## The results into 10 mental and you may psychosexual variables are offered from inside the Dining table 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).

Toward half dozen thought properties, five regression habits shown tall abilities which have ps ? 0.036 (just about what number of romantic matchmaking, p = 0.253), but most of the Roentgen a beneficial d j 2 had been short (range [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the large number of estimated coefficients, we limited our focus on those people mathematically tall. Males tended to fool around with Tinder for a significantly longer time (b = 2.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you may attained even more family members thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Intimate minority members met a much bigger number of people offline (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), got so much more intimate matchmaking (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you can gathered significantly more family through Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). More mature users put Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with additional volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you can found more people (b = 0.30, p = 0.040).

Result of new regression models to have Tinder motives as well as their descriptives are provided in Desk cuatro . The outcomes have been ordered inside descending purchase because of the get setting. The brand new aim which have highest form had been curiosity (M = cuatro.83; reaction scale step 1–7), interest (Meters = cuatro.44), and you can sexual orientation (Meters = 4.15). Individuals with all the way down function was basically peer tension (Yards = dos.20), ex (M = dos.17), and you will belongingness (Meters = 1.66).

## Dining table cuatro

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) http://www.datingranking.net/canada-lesbian-dating. 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).