1 Supplemental Materials Table 1. Proportion of participants (N=1,139) from each American state State n % of sample 1. Alabama 12 1.05 2. Alaska 2 0.18 3. Arizona 16 1.40 4. Arkansas 7 0.62 5. California 115 10.10 6. Colorado 24 2.11 7. Connecticut 13 1.14 8. Delaware 5 0.44 9. Florida 89 7.81 10. Georgia 31 2.72 11. Hawaii 6 0.53 12. Idaho 8 0.70 13. Illinois 53 4.65 14. Indiana 20 1.76 15. Iowa 7 0.61 16. Kansas 7 0.61 17. Kentucky 16 1.40 18. Louisiana 8 0.70 19. Maine 8 0.70 20. Maryland 22 1.93 21. Massachusetts 29 2.55 22. Michigan 40 3.51 23. Minnesota 28 2.46 24. Mississippi 3 0.26 25. Missouri 24 2.11 26. Montana 4 0.35 27. Nebraska 7 0.61 28. Nevada 9 0.79 29. New Hampshire 10 0.88 30. New Jersey 30 2.63 31. New Mexico 6 0.53 32. New York 61 5.36 33. North Carolina 47 4.13 34. North Dakota 4 0.35 35. Ohio 55 4.83 36. Oklahoma 5 0.44 37. Oregon 23 2.02 38. Pennsylvania 54 4.74 39. Rhode Island 5 0.44 40. South Carolina 13 1.14 41. South Dakota 0 0.00 42. Tennessee 26 2.28 43. Texas 58 5.09 44. Utah 15 1.32 45. Vermont 5 0.44 46. Virginia 43 3.78 47. Washington 42 3.69 48. West Virginia 5 0.44 49. Wisconsin 18 1.58 50. Wyoming 1 0.09 2 Table 2. Convergent and discriminant validity correlations for need fulfillment measures (below the diagonal) and respective 95% confidence intervals (above the diagonal) BPNS BMPN Aut. Com. Rel. Aut. Com. Rel. Aut. (.61, .68) (.59, .66) (.80, .84) (.55, .62) (.63, .70) Com. .64 (.61, .68) (.61, .68) (.74, .79) (.61, .68) BPNS Rel. .63 .65 (.51, .59) (.54, .61) (.70, .76) Aut. .65 .55 (.59, .66) (.62, .68) .82 Com. .59 .58 .63 (.60, .67) BMPN .76 Rel. .66 .65 .65 .64 .73 Note: N = 1139; Mono-trait, hetero-method correlations and respective 95% confidence intervals are boldfaced; BPNS = Basic Psychological Needs Scale; BMPN = Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs; Aut. = Autonomy; Com. = Competence; Rel. = Relatedness. All correlations are significant at p < .0001. 3 Measurement Models for Need Fulfillment and Health Complaints Modeling need fulfillment. In the current study, the BPNS and BMPN were utilized to assess participants’ global levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In keeping with previous research using this global assessment strategy, the three need scales were highly correlated and we accordingly utilized the three composite variables as indictors of a single latent variable called need fulfillment in a confirmatory factor analysis. Substantively, this represents the very plausible assumption that, at a global level of assessment, the social contextual affordances that allow individuals to satisfy each of the three needs are highly interrelated (see Deci & Ryan, 2000). To increase the degrees of freedom and parsimony of this measurement model, we constrained the factor loadings of the need fulfillment indicators to be equivalent. It is important to note, however, that while such equality constraints force the factor loadings of the unstandardized estimates to be equal, the standardized estimates (reported below) also depend on the variance of the indicators and may differ from one another. This measurement model evidenced excellent fit on all indices with CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0, SRMR = .002, đ2 (2) = .0407, p = .9799. The confidence interval for the RMSEA was not applicable in this case because the model đ2 was greater than the model’s degrees of freedom (Kline, 2011). Each observed variable served as an effective indicator of need fulfillment, which accounted for 70%, 72%, and 72% of the variance, respectively, in participants’ composite scores for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Modeling health complaints. We similarly conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the four self-report measures of health complaints were satisfactorily related to the intended latent variable. This measurement model also evidenced excellent fit on all indices with CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .0333 (0 - .0759), SRMR = .0115, đ2 (2) = 4.4499, p = 4 .1081. Notwithstanding the single-item measure of subjective illness that only contained approximately 22% of valid variance, each observed variable served as an effective indicator of health complaints, which accounted for 54%, 63%, and 37% of the variance, respectively, in participants’ scores on the PILL, SMUHQ, and Sick Days. The combined measurement model. We next tested a correlated two-factor model that simultaneously examined whether the need fulfillment and health complaints indicators were reflective of the intended latent variables. The factor loadings of the need fulfillment indicators were constrained to be equivalent. This measurement model evidenced poor fit with CFI = .9550, RMSEA = .0910 (.0782 - .1044), SRMR = .0721, đ2 (15) = 152.31, p < .0001. Due to the less than satisfactory model fit, we examined the matrix of correlation residuals for secondary loadings and respecified the model so that need fulfillment also loaded on both the single-item subjective illness scale and on the PILL. This respecified model exhibited excellent fit with CFI = .9927, RMSEA = .0396 (.0240 - .0552), SRMR = .0219, đ2 (13) = 35.221, p < .001 and BIC values favored the modified model (BIC = 140.36) over the preceding model without crossloadings (BIC = 243.43). As illustrated below in Figure 1 of the Supplemental Materials, the absolute values of the secondary loadings in the modified model were in the small (-.16) to moderate (-.33) range, suggesting that the secondary loadings had a negligible effect on the meaning of the latent factors and theoretically important parameter estimates. We accordingly utilized this modified measurement model in all subsequent analyses. 5 6 Ancillary Analyses The SMUHQ contains items for common health symptoms and minor illnesses as well as items for more serious and chronic health problems. In this supplementary section, we accordingly consider a more nuanced set of analyses using participants’ responses on this instrument. In a first set of ancillary analyses, we followed Watson and Pennebaker (1989) and conducted a principal components analysis of the SMUHQ items with data from the 614 participants that completed all of the items on this scale (see Method section). The results of this procedure revealed a broad first component that accounted for 18.15% of the common variance. We constructed a Symptoms checklist using the appropriate items with the strongest loadings on this first principal component and excluded those items pertaining to any specific illnesses (cf. Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). The SMUHQ items included in this Symptoms checklist were: abdominal or stomach pain, constipation, diarrhea, headache (not migraine), indigestion, migraine headache, sore throat, vomiting, and water retention (bloating). Correlational analyses indicated that participants’ scores on this newly formed SMUHQ-Symptoms checklist (M = 2.44, SD = 2.20, α = .74) were redundant with the scores obtained on the full SMUHQ measure, r = .86. Nevertheless, we replaced the SMUHQ with this newly formed SMUHQ-Symptoms checklist as an indicator of health complaints in a revised set of structural analyses examining the fit of Model 1 (i.e., Model 1’) and Model 2 (i.e., Model 2’). The results of these analyses are detailed in the Supplemental Materials (Tables 3, 4, and 5). The overall fit of these revised models was acceptable and the respective path estimates did not substantively differ from those previously obtained in the results of the main analyses. 7 In a second set of ancillary analyses, we used the SMUHQ to identify and omit data from those participants suffering from more serious and chronic health problems that were uncommon (i.e., less than 2.5%) within our sample. We additionally identified and omitted data from those participants with the highest scores on the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SDE subscales (i.e., scores 2.5 SDs or greater above the mean). Table 6 in the Supplemental Materials details the number of participants omitted for each major health problem and for each type of social desirability response bias. Taking into account the participant overlap among these exclusion criteria, a total of 197 participants were omitted in a subsequent set of analyses in which we once again reestimated Model 1(i.e., Model 1”) and Model 2 (i.e., Model 2”). The results of these analyses are detailed in the Supplemental Materials (Tables 3, 7, and 8). Once again, the overall fit of these revised models was acceptable and the respective path estimates did not substantively differ from those previously obtained in the results of the main analyses. This suggests that the observed effects are driven neither by the outlying cases of participants suffering from serious health problems nor by outlying cases of social desirability response biases. 