With regards to the “constant concept of considering quick-name and you may much time-term mating as the not being contrary posts”, i already lead this notion in the earlier sort of this new manuscript (today in pp. 4-5, outlines 91-108):
That it conventional look at mating positioning might have been slammed because of the some experts, such as for instance Jackson and you may Kirkpatrick , whom said you to quick-identity and you will a lot of time-title direction need-not end up being opposing posts, but size that, when you are negatively related, will be classified. Different experts demonstrate the fresh appropriateness out-of abandoning the brand new vintage unidimensional stance out of brief-name orientations and you will enjoying a beneficial multidimensional perspective . e., earlier in the day sociosexual behavior), thinking (we.e., philosophy on relaxed intercourse), and focus (we.e., pleasure due to chances of informal gender). But not, it is still common one scientists consistently analysis mating procedures eg opposing posts and you will sociosexuality from a good unidimensional approach when they get to know demographic correlates.
“A condition for being a option would be one relationships apps users are enough time-title based otherwise, at the least, provided that-name mainly based just like the standard population.” Which question is also none getting managed, neither replied regarding test, get a hold of 2nd point.
Response: After the the testimonial i have altered that it phrase (pp. 5-six, traces 128-130): “A disorder for being an excellent option would be you to relationships programs profiles is actually enough time-title based coffee meets bagel otherwise, about, as long-identity founded given that low-users”. However, you will find not been able to discover the “second area” which had been strongly related this issue. For this reason, we just changed this dilemma regarding the basic area of the reviewer’s feedback.
A major area is the stating for generalizability of one’s sample whenever you are there are a couple of exclusions produced: Once: Years is actually limited out-of 18 in order to twenty-six.
Response: Thank you for their opinion. We have been unsure on what ‘s the challenge with the past decide to try ages. From your wisdom, there are 2 options. Very first, our very own attempt can’t be general to all people. I completely go along with that it. That is the reason why, already in the earlier sorts of the latest manuscript, i included in the Dialogue part (now inside p. fifteen, outlines 336-340):
Most other constraints was indeed connected with the brand new representativeness of your try and you may the fresh generalization of your own efficiency. One of the latest players, this new take to was mainly female, old between 18 and you may twenty six, solitary and from one college or university, making the abilities hard to generalize to all students and you will, nonetheless reduced to help you young non-college students.
Next, if your issue is so you can exclude those individuals additional that age range, this choice is made as consistent and you can defined with the addition criteria regarding earlier knowledge held having university products (pick, particularly: Barrada et al., 2018; Barrada ainsi que al., 2019; Castro and you can Santos-Iglesias, 2016; Castro mais aussi al., 2020; Fernandez del Rio mais aussi al., 2019). This seems regarding dysfunction of the study’s addition requirements (now, inside the p. 6, lines 144-19). I made a decision to remain consistent around the knowledge to attenuate researchers’ level out of independence and you may, hence, stop potential p-hacking. The exclusion criteria regarding many years are preset and uniform in most the knowledge.
For example sociosexual decisions (i
Second: Only individuals considering on their own since the women or men was indeed used in this new analyses (nevertheless they will be decrease and considered as forgotten about regression).
For this reason, such as for instance, it is possible to notice a steady relationship and you may, whenever you are trying to they, take care of multiple sexual relationships in place of commitment [27,28]
Response: In terms of people who do not pick themselves once the men otherwise ladies, as can get noticed on the area Members (today, into the p. 6, traces 144-19), there had been 13 folks from a first sample of just one,996, and that is short for 0.65% of the shot. As a result of the small-size of the take to away from members (already tiny ahead of most other different conditions have been used), it actually was ple. That have like a finite try size, mathematical power would-be very low. Plus, that isn’t you are able to to mix this community with any one of the 2 bulk gender identities.