M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Sk = skewness. SE = standard error; # = number. Usage time, measured in months. Use frequency, measured as times/week. Men: dummy variable where women = 0 and men = 1. Age, measured in years. Bold values correspond to statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05).
Into half a dozen felt functions, five regression habits shown significant overall performance having ps ? 0.036 (just about how many romantic relationships, p = 0.253), however, all R a good d j dos have been small (variety [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the great number of estimated coefficients, i limited the attention to those people statistically tall. People tended to explore Tinder for a significantly longer time (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and achieved a whole lot more friends thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Sexual minority players met a more impressive number of people off-line (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), got more sexual dating (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will attained alot more friends thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly members used Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased frequency (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you will came across more folks (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).
Because of the attract of one’s manuscript, we only described the differences based on Tinder have fun with
Results of the brand new regression habits to possess Tinder objectives and their descriptives are provided inside Desk 4 . The results were ordered in descending order because of the get function. This new intentions that have large setting was basically interest (Yards = cuatro.83; response size step 1–7), craft (Meters = 4.44), and you will intimate positioning (Yards = cuatro.15). People with down setting was basically fellow pressure (M = dos.20), old boyfriend (Meters = dos.17), and you will belongingness (Yards = 1.66).
Dining table 4
M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Sk = skewness. SE = standard error. Men: dummy variable where women = 0 and men = 1. Age, measured in years. Dependent variables were standardized. Motives were ordered by their means. Bold values correspond to statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05).
For the 13 considered motives, seven regression models jak uÅ¼ywaÄ‡ meet24 showed significant results (ps ? 0.038), and six were statistically nonsignificant (ps ? 0.077). The R a d j 2 tended to be small (range [0.00, 0.13]). Again, we only commented on those statistically significant coefficients (when the overall model was also significant). Women reported higher scores for curiosity (b = ?0.53, p = 0.001), pastime/entertainment (b = ?0.46, p = 0.006), distraction (b = ?0.38, p = 0.023), and peer pressure (b = ?0.47, p = 0.004). For no motive men’s means were higher than women’s. While sexual minority participants showed higher scores for sexual orientation (as could be expected; b = –0.75, p < 0.001) and traveling (b = ?0.37, p = 0.018), heterosexual participants had higher scores for peer pressure (b = 0.36, p = 0.017). Older participants tended to be more motivated by relationship-seeking (b = 0.11, p = 0.005), traveling (b = 0.08, p = 0.035), and social approval (b = 0.08, p = 0.040).
The results for the 10 psychological and psychosexual variables are shown in Table 5 . All the regression models were statistically significant (all ps < 0.001). Again, the R a d j 2 tended to be small, with R a d j 2 in the range [0.01, 0.15]. The other coefficients were less informative, as they corresponded to the effects adjusted for Tinder use. Importantly, Tinder users and nonusers did not present statistically significant differences in negative affect (b = 0.12, p = 0.146), positive affect (b = 0.13, p = 0.113), body satisfaction (b = ?0.08, p = 0.346), or self-esteem as a sexual partner (b = 0.09, p = 0.300), which are the four variables related to the more general evaluation of the self. Tinder users showed higher dissatisfaction with sexual life (b = 0.28, p < 0.001), a higher preoccupation with sex (b = 0.37, p < 0.001), more sociosexual behavior (b = 0.65, p < 0.001), a more positive attitude towards casual sex (b = 0.37, p < 0.001), a higher sociosexual desire (b = 0.52, p < 0.001), and a more positive attitude towards consensual nonmonogamy (b = 0.22, p = 0.005).