## Heterosexual: dummy varying in which sexual minority = 0 and you can heterosexual = step 1

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 the six felt functions, five regression models showed extreme results with ps ? 0.036 (just about the amount of intimate dating, p = 0.253), however, the R an effective d j dos was basically short (diversity [0.01, 0.10]). Because of the multitude of projected coefficients, we minimal our very own focus on the individuals statistically high. Males had a tendency to have fun with Tinder for a longer time (b = dos.fourteen, p = 0.032) and you can attained significantly more family relations thru Tinder (b = 0.70, p = 0.008). 33, p = 0.029), got a lot more intimate relationships (b = ?0.98, p = 0.026), and you will attained more friends through Tinder (b = ?0.81, p = 0.001). More mature people used Tinder for longer (b = 0.51, p = 0.025), with more volume (b = 0.72, p = 0.011), and fulfilled more people (b = 0.31, p = 0.040).

Results of brand new regression habits getting Tinder intentions in addition to their descriptives are provided inside the Table cuatro . The outcomes was in fact bought inside the descending acquisition from the get function. The newest motives which have high mode have been curiosity (Yards = 4.83; response scale step one–7), craft (Yards = cuatro.44), and sexual positioning (M = cuatro.15). People who have down setting was peer tension (Yards = 2.20), ex (Yards = 2.17) asian girls dating, and you may belongingness (Yards = step one.66).

## 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).

## Intimate minority users met a much bigger number of people offline (b = ?step one

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).