,
Paty, J., Porter, L., & Cruise, L. (1998). A comparison of coping
assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1670-1680.
Stone, A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment
(EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16,
199-202.
Suls, J., Wan, C., & Blanchard, E. (1994). A multilevel data-analytic
approach for evaluation of relationships between daily life stressors and
symptomatology: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Health Psy-
chology, 13, 103-113.
Swendsen, J., Tennen, H., Carney, M., Affleck, G., Willard, A., & Hromi,
A. (in press). Mood and alcohol consumption: An experience sampling
test of the self-medication hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1996). Daily processes in coping with chronic
pain: Methods and analytic strategies. In M. Zeidner & N. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of coping (pp. 151-180). New York: Wiley.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1997). Social comparison as a coping process:
A critical review and application to chronic pain disorders. In B. Buunk
& F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives
from social comparison theory (pp. 263-298). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tennen, H., Suls, J., & Affleck, G. (1991). Personality and daily experi-
ence: The promise and the challenge. Journal of Personality, 59, 313-
338.
Totterdell, P., Reynolds, S., Parkinson, B., & Briner, R. (1993). Associa-
 754 AFFLECK, ZAUTRA, TENNEN, AND ARMELI

tions of sleep with everyday mood, minor symptoms, and social inter-
action experience. Sleep, 17, 466-475.
Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
VanLeeuwen, D. (1997). A note on the covariance structure in a linear
model. The American Statistician, 51, 140-144.
Vuchinich, R., Tucker, J., & Harlee, L. (1988). Behavioral assessment. In
D. M. Donovan & G. A. Marlatt (Eds.), Assessment of addictive behav-
iors (pp. 51-83). New York: Guilford Press.
Ward, M., & Leigh, J. (1993). Pooled time series regression analysis in
longitudinal studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 645-659.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
West, S., & Hepworth, J. (1991). Statistical issues in the study of temporal
data: Daily experiences. Journal of Personality, 59, 609-662.
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events:
Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59, 339-354.
Zautra, A., Marbach, J., Raphael, K., Dohrenwend, B., Lennon, M., &
Kenny, D. (1995). The examination of myofascial face pain and its
relationship to psychological distress. Health Psychology, 14, 223-231.
Received December 2, 1998
Accepted February 3, 1999

Call for Nominations

The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the
editorships of Behavioral Neuroscience, JEP: Applied, JEP: General, Psychologi-
cal Methods, andNeuropsychology for the years 2002-2007. Michela Gallagher, PhD;
Raymond S. Nickerson, PhD; Nora S. Newcombe, PhD; Mark I. Appelbaum, PhD; and
Laird S. Cermak, PhD, respectively, are the incumbent editors.

Candidates should be members of APA and should be available to start receiving

manuscripts in early 2001 to prepare for issues published in 2002. Please note that the
P&C Board encourages participation by members of underrepresented groups in the
publication process and would particularly welcome such nominees. Self-nominations
are also encouraged.

To nominate candidates, prepare a statement of one page or less in support of each

candidate. The search chairs are as follows:

• Joe L. Martinez, Jr., PhD, for Behavioral Neuroscience

• Lauren B. Resnick, PhD, and Margaret B. Spencer, PhD, for JEP: Applied
• Sara B. Kiesler, PhD, for JEP: General
• LyleE. Bourne, Jr., PhD, for Psychological Methods
• Lucia A. Gilbert, PhD, for Neuropsychology

Address all nominations to the appropriate search committee at the following

address:

[Name of journal] Search Committee

c/o Karen Sellman, P&C Board Search Liaison
Room 2004
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, ME
Washington, DC 20002-4242

The first review of nominations will begin December 6,1999.