The results towards ten emotional and you may psychosexual parameters receive in 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).
For the six considered functions, five regression models showed significant efficiency having ps ? 0.036 (all but how many close dating, p = 0.253), but every R a good d j 2 had been short (assortment [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the multitude of estimated coefficients, i limited the attention to men and women mathematically extreme. People had a tendency to have fun with Tinder for a longer period (b = dos.14, p = 0.032) and you may attained alot more friends thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Sexual minority people came across a larger number of people off-line (b = ?step one.33, p = 0.029), had way more intimate relationship (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will attained so much more loved ones via Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Older participants used Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you will satisfied more folks (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).
Outcome of brand new regression models for Tinder intentions in addition to their descriptives receive for the Desk cuatro . The outcomes was indeed ordered from inside the descending buy of the score mode. The fresh new intentions with high means was fascination (Meters = cuatro.83; response scale 1–7), hobby (Meters = 4.44), and you may sexual direction (M = cuatro.15). Those with all the way down mode had been peer pressure (Yards = dos.20), old boyfriend (Meters = 2.17), and you can belongingness https://www.datingranking.net/chicago-personals/ (Meters = step 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).
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).