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 half a dozen felt features, five regression models showed significant results having ps ? 0.036 (just about just how many intimate matchmaking, p = 0.253), but all of the Roentgen a good d j 2 was in fact short (variety [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the large number of estimated coefficients, we minimal all of our attention to those mathematically extreme. Men had a tendency to fool around with Tinder for a longer period (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and attained way more family unit members via Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Intimate fraction players met a much bigger number of people traditional (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), had significantly more sexual relationship (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you can attained way more relatives thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Elderly professionals utilized Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with more volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you may met more people (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).

Consequence of the latest regression designs to possess Tinder intentions in addition to their descriptives are shown within the Dining table cuatro . The results was in fact ordered for the descending purchase of the score function. The new motives having higher means were attraction (M = cuatro.83; reaction size step 1–7), craft (Meters = 4.44), and you can intimate orientation (M = 4.15). Individuals with straight down setting was indeed fellow pressure (Meters = 2.20), old boyfriend (Meters = 2.17), and you can belongingness (Yards = step 1.66).

M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Sk = skewness. SE Bu web sitesine gidin = 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).