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 half dozen considered services, five regression habits exhibited significant efficiency with ps ? 0.036 (just about the number of intimate matchmaking, p = 0.253), however, the Roentgen good d j dos was basically small (assortment [0.01, 0.10]). Given the great number of estimated coefficients, i restricted the focus on men and women statistically extreme. Guys had a tendency to fool around with Tinder for a longer period (b = dos.14, p = 0.032) and gathered significantly more members of the family thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), got much more sexual relationships (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and gained a great deal more family unit members via Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly users made use of Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with additional regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you may met more individuals (b = 0.31, p = 0.040).

Outcome of the newest regression models to have Tinder objectives in addition to their descriptives get within the Dining table 4 . The outcomes was indeed bought in descending order because of the score setting. New aim which have high function had been curiosity (M = cuatro.83; reaction size 1–7), passion (Yards = 4.44), and sexual direction (Meters = 4.15). People with down setting was indeed fellow tension (M = 2.20), ex boyfriend (Yards = dos.17), and you will belongingness (M = step 1.66).

## Desk 4

M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Sk = skewness. SE = standard error. Men: dummy variable where women = 0 and affair free dating 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 players satisfied more substantial number of people off-line (b = ?step one

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).

この記事へのコメントはありません。