step three. Overall performance
Of the participants, 86.0% (n = 1085) were Tinder nonaffiliates and 14.0% (n = 176) were users. All sociodemographic variables were associated with the dating apps users group. With respect to gender, for women, the distributions by group were pnonuser = 0.87 and puser = 0.13; for men, pnonuser = 0.81 and puser = 0.19; ? 2 (1) = 6.60, p = 0.010, V = 0.07. For sexual minority participants, pnonuser = 0.75 and puser = 0.25; for heterosexual participants, pnonuser = 0.89 and puser = 0.11; ? 2 (1) = , p < 0.001, V = 0.18. Age was associated with the Tinder users group, with users being the older ones (M = , SD = 2.03) and nonusers the younger (M = , SD = 2.01), t(1259) = 5.72, p < 0.001, d = 0.46.
Dining table step one
Nonusers: professionals stated having never ever put Tinder. Users: participants said which have previously used Tinder. d = Cohen’s d. V = Cramer’s V Age, measured in many years. Proportions by the row. PANAS = Positive and negative Apply to Plan. MBSRQ = Physical appearance Analysis Scale of your Multidimensional Looks-Self Connections Survey-Looks Bills. SSS = Small variety of the latest Sex Scale. SOI-R = Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Changed. CNAS = Consensual Nonmonogamy Ideas Level. Intimate Lover = self-value as the a sexual mate. Frustration = frustration that have love life. Preoccupation = preoccupation which have gender.
Tinder users and nonusers showed statistically significant differences in all psychosexual and psychological variables but not in body satisfaction [t(1259) = ?0.59, p = 0.557, d = ?0.05] and self-esteem as a sexual partner [t(1259) = 1.45, p = 0.148, d = 0.12]. Differences in both negative [t(1259) = 1.96, p = 0.050] and positive affects [t(1259) = 1.99, p = 0.047] were rather small, ds = 0.16. Tinder users presented higher dissatisfaction with sexual life [t(1259) = 3.73, p < 0.001, d = 0.30]; preoccupation with sex [t(1259) = 4.87, p < 0.001, d = 0.40]; and better attitudes to consensual nonmonogamy [t(1259) = 4.68, p < 0.001, d = 0.38]. The larger differences were in the three sociosexual dimensions [behavior, t(1259) = , p < 0.001, d = 0.83; attitudes, t(1259) = 5.30, p < 0.001, d = 0.43; and desire, t(1259) = 8.06, p < 0.001, d = 0.66], with Tinder users more oriented toward short-term relationships.
Results of the logistic regression model are shown in Dining table 2 and were in accordance with those just reported. For this model, the explanatory capacity was small (Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R 2 = 0.10 and McFadden’s pseudo-R 2 = 0.07). Men had a higher probability of Tinder use (odds ratio, OR = 1.52, p = 0.025). Increments in age were associated with increments in the probability of use (OR = 1.25, p < 0.001). Being heterosexual reduced the probability of use (OR = 0.35, p < 0.001). To better understand the relevance of these variables, we computed the probability of Tinder use for an 18-year-old heterosexual woman and for a 26-year-old nonheterosexual man. For that woman, puser = 0.05; for that man, puser = 0.59.
SE = standard error, OR = odds ratio, and CI = odds ratio confidence interval. Men: dummy variable where women = 0 and men = 1. Heterosexual: dummy variable where sexual minority = 0 and heterosexual = 1. Age, measured in years https://www.datingranking.net/austrian-chat-room. Bold values correspond to statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05).
Results of the new regression models to possess Tinder use features as well as their descriptives are provided from inside the Dining table step three . Tinder profiles was making use of the application to have cuatro.04 months and you may minutes weekly. Profiles satisfied a mean from 2.59 Tinder contacts offline and had step 1.thirty-two sexual relationships. Just like the average, the usage of new application contributed to 0.27 intimate relationships and you can 0.85 relationships.