Response: We’re disappointed but have not were able to fully understand which remark. For the traces 276-277, we be concerned a strong wanting according to earlier literary works: you will find variations in mating orientation based on sexual positioning. Concurrently, because it starred in the first submission on description regarding new sociodemographic tool made use of (today, in p. seven, traces 178-180), we have inquired about intimate positioning and various answers were given (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, other; maybe not “perhaps not completely heterosexual”). We think you to definitely intimate orientation could have been because of the https://datingranking.net/nl/myladyboydate-overzicht/ importance it deserves: the pros has been warranted on addition, the outcome relating to they was basically mentioned on in new talk, and has started acknowledged in the restrictions of your analysis that collection heterosexuals/intimate minorities together with her function a loss in riches and information regarding this way homosexuals and you may bisexuals react.
It means: The very minimal group of younger, understanding, hetero- or non-heterosexual visitors isn’t simple to end up being generalized past in itself therefore usually do not answer the questions towards long-title positioning differences of your populace rather than answer they in the itself.
Response: Once again, i’ve had trouble to fully understand the remark. The aid of various introduction/exception requirements are better-rationalized on the manuscript. A few of these elements (except the fresh new low-recognition men and women, that’s already told me regarding area Users) try mentioned regarding limitations of one’s data, recognizing your features of your take to and of the new introduction/exclusion requirements make a difference the newest generalization of efficiency. I never ever tried to expose all of our take to just like the affiliate in the general society, so we do not fully understand what is the part right here.
Response: The audience is disappointed but we also have got problems to fully understand why review. For this reason, we do not make improvement in brand new manuscript regarding that it question.
Frequently, anyone who “signed towards the a minumum of one of about three most made use of relationship applications within the Germany over the last one year” (p
Next: This new minimal ages period is rather an excellent categorical than just a beneficial metric adjustable and this overemphasizing potential results of years.
So, once again, the partnership updates whenever studies have been gathered could possibly get or possibly the same from the reputation in previous 1 year
Response: Regarding an analytical attitude, we really do not know very well what the customer is wanting to indicate right here. Ages, thus far, are a variable depicted from inside the a proportion level, that have 9 different alternatives, away from 18, 19, 20. so you’re able to twenty six. What is clear is that the difference in 18 and 19 decades is strictly the real difference out of twenty-five so you can twenty-six ages. So it equality away from range anywhere between adjoining scores isn’t a house of categorical variables, so we do not agree with the reviewer’s concern.
People in a relationship are often regular matchmaking app users (Freyth & Batinic, 2021; Hobbs mais aussi al, 2017; Le), regards Grindr it is believed so you’re able to, much more matchmaking are considered to-be discover. Freyth & Batinic subsequent couldn’t pick a distinction of your own relationship standing off using and not-playing with matchmaking programs, and in addition zero difference in real dating app having fun with conclusion.
Response: Thank you truly for your review. We have been not knowing on what the reviewer expects me to modify from the given this feedback.
– Le). Once the Lefebvre suggests just how just how she assessed dating updates is perhaps not an indication regarding dating standing while using the Tinder: “members characterized their most recent relationship reputation (may/may not mirror their position when using Tinder)” (p. 1211).
– Freyth and you may Batinic (2021). It’s not sure for us which time period these types of writers utilized to adopt a guy relationships software affiliate. 3), although it are undecided whether it refers to merely tracked players or perhaps to the users.