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).
For the six noticed features, four regression models shown tall results that have ps ? 0.036 (just about how many personal dating, p = 0.253), but most of the Roentgen good d j dos had been small (variety [0.01, 0.10]). Considering the multitude of projected coefficients, i restricted the attention to men and women statistically tall. Men tended to fool around with Tinder for a significantly longer time (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you will achieved a great deal more relatives through Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), had alot more sexual relationship (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and attained much more household members thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly people utilized Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with additional regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you may fulfilled more individuals (b = 0.31, p = 0.040).
Results of the latest regression patterns to have Tinder purposes and their descriptives get from inside the Desk 4 . The outcomes were purchased inside descending order by rating function. The brand new objectives with high function was curiosity (Yards = 4.83; effect scale 1–7), craft (Meters = 4.44), and intimate positioning (Yards = 4.15). Individuals with down function was indeed fellow pressure (M = dos.20), ex (Meters = 2.17), and belongingness (Meters = step 1.66).
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).
Intimate fraction people came across more substantial number of people offline (b = ?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).