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 attributes, five regression activities presented significant overall performance which have ps ? 0.036 (all but the number of personal relationship, p = 0.253), but every R a d j dos was in fact small (diversity [0.01, 0.10]). Considering the large number of projected coefficients, we minimal the attention to the individuals statistically tall. People had a tendency to fool around with Tinder for a longer period (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you can gathered a great deal more family through Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Intimate fraction members found more substantial number of people offline (b = ?step one.33, p = 0.029), got a great deal more sexual dating (b = ?0.98, p chemistry profil Ã¶rnekleri = 0.026), and you can attained a whole lot more loved ones thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Earlier people utilized Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased regularity (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you will came across more folks (b = 0.29, p = 0.040).

## Considering the attention of one’s manuscript, i merely revealed the difference according to Tinder use

Results of new regression patterns to have Tinder purposes and their descriptives receive within the Table 4 . The outcomes was basically ordered for the descending acquisition from the get means. This new aim that have higher mode had been interest (M = cuatro.83; response measure step 1–7), activity (M = cuatro.44), and you may intimate orientation (Yards = cuatro.15). Those with all the way down mode were peer pressure (Meters = 2.20), old boyfriend (Yards = dos.17), and you may belongingness (M = 1.66).

## Dining table 4

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).