Heterosexual: dummy variable in which intimate fraction = 0 and heterosexual = 1

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 half dozen sensed properties, four regression activities exhibited tall overall performance having ps ? 0.036 (all but just how many romantic matchmaking, p = 0.253), however, all Roentgen an effective d j 2 was small (range [0.01, 0.10]). Given the large number of estimated coefficients, i minimal our attention to men and women mathematically significant. Males had a tendency to play with Tinder for a longer time (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and you may gained so much more relatives via Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), got a whole lot more sexual dating (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will attained even more loved ones thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Earlier participants used Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with an increase of volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you will fulfilled more individuals (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).

Consequence of the latest regression activities to have Tinder aim and their descriptives are offered inside the Dining table 4 . The results was in fact purchased during the descending acquisition by the get setting. The brand new aim which have highest setting were fascination (Yards = 4.83; reaction size step 1–7), passion (Meters = 4.44), and you may sexual positioning (Meters = 4.15). People who have down form was fellow pressure (M = dos.20), ex boyfriend (M = 2.17), and you will belongingness (Yards = 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).

Sexual minority users came across a much bigger number of individuals off-line (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 = free chat room armenian –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).