Willingness to Pay for a Dating App: Psychological Correlates
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Measures
2.1.1. Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS)
2.1.2. Tinder Use Patterns
2.1.3. Short UPPS-P Impulsivity Behavior Scale (S-UPPS-P)
2.1.4. Cybersex Motives Questionnaire (CMQ)
2.1.5. Short Happiness and Depression Scale (SDHS)
2.2. Ethics
2.3. Data Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Group Comparisons
3.2. Binary Regression Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Further Perspectives
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Subscription (N = 49) | Timely Offers (N = 35) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | M (SD) | M (SD) | Z/Chi-Square | p-Value |
Sociodemographics | ||||
Age | 30.35 (8.60) | 33.15 (10.13) | −1.16 | 0.25 |
Sex (% male/female) | 90/10 | 68/32 | 28.61 | <0.05 |
Relationship status (% single/in couple or married) | 33/67 | 26/74 | 1.18 | 0.63 |
Tinder-related | ||||
PTUS | 2.56 (0.95) | 2.81 (0.75) | −1.60 | 0.11 |
Online contacts | 4.31 (1.94) | 4.26 (1.63) | −0.07 | 0.95 |
Offline contacts | 3.02 (1.42) | 3.23 (1.75) | −0.34 | 0.73 |
Committed partners | 4.35 (1.56) | 4.17 (1.84) | −0.42 | 0.68 |
Sexual partners | 4.71 (1.75) | 3.40 (1.79) | −0.77 | 0.44 |
Current matches | 40.13 (115.64) | 39.46 (104.01) | −0.48 | 0.63 |
Satisfaction with Tinder | 2.71 (0.71) | 3.03 (0.57) | −2.04 | 0.04 |
Time since using Tinder | 2.31 (1.37) | 2.63 (1.24) | −1.34 | 0.18 |
Other questionnaires | ||||
UPPS_Negative urgency | 2.58 (0.75) | 2.66 (0.63) | −0.55 | 0.59 |
UPPS_Positive urgency | 2.62 (0.66) | 2.86 (0.61) | −1.55 | 0.12 |
UPPS_Lack of premeditation | 1.84 (0.56) | 1.95 (0.50) | −1.17 | 0.24 |
UPPS_Lack of perseverance | 1.90 (0.58) | 1.93 (0.52) | −0.71 | 0.48 |
UPPS_Sensation seeking | 2.83 (0.66) | 2.87 (0.74) | −0.51 | 0.61 |
SDHS_Depressive mood | 2.20 (0.64) | 2.26 (0.67) | −0.57 | 0.57 |
CMQ_Enhancement | 4.83 (3.07) | 3.06 (0.84) | −0.22 | 0.83 |
CMQ_Coping | 2.73 (1.12) | 2.90 (0.83) | −0.58 | 0.58 |
CMQ_Social | 3.07 (0.82) | 3.42 (0.96) | −1.94 | 0.05 |
References
- Erevik, E.K.; Kristensen, J.H.; Torsheim, T.; Vedaa, O.; Pallesen, S. Tinder Use and Romantic Relationship Formations: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tankovska, H. Number of Paid Subscribers Registered to Tinder from 1st Quarter 2015 to 3rd Quarter 2020. Statista. 11 February 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/992916/paid-dating-subscribers-tinder/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Iqbal, M. Tinder Revenue and Usage Statistic (2021). Business of Apps. 17 March 2021. Available online: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/#8 (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Tankovska, H. Tinder: Annual Direct Revenue 2015–2020. Statista. 11 February 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101990/tinder-global-direct-revenue/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Schrock, A.R. Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality. Int. J. Commun. 2015, 9, 1229–1246. [Google Scholar]
- Sumter, S.R.; Vandenbosch, L.; Ligtenberg, L. Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinder. Available online: https://tinder.com/en/feature/subscription-tiers (accessed on 15 May 2021).
