Heterosexual: dummy variable where intimate fraction = 0 and you can 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).

On the six experienced qualities, four regression habits shown tall abilities that have ps ? 0.036 (just about what number of close relationships, p = 0.253), however, all of the Roentgen an effective d j dos was indeed brief (assortment [0.01, 0.10]). Considering the multitude of projected coefficients, i minimal all of our attention to those people mathematically significant. Males tended to fool around with Tinder for a bit longer (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and you will gathered much more family members via Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Intimate fraction professionals fulfilled a more impressive amount of people offline (b = ?step 1.33, p = 0.029), got even more sexual dating (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will achieved more friends thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). More mature members utilized Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with an increase of frequency (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you can found more individuals (b = 0.31, p = 0.040).

Given the focus of the manuscript, i only described the distinctions based on Tinder play with

Outcome of the regression models having Tinder intentions as well as their descriptives are offered within the Dining table cuatro . The internationalcupid hile results was in fact purchased into the descending buy from the rating setting. The latest aim having high function were curiosity (Yards = 4.83; response measure step one–7), passion (Yards = 4.44), and you can intimate positioning (M = 4.15). Those with all the way down form was indeed peer stress (Meters = 2.20), old boyfriend (M = 2.17), and you will belongingness (M = 1.66).

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 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).