Heterosexual: dummy adjustable where intimate minority = 0 and you may heterosexual = step one
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).
To your half a dozen noticed features, five regression habits demonstrated extreme results having ps ? 0.036 (all but exactly how many close matchmaking, p = 0.253), however, every R a d j 2 had been short (assortment [0.01, 0.10]). Considering the great number of projected coefficients, i minimal our very own attention to people mathematically tall. Males had a tendency to explore Tinder for a bit longer (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you will achieved alot more family unit members thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), got more sexual relationship (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will gathered far more household members via Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly participants made use of Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and found more individuals (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).
Results of the regression activities getting Tinder objectives in addition to their descriptives are given into the Dining table cuatro . The results was in fact ordered for the descending purchase of the score means. Brand new aim which have high mode was basically curiosity (M = cuatro.83; response measure 1–7), craft (M = 4.44), and you can intimate positioning (Yards = cuatro Louisiana dating site.15). Those with down function was in fact peer stress (Meters = 2.20), ex boyfriend (Meters = dos.17), and you will belongingness (Meters = 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).
Sexual minority members fulfilled 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).
