Response: We’re disappointed but have maybe not managed to grasp this feedback. Inside contours 276-277, i be concerned a strong searching for centered on prior literary works: you can find variations in mating orientation considering sexual positioning. Additionally, because it appeared in the initial submission in the dysfunction from the latest sociodemographic instrument put (now, during the p. seven, lines 178-180), we have inquired about intimate direction and differing responses got (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, other; perhaps not “not entirely heterosexual”). We believe you to definitely intimate positioning has been given the benefit it deserves: their importance has been justified throughout the introduction, the outcome per they were mentioned on in the newest conversation, possesses come acknowledged regarding the limits of the investigation that group heterosexuals/sexual minorities with her means a loss of riches and you will information regarding the ways homosexuals and you can bisexuals behave.
This means: The restricted sounding more youthful, reading, hetero- or low-heterosexual folks isn’t easy to be general past alone therefore do not respond to all the questions regarding the a lot of time-identity orientation variations of society and never respond to it in the itself.
Response: Once more, i have had troubles to fully see the comment. The employment of the many inclusion/exemption requirements is well-justified on the manuscript. Many of these points (but the fresh new low-recognition men and women, that’s currently explained about point Players) is actually discussed regarding the limitations of the study, recognizing your services of your own sample and of the new addition/different requirements can impact the new luxy inloggen generalization of one’s abilities. We never made an effort to establish all of our attempt since the affiliate on standard inhabitants, so we don’t know what’s the area here.
Response: We are disappointed but i also provide got problems to fully understand why review. Hence, we do not make improvement in the newest manuscript off that it thing.
Next: Brand new limited years duration is quite an excellent categorical than simply good metric varying and this overemphasizing potential outcomes of many years.
Response: Out of a statistical viewpoint, we do not understand what the newest customer is wanting to suggest here. Ages, at this point, is actually a changeable portrayed in a proportion level, having 9 different options, of 18, 19, 20. to twenty-six. What is obvious is the fact that the difference between 18 and you may 19 age is precisely the difference away from 25 to help you 26 decades. It equivalence from range anywhere between surrounding ratings isn’t a house off categorical details, so we you should never buy into the reviewer’s question.
Members of a relationship usually are regular matchmaking software pages (Freyth & Batinic, 2021; Hobbs ainsi que al, 2017; Le), relationship Grindr this is assumed so you’re able to, much more relationships are thought is discover. Freyth & Batinic further couldn’t see a significant difference of your own relationship updates out-of having fun with and never-using dating software, and in addition no difference in actual matchmaking application having fun with behavior.
Response: Thanks a lot definitely for the comment. We have been unsure on what the latest reviewer wants us to customize by the given so it comment.
– Le). As the Lefebvre suggests just how how she reviewed dating position was perhaps not indicative away from dating reputation when using Tinder: “members distinguisheded its current relationship condition (may/might not mirror its reputation when using Tinder)” (p. 1211).
– Freyth and you will Batinic (2021). It is undecided for us hence time these types of experts used to look at a man dating programs associate. 3), though it is actually uncertain when it relates to merely monitored users or to most of the players.