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).

For the six experienced functions, five regression models presented significant overall performance having ps ? 0.036 (just about just how many close relationships, p = 0.253), but all the Roentgen a beneficial d j dos was indeed short (range [0.01, 0.10]). Considering the large number of projected coefficients, we minimal all of our attention to men and women mathematically significant. Boys tended to fool around with Tinder for a longer time (b = 2.14, p = 0.032) and you may gained more nearest and dearest thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), had much more intimate relationships (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you may attained a great deal more household members thru Tinder (b = ?0 dating for bbw Canada.81, p = 0.001). More mature participants utilized Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with an increase of regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and satisfied more people (b = 0.30, p = 0.040).

Result of the latest regression patterns for Tinder purposes as well as their descriptives are given into the Table 4 . The results was in fact bought within the descending buy from the rating setting. The fresh new motives that have large mode had been interest (Meters = cuatro.83; impulse size step 1–7), pastime (Meters = 4.44), and you can intimate direction (Meters = 4.15). People who have straight down setting was in fact peer tension (M = 2.20), ex (Meters = dos.17), and belongingness (Meters = step one.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).

## Sexual fraction people met a more impressive number of individuals traditional (b = ?step 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 = –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).