Table 4.
Results from the bivariate logistic regression models for online dating profiles.
| Discouraged users (n=93) | Date seekers (n=67) | Instant lovers (n=20) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M (SD) / N (%) |
OR (95% CI) | M (SD) / N (%) |
OR (95% CI) | M (SD) / N (%) |
OR (95% CI) | |
| Demographic Characteristics | ||||||
| Age | 21.7 (1.8) | 1.02 (0.87, 1.20) | 21.5 (1.8) | 0.93 (0.78, 1.09) | 22.1 (2.1) | 1.15 (0.88, 1.51) |
| Non-hispanic White | 55 (59.1%) | 1.23 (0.68, 2.23) | 37 (55.2%) | 0.66 (0.33, 1.29) | 10 (50.0%) | 0.74 (0.29, 1.88) |
| Education* | 68 (73.1%) | 0.82 (0.67, 1.00) | 58 (86.6%) | 1.15 (0.94, 1.42) | 16 (80.0%) | 1.20 (0.85, 1.69) |
| Relationship Characteristics | ||||||
| Committed romantic relationship | 3.7 (0.4) | 1.41 (0.66, 3.03) | 3.7 (0.3) | 1.39 (0.62, 3.13) | 3.5 (0.6) | 0.90 (0.11, 0.79)a |
| Sexual sensational seeking | 18.6 (5.5) | 0.90 (0.85, 0.95)b | 22.0 (5.7) | 1.10 (1.04, 1.16)b | 21.7 (5.7) | 1.05 (0.97, 1.14) |
| Limerence | 22.9 (6.0) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.04) | 23.5 (7.3) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 21.7 (6.8) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) |
| Sexual behaviors | ||||||
| Decisional balance to use condoms | −0.3 (1.0) | 1.49 (1.07, 2.07)a | −0.6 (0.8) | 0.73 (0.52, 1.03) | −0.7 (0.9) | 0.76 (0.46, 1.28) |
| Number of sex partners | 1.4 (1.3) | 0.49 (0.37, 0.64)b | 2.7 (1.4) | 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) | 6.7 (5.4) | 1.37 (1.18, 1.60)b |
| Condomless anal intercourse | 0.8 (1.1) | 0.69 (0.54, 0.89)b | 1.5 (2.5) | 1.07 (0.93, 1.23) | 2.9 (3.8) | 1.25 (1.05, 1.50)a |
Note.
*
At least some college education in the frequency column and modeling as continuous variable. OR = Odds Ratio (the ratio of the odds of A in one profile and the odds of A in the other two profiles). CI= Confidence Interval.
a
p ≤ 0.05.
b
p ≤ 0.01.