The results for the 10 emotional and psychosexual details are given inside Desk 5
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).
Towards the half dozen experienced functions, five regression designs presented tall results that have ps ? 0.036 (just about the number of intimate relationships, p = 0.253), however, most of the R a beneficial d j dos was indeed short (diversity [0.01, 0.10]). Given the multitude of projected coefficients, we minimal all of our attention to those mathematically significant. Men had a tendency to explore Tinder for a significantly longer time (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and you can achieved more family members via Tinder (b = 0 woosa.70, p = 0.008). Sexual minority users found a more impressive number of individuals off-line (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), got far more sexual relationship (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and gathered far more family relations through Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly professionals made use of Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased frequency (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you can satisfied more folks (b = 0.30, p = 0.040).
Result of new regression activities to have Tinder objectives and their descriptives are provided in the Desk cuatro . The outcome was bought during the descending buy of the score form. The newest purposes which have large setting was basically interest (Yards = cuatro.83; impulse level step 1–7), passion (M = 4.44), and you will intimate positioning (Meters = cuatro.15). People with lower means was peer stress (M = dos.20), old boyfriend (Meters = 2.17), and you will belongingness (Yards = step one.66).
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).
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).
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).
