Depending on the «constant thought of thinking about short-name and enough time-name mating once the not-being reverse posts», i already put this idea in the earlier types of the manuscript (today in pp. 4-5, lines 91-108):
This traditional look at mating positioning has been criticized of the certain authors catholic singles-login, eg Jackson and you may Kirkpatrick , whom claimed you to definitely brief-title and you may much time-term direction don’t need to be face-to-face poles, but proportions you to, if you’re adversely relevant, shall be differentiated. Various other boffins have indicated this new appropriateness of abandoning brand new vintage unidimensional stance out-of quick-identity orientations and you can listening to a beneficial multidimensional position . age., prior sociosexual behavior), thinking (i.e., philosophy on casual sex), and you will interest (we.e., arousal due to odds of everyday intercourse). Although not, it is still well-known one to experts continue to research mating tips particularly face-to-face posts and you will sociosexuality away from an effective unidimensional strategy after they become familiar with group correlates.
«A disorder if you are an excellent solution is you to relationship applications pages was enough time-name established or, at least, for as long-term built once the general society.» So it concern can also be none be treated, nor answered throughout the attempt, come across next area.
Response: After the their recommendation i’ve altered so it sentence (pp. 5-6, traces 128-130): “A condition if you are an excellent solution is one to matchmaking programs profiles is actually long-name dependent otherwise, at least, so long-identity founded because the non-users”. Although not, i have maybe not been able to get the “second point” which was relevant to this issue. Therefore, we just altered this dilemma regarding the earliest the main reviewer’s feedback.
A major area ‘s the claiming getting generalizability of your own decide to try when you are there had been a couple of exceptions produced: Once: Years is actually minimal off 18 to help you 26.
Response: Many thanks for their comment. Our company is being unsure of on which ‘s the issue with the last try many years. From your insights, there’s two alternatives. First, all of our shot cannot be generalized to all the people. We fully agree with so it. That is why why, already in the previous type of the newest manuscript, i within the Dialogue area (today from inside the p. fifteen, lines 336-340):
Almost every other limits have been pertaining to new representativeness of your decide to try and you can the brand new generalization of abilities. Among the latest professionals, this new sample is actually generally lady, aged between 18 and you may 26, solitary and from one college or university, making the performance difficult to generalize to any or all university students and, nevertheless quicker so you’re able to more youthful low-students.
Next, if for example the issue is to prohibit the individuals additional one to age range, that it decision was created to-be uniform and defined to the inclusion standards regarding past degree presented that have college products (select, particularly: Barrada ainsi que al., 2018; Barrada mais aussi al., 2019; Castro and you may Santos-Iglesias, 2016; Castro ainsi que al., 2020; Fernandez del Rio mais aussi al., 2019). So it seems from the dysfunction of one’s study’s inclusion requirements (now, in p. 6, lines 144-19). We made a decision to be consistent round the education to minimize researchers’ grade off freedom and, ergo, stop potential p-hacking. New exclusion conditions regarding the many years are preset and you will consistent in most the knowledge.
For example sociosexual decisions (we
Second: Just anyone offered on their own due to the fact women or men were used in the newest analyses (nevertheless they is decrease and you can considered as missing regarding regression).
For this reason, like, you can attract a steady relationship and, if you’re trying they, care for several intimate matchmaking in the place of partnership [twenty seven,28]
Response: In terms of individuals who do not choose on their own due to the fact people otherwise women, as well as get noticed on section Professionals (now, in the p. six, traces 144-19), there were 13 people from a primary decide to try of 1,996, and therefore signifies 0.65% of these take to. As a result of the small-size associated with the shot out of people (already really small just before most other difference conditions was applied), it actually was ple. Having such as for instance a limited shot dimensions, statistical power could be low. And additionally, this is not you can easily to combine this community which have any one of the 2 vast majority intercourse identities.