8 Table 3. Fit indices for ancillary structural equation models CFI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA SRMR χ2(df) BIC 2 .96 .0635 (.0541, .0732) .0378 đ (30) = 163.65, p < .0001 338.89 Model 1’ .93 .0659 (.0593, .0726) .0416 đ2 (61) = 353.90, p < .0001 662.32 Model 2’ .0528 (.0421, .0639) .0338 đ2 (30) = 106.06, p < .0001 276.40 Model 1’’ .97 .0577 (.0502, .0631) .0369 đ2 (61) = 245.45, p < .0001 545.24 Model 2’’ .95 Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI 90% = 90% confidence interval of RMSEA; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; χ2(df) = Model Chi-Square with associated degrees of freedom; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. 9 Table 4. Parameter estimates for revised Model 1’ (with newly constructed SMUHQ-Symptoms checklist) A. Direct effects unstandardized SE standardized Household Income ī Subjective SES .47 .03 .49 *** Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillment .17 .02 .28 *** Household Income ī Need Fulfillment .06 .02 .10 ** Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillment -4.06 1.99 -.06 * Subjective SES ī Health Complaints -.06 .02 -.10 * Household Income ī Health Complaints -.04 .02 -.08 † Income Inequality ī Health Complaints -2.70 2.23 -.04 Need Fulfillment ī Health Complaints -.21 .04 -.21 *** B. Test of theoretically relevant indirect effects Sobel’s Z Household Income ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.44, SE = .01, p < .05 Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -4.07, SE = .01, p < .001 Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints 1.88, SE = .46, p = .061 2 C. R for endogenous variables Subjective SES .24 Need Fulfillment .12 Health Complaints .09 D. Standardized factor loadings for latent constructs Need Fulfillment Health Complaints Autonomy .83 Competence .85 Relatedness .85 Subjective Illness -.35 .31 PILL -.17 .69 Sick Days .61 SMUHQ-Symptoms .66 Note: *** p < .001,** p < .01, †p < .10; single arrowheads (ī ) represent direct effects; all listed parameter estimates rounded to the nearest hundredth 10 Table 5. Parameter estimates for revised Model 2’ (with newly constructed SMUHQ-Symptoms checklist) E. Direct effects unstandardized SE standardized Household Income ī Subjective SES .48 .03 .50 *** Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillment .21 .02 .33 *** Household Income ī Need Fulfillment .07 .02 .12 ** Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillment -6.86 2.21 -.10 ** Subjective SES ī Health Complaints -.06 .03 -.10 * Household Income ī Health Complaints -.03 .02 -.06 Income Inequality ī Health Complaints -2.50 2.30 -.04 Need Fulfillment ī Health Complaints -.16 .05 -.16 ** Income Inequality ī Social Desirable Responding 2.46 .06 .04 *** Sex ī Subjective SES .06 .06 .03 Sex ī Household Income .08 .06 .04 Sex ī Need Fulfillment -.15 .04 -.12 *** Sex ī Health Complaints -.38 .04 -.33 *** Sex ī Social Desirable Responding .07 .02 .07 *** Age ī Subjective SES -.02 .00 -.11 *** Age ī Household Income .02 .01 .11 *** Age ī Need Fulfillment .01 .00 .05 Age ī Health Complaints -.01 .00 -.10 ** Age ī Social Desirable Responding .02 .07 .24 F. Test of theoretically relevant indirect effects Sobel’s Z Household Income ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.24, SE = .01, p < .05 Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -3.01, SE = .01, p < .01 Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.23, SE = .48, p < .05 2 G. R for main endogenous variables Subjective SES .25 Need Fulfillment .18 Health Complaints .17 H. Standardized factor loadings for latent constructs Need Fulfillment Health Complaints Social Desirable Responding Autonomy .67 .49 Competence .69 .50 Relatedness .67 .50 Subjective Illness -.38 .31 -.11 PILL -.16 .67 -.18 Sick Days .60 -.08 SMUHQ-Symptoms .66 -.05 BIDR-IM .60 BIDR-SDE .88 Note: *** p < .001,** p < .01; single arrowheads (ī ) represent direct effects; all listed parameter estimates rounded to the nearest hundredth; sex: female = -1, male = 1 11 Table 6. Number of participants suffering from serious and chronic health problems as identified