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 sensed services, five regression habits exhibited tall results having ps ? 0.036 (just about how many close relationships, p = 0.253), but all of the Roentgen an effective d j dos were quick (variety [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the great number of projected coefficients, we minimal all of our focus on the individuals statistically extreme. Men tended to have fun with Tinder for a bit longer (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you will achieved even more friends through Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), had much more intimate relationships (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and gathered significantly more relatives thru Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). Older players used Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and you can satisfied more people (b = atheist free chat 0.31, p = 0.040).
Result of the brand new regression models to have Tinder intentions and their descriptives get from inside the Table cuatro . The outcomes had been bought in the descending order from the rating setting. The brand new intentions that have large mode was basically attraction (Yards = cuatro.83; response level step 1–7), activity (Yards = cuatro.44), and you may sexual orientation (Yards = 4.15). People who have straight down setting have been fellow tension (M = 2.20), old boyfriend (Yards = 2.17), and you will belongingness (M = 1.66).
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]. 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).
|+506 6209 3846
+506 6210 1724
|Southern Nicoya Peninsula of northwestern Costa Rica.|
|Fax: (506) 2641-03-94|
|Mail: Section 14-5357 Paquera, Costa Rica|
|Schedule: According to the management plan, only visitors staying in the cabins may stay after 4:00 p.m. All others must vacante the wildlife refuge.|
© All Rights Reservad. All material on this site is the sole and exclusive Curú Wildlife Refugio - Costa Rica,
its use for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited without prior authorization.