## The outcome with the 10 mental and psychosexual variables are given in 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).

To your half a dozen sensed characteristics, four regression activities demonstrated extreme performance which have ps ? 0.036 (just about the number of romantic relationships https://datingranking.net/nepali-dating/, p = 0.253), but all R good d j 2 was basically small (diversity [0.01, 0.10]). Given the plethora of projected coefficients, we limited our awareness of the individuals statistically tall. People tended to explore Tinder for a significantly longer time (b = 2.fourteen, p = 0.032) and gained a great deal more friends thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). Sexual minority participants found more substantial amount of people offline (b = ?1.33, p = 0.029), got much more intimate matchmaking (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you can gained a great deal more members of the family thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Earlier people used Tinder for extended (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with increased frequency (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you may found more folks (b = 0.31, p = 0.040).

Outcome of the fresh new regression habits getting Tinder intentions in addition to their descriptives get in Desk 4 . The results had been purchased for the descending buy because of the rating form. The newest motives having high setting had been curiosity (Meters = cuatro.83; response scale step 1–7), hobby (Meters = cuatro.44), and sexual direction (Meters = cuatro.15). People who have lower means was peer stress (Yards = 2.20), ex (M = 2.17), and you can belongingness (M = 1.66).

## Desk 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).

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).