on the SMUHQ and those with the highest scores on the BIDR subscales SMUHQ items n Anorexia 7 Appendicitis 5 Benign tumor 9 Blackouts 24 Breast cancer 5 Broken bones 24 Bulimia 9 Cancer (non-specific) 4 Colitis 10 Emphysema 3 Gall bladder problems 17 Hernia 18 Liver problem 9 Mononucleosis 3 Multiple sclerosis 1 Paralysis 2 Seizures 10 Skin cancer 5 Thrombosis (blood clots) 3 Ulcer 18 Venereal disease (including herpes) 17 BIDR IM 21 SDE 19 Total number of excluded participants 197 (with overlap among exclusion criteria) Note: SMUHQ = Southern Methodist University Health Questionnaire; BIDR = Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; IM = Impression Management; SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement 12 Table 7. Parameter estimates for revised Model 1” (N = 910; participants suffering from serious illness and those with the highest scores on the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SDE scales were omitted from the analyses). I. Direct effects unstandardized SE standardized Household Income ī Subjective SES .47 .03 .49 *** Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillment .17 .02 .29 *** Household Income ī Need Fulfillment .06 .02 .11 ** Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillment -5.72 2.20 -.09 ** Subjective SES ī Health Complaints -.09 .03 -.15 ** Household Income ī Health Complaints -.02 .02 -.03 Income Inequality ī Health Complaints -2.52 2.43 -.04 Need Fulfillment ī Health Complaints -.17 .05 -.18 *** J. Test of theoretically relevant indirect effects Sobel’s Z Household Income ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.31, SE = .01, p < .05 Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -3.36, SE = .01, p < .001 Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints 2.14, SE = .46, p < .05 K. R2 for endogenous variables Subjective SES .24 Need Fulfillment .13 Health Complaints .08 L. Standardized factor loadings for latent constructs Need Fulfillment Health Complaints Autonomy .83 Competence .84 Relatedness .84 Subjective Illness -.35 .31 PILL -.15 .66 Sick Days .58 SMUHQ .76 Note: *** p < .001,** p < .01, †p < .10; single arrowheads (ī ) represent direct effects; all listed parameter estimates rounded to the nearest hundredth 13 Table 8. Parameter estimates for revised Model 2” (N = 910; participants suffering from serious illness and those with the highest scores on the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SDE scales were omitted from the analyses). M. Direct effects unstandardized SE standardized Household Income ī Subjective SES .48 .03 .50 *** Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillment .21 .03 .34 *** Household Income ī Need Fulfillment .07 .02 .11 ** Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillment -8.71 2.41 -.13 ** Subjective SES ī Health Complaints -.09 .03 -.14 ** Household Income ī Health Complaints -.01 .03 -.02 Income Inequality ī Health Complaints -1.96 2.47 -.03 Need Fulfillment ī Health Complaints -.15 .05 -.15 ** Income Inequality ī Social Desirable Responding 2.62 .06 .04 *** Sex ī Subjective SES .02 .05 .01 Sex ī Household Income .06 .06 .03 Sex ī Need Fulfillment -.15 .04 -.13 *** Sex ī Health Complaints -.41 .05 -.35 *** Sex ī Social Desirable Responding .04 .02 .04 * Age ī Subjective SES -.02 .00 -.10 *** Age ī Household Income .02 .01 .14 *** Age ī Need Fulfillment .01 .00 .06 Age ī Health Complaints -.00 .00 -.03 Age ī Social Desirable Responding .02 .03 .23 N. Test of theoretically relevant indirect effects Sobel’s Z Household Income ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.03, SE = .01, p < .05 Subjective SES ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.74, SE = .01, p < .01 Income Inequality ī Need Fulfillmentī Health Complaints -2.26, SE = .57, p < .05 O. R2 for main endogenous variables Subjective SES .25 Need Fulfillment .20 Health Complaints .18 P. Standardized factor loadings for latent constructs Need Fulfillment Health Complaints Social Desirable Responding Autonomy .68 .47 Competence .70 .48 Relatedness .68 .47 Subjective Illness -.37 .31 -.10 PILL -.14 .64 -.17 Sick Days .56 -.08 SMUHQ .76 -.11 BIDR-IM .59 BIDR-SDE .89 Note: *** p < .001,** p < .01; single arrowheads (ī ) represent direct effects; all listed parameter estimates rounded to the nearest hundredth; sex: female = -1, male = 1