**Survey Details** Our dataset included the following scales: [Cohen's Social Network Index][1], 13 items from [Tangney et al.'s Self Control Scale][2], [Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale][3], Yildirim and Correia's (2015) scale on [attachment to smartphones and towards one's online identity][4], Fraley et al.'s [Experience in Close Relationship Questionnaire][5], Kooiman et al.'s [scale on alexithymia][6], Harris et al.'s scale on [attachment to homes][7], the [Southampton Nostalgia Scale][8], participants daily sugary drink consumption (cf. [Henriksen et al., 2014][9]), and two questionnaires that are in the process of being developed (for more information on this, please contact the authors). We also asked for participants' sex, sexual preference, whether they were in a romantic relationship or not, how monogamous they perceived themselves to be and their weight and height. As compared to the pilot test, we added questions on monogamy, relationship status, sexual preference, and attachment to smartphone and online identity. Finally, we looked up the minimum temperature and average humidity of the day participants completed the survey based on ip address by using a [weather history site][10], which bases weather on the nearest airport. **Dataset and Analyses** In our paper, we report several different analyses. The code for the 8 different models of the machine learning phase from the cross-national study is available [here][11], which can be run with the data that is available [here][12] (NB: Longitude is removed to help retain participants' anonymity). By running the script, all dotplots that we obtained for this article become available. Descriptives per site are available [here][13]. Questionnaires in each language can be obtained via each individual subcomponent, via the [main page][14]. In the paper, we report that we run analyses using [exploratory][15], [confirmatory][16], and [full datasets][17]. The SPSS outputs of these mediation analyses are organized below: 1. Mediation DEQ-CSI-CBT with Relationship Status moderating relationship between DEQ-CSI ([exploratory][18], [confirmatory][19], and [full analyses][20]). Mediations were seperated for [those with][21] and [those without][22] a relationship. 2. Mediation DEQ-CSI-CBT with Relationship Status moderating relationship between CSI-CBT (the analyses did not survive confirmatory, so we ran the [exploratory and confirmatory][23] only, and not the full dataset). 3. We also explored the mediation for DEQ-CBT with networksize. Given that [this mediation][24] did not even survive our exploratory analyses, we did not run any further analyses with networksize. 4. To be sure of the stability of our DEQ-CSI-CBT mediation model, we also ran it without romantic relationship as moderator ([with our specified controls][25] and [without our specified controls][26]) and with romantic relationship as moderator (but [without our specified controls][27]). Our mediation model remained stable no matter which model we specified. Finally, because UCSB used a temporal artery thermometer (rather than the oral thermometers used elsewhere), we ran the full mediation model without participants from UCSB. [Results][28] were again comparable. The dataset for the Spearman Rank Correlations for CBT is available [here][29] and the SPSS output [here][30]. The dataset for the Spearman Rank Correlations for CSI is available [here][31] and the SPSS output [here][32]. [1]: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~scohen/SNI.html [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/June_Tangney/publication/5390934_High_self-control_predicts_good_adjustment_less_pathology_better_grades_and_interpersonal_success/links/0fcfd50a389d80726c000000.pdf [3]: http://www.brandeis.edu/roybal/docs/Perceived%20Stress%20Scale_website_PDF.pdf [4]: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20609-7_68 [5]: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/measures/ecrritems.htm [6]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12479990 [7]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494496900250 [8]: http://www.wildschut.me/Tim_Wildschut/home_files/Barrett,%20grimm,%20Robins,%20Wildschut,%20Sedikides,%20&%20Janata,%202010,%20Emotion.pdf [9]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104421 [10]: http://www.wunderground.com/history/ [11]: https://osf.io/vgrrb/ [12]: https://osf.io/zf8fh/ [13]: https://osf.io/2w46c/ [14]: https://osf.io/2rm5b/ [15]: https://osf.io/t25d5/ [16]: https://osf.io/wa8xk/ [17]: https://osf.io/txskz/ [18]: https://osf.io/9rtq6/ [19]: https://osf.io/x8v3a/ [20]: https://osf.io/3cx5z/ [21]: https://osf.io/jqqeq/ [22]: https://osf.io/5vypb/ [23]: https://osf.io/mu8me/ [24]: https://osf.io/agj8z/ [25]: https://osf.io/97t39/ [26]: https://osf.io/4q4sg/ [27]: https://osf.io/9nbhk/ [28]: https://osf.io/b6r9v/ [29]: https://osf.io/wuyqs/ [30]: https://osf.io/qdqgn/ [31]: https://osf.io/m2zx4/ [32]: https://osf.io/r7ej2/