Variance explained for Models 6 and 7 variance explained = (τ

The variance explained was equal to the proportion of total between-person variance with only previous S-DERS Clarity and previous PANAS Negative Affect/ DASS Depression/ CTS Social Self-Esteem entered at level 1, and BMI, ECR anxiety/ avoidance entered at the level 2 intercept (τ2

u)accounted for by adding ECR anxiety/ avoidance to the level 2 slope (τ2v; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Model 7: Predicting Emotion Dysregulation from Negative Affect/ Depressive Symptoms/ Social Self-Esteem x Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance Interaction for Path a of Hypothesis 3 Level 1: S-DERS Scoreti = π0i + π 1iS-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + π2iNegative Affect/ Depressive

symptoms/ social self-esteem(t– 1)i + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β01iBMI + β02iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20 + β21iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance + r2i π3i = β30 + r3i

Level 1 represents the within-person level, and level 2 represents the between-person level. Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to reduce multicollinearity, and to represent

parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on the variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for so as to circumvent singularity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For the models including PANAS Negative Affect as a predictor, BMI was not controlled for as this variable did not significantly predict momentary PANAS Negative Affect.

Model 8: Predicting Binge Eating from Negative Affect/ Depressive Symptoms/ Social Self- Esteem x Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance Interaction and Emotion Dysregulation for Path b of Hypothesis 3

Level 1: Prob(BINGEti = 1|πi) = Φti

log(Φti/[1 – Φti]) = ηti

ηti = π0i + π 1iS-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + π2iNegative Affect/ Depressive symptoms/ social

self-esteem(t– 1)I + π3iS-DERS Score(t– 1)i + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β01iBMI + β02iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20 + β21iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance + r2i π3i = β30 + r3i

Level 1 represents the within-person level, and level 2 represents the between-person level. ϕij represents the predicted probability that a participant would binge eat. Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to reduce multicollinearity, and to represent parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on the variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for so as to circumvent singularity

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For the models including PANAS Negative Affect as a predictor, BMI was not controlled for as this variable did not significantly predict momentary PANAS Negative Affect.

Model 9: Predicting Body Dissatisfaction from Negative Affect/ Depressive Symptoms/ Social Self-Esteem x Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance Interaction and Emotion

Dysregulation for Path b of Hypothesis 3

Level 1: BISSti = π0i + π 1iS-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + π2iNegative Affect/ Depressive symptoms/ social self-esteem(t– 1)i + π3iS-DERS Score(t– 1)I + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β01iBMI + β02iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20 + β21iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance + r2i π3i = β30 + r3i

Level 1 represents the within-person level, and level 2 represents the between-person level. Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to reduce multicollinearity, and to represent

parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on the variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for so as to circumvent singularity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Model 10: Predicting Emotion Dysregulation from Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance for Path a of Additional Analyses

Level 1: S-DERS Scoreti = π0i + π 1iS-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β02iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to represent parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on the variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for to circumvent singularity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Model 11: Predicting Binge Eating from Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance and Emotion Dysregulation for Path b of Additional Analyses

Level 1: Prob(BINGEti = 1|πi) = Φti

log(Φti/[1 – Φti]) = ηti

ηti = π0i + π 1i S-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + π2iS-DERS Score(t– 1)i + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β01iAttachment Anxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20 + r2i

Level 1 represents the within-person level, and level 2 represents the between-person level. ϕij represents the predicted probability that a participant binged. Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to represent parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the

mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for so as to circumvent singularity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Model 12: Predicting Body Dissatisfaction from Attachment Anxiety/ Avoidance and Emotion Dysregulation for Path b of Additional Analyses

Level 1: BISSti = π0i + π 1iS-DERS Clarity(t– 1)i + π2i iS-DERS Score(t– 1)i + eti

Level 2: π0i = β00 + β01iAttachmentAnxiety/ Avoidance +r0i π1i = β10 + r1i

π2i = β20 + r2i

Level 1 represents the within-person level, and level 2 represents the between-person level. ϕij represents the predicted probability that a participant would binge eat. Level 1 variables were group-mean centered (i.e., cluster-mean centered) so that the level 1 slopes would represent the pooled within-person effects of the variable on the outcome. Level 2 variables were grand-mean centered so as to represent parameters as the average effect rather than as the effect coded zero on the variables (Cohen et al., 2003; Enders & Tofhigi, 2007). For the models examining the mediating effects of previous S-DERS Clarity and previous S-DERS Total, S-DERS Clarity was not controlled for so as to circumvent singularity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).