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).

With the half dozen sensed properties, five regression habits demonstrated tall results that have ps ? 0.036 (just about what number of intimate relationships, p = 0.253), however, all of the R a beneficial d j 2 was short (range [0.01, 0.10]). Given the great number of estimated coefficients, we minimal the attention to men and women statistically extreme. People had a tendency to have fun with Tinder for a longer period (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you may achieved a great deal more family thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), got even more intimate matchmaking (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will gathered a lot more friends via Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly professionals utilized Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with an increase of volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you will came across more folks (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).

Consequence of this new regression activities having Tinder objectives in addition to their descriptives receive in the Table cuatro . The results had been bought in the descending buy from the get means. The aim having highest function was fascination (Meters = cuatro.83; response level step 1–7) try these out, interest (Meters = 4.44), and you can intimate orientation (Meters = 4.15). People who have straight down mode were peer tension (Yards = dos.20), old boyfriend (M = dos.17), and you can belongingness (Yards = step one.66).

Dining table cuatro

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).

Sexual minority people satisfied a more impressive number of individuals offline (b = ?step 1

For the 13 considered motives, seven regression models 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]. Given the focus of the manuscript, we only described the differences according to Tinder use. 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).

saarcis

See all author post