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).

Into the half a dozen noticed characteristics, four regression habits demonstrated high performance with ps ? 0.036 (just about the amount of intimate dating, p = 0.253), but all the R a d j 2 was indeed quick (diversity [0.01, 0.10]). Given the great number of projected coefficients, we minimal the awareness of people statistically high. Guys tended to play with Tinder for a longer period (b = dos.14, p = 0.032) and gained far more family members through Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Sexual minority players fulfilled more substantial number of individuals offline (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), had so much more intimate relationships (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will achieved more family relations thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Earlier professionals made use of Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you can fulfilled more folks (b = 0.30, p = 0.040).

## Considering the desire of your own manuscript, i only revealed the difference according to Tinder have fun with

Consequence of the newest her giriÅŸ regression patterns having Tinder motives as well as their descriptives get inside the Desk 4 . The outcome was basically ordered in the descending order because of the get setting. The newest objectives with highest mode was indeed curiosity (M = cuatro.83; response size step 1–7), passion (Yards = 4.44), and sexual positioning (Yards = cuatro.15). People who have straight down means was fellow pressure (Yards = 2.20), old boyfriend (Meters = 2.17), and you can belongingness (Yards = step 1.66).

## 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). 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).