F the time, and avoidant participants 48.1 on the time). Participants having a secure style reported greater feelings of closeness than did these with an anxious or avoidant style. As expected, anxiously attached people had been much more probably than secure ones to report that they were alone for the reason that others didn’t desire to be with them (i.e., perceived social rejection). Additionally, as compared with secure folks, these with an avoidant attachment showed a decreased need to be with others when alone, and an enhanced preference to be alone when with other individuals. Unexpectedly, compared with all the secure group, the anxious group also displayed a larger preference for getting alone when with other people.Statistical MethodExperience sampling methodology information possess a hierarchical structure in which every day life ratings (level 1 data) are nested inside participants (level 2 information). Multilevel or hierarchical linear modeling tactics are a standard approach for the PTK/ZK cost analysis of ESM data (Nezlek, 2001; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). The multilevel analyses 
examined two varieties of relations between the attachment groups and everyday life experiences. Initially, we assessed the independent effects of level 2 predictors (attachment style groups) on level 1 dependent measures (ESM ratings in each day life). Second, cross-level interactions (or slopes-as-outcomes) examined whether level 1 relationships (e.g., closeness and adverse impact inside the moment) varied as a function of level 2 variables (attachment groups). The analyses were conducted with Mplus 6 (Muth and Muth , 1998?010). To examine the effects of attachment, the analyses included two TG100 115 web dummy-coded attachment style variables that had been entered simultaneously because the level 2 predictors, following Cohen et al. (2003). The first dummy code contrasted the anxious and secure attachment groups, as well as the second contrasted the avoidant and safe attachment groups. The safe attachment group was coded 0 in both codings. Note that direct comparisons in the anxious and avoidant attachment groups were not made, offered that our hypotheses focused on variations among secure and insecure attachment. Level 1 predictors were group-mean centered (Enders and Tofighi, 2007). The data departed from normality in some cases, so parameter estimates were calculated applying maximum likelihood estimation with robust SEs.ResultsBased upon the ASI, 119 (57.eight ) of the participants had been categorized as obtaining safe attachment, 46 (22.3 ) as having anxious attachment, and 41 (19.9 ) as having avoidant attachment. These percentages are comparable to these reported in prior research employing the ASI in non-clinical samples (e.g., Conde et al., 2011; Oskis et al., 2013). The attachment groups didn’t differ in terms of age or sex. Participants completed an typical of 40.8 usable ESM questionnaires (SD = 9.1). The attachment groups did not differ on the mean quantity of usableFrontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMarch 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleSheinbaum et al.Real-life expression of attachmentModerating Effects of Attachment Style on the Association of Social Context with Each day Life ExperiencesTwo sets of cross-level interaction analyses have been performed to examine the extent to which participants’ social context impacted the expression of attachment designs in each day life. Particularly, we examined no matter if attachment designs moderated the association of social speak to (alone = 1; with others = 2) and social closeness when with others (“I feel close to thi.F the time, and avoidant participants 48.1 of the time). Participants using a secure style reported higher feelings of closeness than did these with an anxious or avoidant style. As anticipated, anxiously attached individuals have been additional probably than secure ones to report that they have been alone mainly because other individuals did not choose to be with them (i.e., perceived social rejection). Furthermore, as compared with safe men and women, those with an avoidant attachment showed a decreased need to be with other individuals when alone, and an increased preference to become alone when with other folks. Unexpectedly, compared with all the secure group, the anxious group also displayed a larger preference for becoming alone when with other folks.Statistical MethodExperience sampling methodology data have a hierarchical structure in which every day life ratings (level 1 information) are nested inside participants (level two data). Multilevel or hierarchical linear modeling strategies are a normal strategy for the evaluation of ESM data (Nezlek, 2001; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). The multilevel analyses examined two varieties of relations involving the attachment groups and every day life experiences. 1st, we assessed the independent effects of level 2 predictors (attachment style groups) on level 1 dependent measures (ESM ratings in every day life). Second, cross-level interactions (or slopes-as-outcomes) 
examined irrespective of whether level 1 relationships (e.g., closeness and negative affect in the moment) varied as a function of level 2 variables (attachment groups). The analyses have been carried out with Mplus six (Muth and Muth , 1998?010). To examine the effects of attachment, the analyses integrated two dummy-coded attachment style variables that have been entered simultaneously because the level two predictors, following Cohen et al. (2003). The first dummy code contrasted the anxious and secure attachment groups, plus the second contrasted the avoidant and secure attachment groups. The safe attachment group was coded 0 in each codings. Note that direct comparisons from the anxious and avoidant attachment groups have been not created, offered that our hypotheses focused on variations between secure and insecure attachment. Level 1 predictors had been group-mean centered (Enders and Tofighi, 2007). The information departed from normality in some cases, so parameter estimates have been calculated employing maximum likelihood estimation with robust SEs.ResultsBased upon the ASI, 119 (57.8 ) on the participants had been categorized as having safe attachment, 46 (22.3 ) as obtaining anxious attachment, and 41 (19.9 ) as obtaining avoidant attachment. These percentages are comparable to those reported in preceding studies applying the ASI in non-clinical samples (e.g., Conde et al., 2011; Oskis et al., 2013). The attachment groups did not differ in terms of age or sex. Participants completed an typical of 40.8 usable ESM questionnaires (SD = 9.1). The attachment groups didn’t differ on the mean quantity of usableFrontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgMarch 2015 | Volume six | ArticleSheinbaum et al.Real-life expression of attachmentModerating Effects of Attachment Style on the Association of Social Context with Day-to-day Life ExperiencesTwo sets of cross-level interaction analyses had been performed to examine the extent to which participants’ social context impacted the expression of attachment styles in each day life. Particularly, we examined no matter whether attachment styles moderated the association of social make contact with (alone = 1; with other individuals = two) and social closeness when with other individuals (“I feel close to thi.