- Orosz, G.; Tóth-Király, I.; Bőthe, B.; Melher, D. Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). J. Behav. Addict. 2016, 5, 518–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rogge, R.D.; Crasta, D.; Legate, N. Is Tinder–Grindr Use Risky? Distinguishing Venue from Individuals’ Behavior as Unique Predictors of Sexual Risk. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 1263–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sawyer, A.N.; Smith, E.R.; Benotsch, E.G. Dating Application Use and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Young Adults. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2018, 15, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, G.K.; Tatar, O.; Sutton, A.; Fisher, W.; Naz, A.; Perez, S.; Rosberger, Z. Correlates of Tinder Use and Risky Sexual Behaviors in Young Adults. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017, 20, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rochat, L.; Bianchi-Demicheli, F.; Aboujaoude, E.; Khazaal, Y. The psychology of “swiping”: A cluster analysis of the mobile dating app Tinder. J. Behav. Addict. 2019, 8, 804–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-Y.; Chang, H.-C.; Chou, S.-C.; Chen, F.-F. Acceptance and willingness to pay for mobile TV apps. PACIS 2013 Proceedings, 260. 2013. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/260 (accessed on 8 April 2021).
- Rochat, L.; Billieux, J.; Gagnon, J.; Van Der Linden, M. A multifactorial and integrative approach to impulsivity in neuropsychology: Insights from the UPPS model of impulsivity. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2018, 40, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Her, Y.-C.; Timmermans, E. Tinder blue, mental flu? Exploring the associations between Tinder use and well-being. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2021, 24, 1303–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berg, J.M.; Latzman, R.D.; Bliwise, N.G.; Lilienfeld, S.O. Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psychol. Assess. 2015, 27, 1129–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billieux, J.; Rochat, L.; Ceschi, G.; Carré, A.; Offerlin-Meyer, I.; Defeldre, A.-C.; Khazaal, Y.; Besche-Richard, C.; Van der Linden, M. Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Compr. Psychiatry 2012, 53, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Francesco, B.-D.; Khazaal, Y.; Jasiowka, K.; Lepers, T.; Bianchi-Demicheli, F.; Rothen, S. Factor structure of the Cybersex Motives Questionnaire. J. Behav. Addict. 2018, 7, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, S.; Linley, P.A.; Harwood, J.; Lewis, C.A.; McCollam, P. Rapid assessment of well-being: The Short Depression-Happiness Scale (SDHS). Psychol. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. 2004, 77, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Valkenburg, P.M.; Peter, J. Who Visits Online Dating Sites? Exploring Some Characteristics of Online Daters. CyberPsychology Behav. 2007, 10, 849–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van De Wiele, C.; Tong, S.T. Breaking boundaries: The uses & gratifications of Grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, WA, USA, 13–17 September 2014; pp. 619–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmermans, E.; De Caluwé, E. To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2017, 110, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumter, S.R.; Vandenbosch, L. Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. New Media Soc. 2019, 21, 655–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castro, Á.; Barrada, J.R. Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, M.; Vogels, E.A.; Turner, E. The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. Pew Research Center. 6 February 2020. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/ (accessed on 10 March 2021).
- Byrnes, J.P.; Miller, D.C.; Schafer, W.D. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazaal, Y.; Van Singer, M.; Chatton, A.; Achab, S.; Zullino, D.F.; Rothen, S.; Khan, R.A.; Billieux, J.; Thorens, G. Does Self-Selection Affect Samples’ Representativeness in Online Surveys? An Investigation in Online Video Game Research. J. Med. Internet Res. 2014, 16, e164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achab, S.; Billieux, J. Problematic social media use: A call for a personalized approach. Rev. Med. Suisse 2022, 18, 1146–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reed, G.M.; First, M.B.; Billieux, J.; Cloitre, M.; Briken, P.; Achab, S.; Brewin, C.R.; King, D.L.; Kraus, S.W.; Bryant, R.A. Emerging experience with selected new categories in the ICD -11: Complex PTSD, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. World Psychiatry 2022, 21, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Payers (N = 94) | Non-payers (N = 1065) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | M (SD) | M (SD) | Z/Chi-Squared | p-Value |
Sociodemographics | ||||
Age | 31.70 (9.31) | 29.87 (9.17) | −2.13 | 0.03 |
Sex (% male vs. female) | 80/20 | 51/49 | 28.61 | <0.001 |
Relationship status (% single vs. in couple or married) | 29/71 | 34/66 | 1.18 | 0.28 |
Tinder-related | ||||
PTUS | 2.68 (0.90) | 1.85 (0.65) | −6.46 | <0.001 |
Online contacts (med = 4 vs. 3) | 4.27 (1.75) | 3.26 (1.85) | −4.99 | <0.001 |
Offline contacts (med = 3 vs. 1) | 3.14 (1.52) | 1.91 (1.21) | −8.34 | <0.001 |
Committed partners (med= 4 vs. 3) | 4.35 (1.69) | 3.13 (1.93) | −6.01 | <0.001 |
Sexual partners (med = 5 vs. 3) | 4.70 (1.75) | 3.32 (2.02) | −6.31 | <0.001 |
Current matches | 39.03 (106.03) | 35.94 (119.84) | −1.96 | 0.05 |
Satisfaction with Tinder (med = 3 vs. 2) | 2.86 (0.65) | 2.34 (0.81) | −6.00 | <0.001 |
Time since using Tinder (med = 2 vs. 2) | 2.45 (1.29) | 2.54 (1.52) | −0.15 | 0.87 |
Other questionnaires | ||||
UPPS_Negative urgency | 2.64 (0.69) | 2.61 (0.69) | −0.82 | 0.41 |
UPPS_Positive urgency | 2.76 (0.64) | 2.63 (0.57) | −2.20 | 0.03 |
UPPS_Lack of premeditation | 1.90 (0.55) | 1.85 (0.52) | −0.83 | 0.41 |
UPPS_Lack of perseverance | 1.91 (0.56) | 1.95 (0.55) | −0.68 | 0.49 |
UPPS_Sensation seeking | 2.87 (0.69) | 2.73 (0.61) | −2.38 | 0.02 |
SDHS_Depressive mood | 2.27 (0.63) | 2.18 (0.66) | −1.67 | 0.09 |
CMQ_Enhancement | 3.09 (0.80) | 2.62 (0.79) | −5.54 | <0.001 |
CMQ_Coping | 2.88 (1.02) | 2.12 (0.94) | −6.69 | <0.001 |
CMQ_Social | 3.25 (0.86) | 2.62 (0.93) | −6.22 | <0.001 |
Variables | β | SEβ | χ2 (Wald’s) | p | eβ (Odds Ratio) | 95% CI for eβ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
Age | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.14 | 0.08 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 1.05 |
Sex | 1.25 | 0.28 | 20.26 | <0.001 | 3.49 | 2.02 | 6.00 |
Marital status | −0.29 | 0.26 | 1.19 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.45 | 1.26 |
CMQ_ Cybersex motives | 1.10 | 0.19 | 34.02 | <0.001 | 3.00 | 2.08 | 4.35 |
UPPS_Negative urgency | −0.43 | 0.22 | 3.63 | 0.06 | 0.65 | 0.42 | 1.01 |
UPPS_Positive urgency | −0.16 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.59 | 0.85 | 0.47 | 1.54 |
UPPS_Lack of premeditation | 0.33 | 0.26 | 1.60 | 0.21 | 1.39 | 0.83 | 2.32 |
UPPS_Lack of perseverance | −0.24 | 0.26 | 0.83 | 0.36 | 0.79 | 0.48 | 1.31 |
UPPS_Sensation-seeking | −0.01 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.61 | 1.62 |
SDHS_Depressive mood | 0.25 | 0.20 | 1.65 | 0.20 | 1.29 | 0.88 | 1.90 |
Cybersex motives x Positive urgency | 0.73 | 0.31 | 5.71 | 0.02 | 2.08 | 1.14 | 3.78 |
Cybersex motives x Sensation seeking | −0.21 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.81 | 0.54 | 1.46 |
Constant | −3.60 | 0.27 | 173.24 | <0.001 | 0.03 | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rochat, L.; Orita, E.; Jeannot, E.; Achab, S.; Khazaal, Y. Willingness to Pay for a Dating App: Psychological Correlates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032101
Rochat L, Orita E, Jeannot E, Achab S, Khazaal Y. Willingness to Pay for a Dating App: Psychological Correlates. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032101
Chicago/Turabian StyleRochat, Lucien, Elena Orita, Emilien Jeannot, Sophia Achab, and Yasser Khazaal. 2023. "Willingness to Pay for a Dating App: Psychological Correlates" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032101