According to “lingering idea of considering brief-identity and enough time-title mating because the not contrary posts”, i currently put this idea in the previous form of the new manuscript (now when you look at the pp. 4-5, contours 91-108):
This traditional view of mating direction has been criticized by specific article authors, including Jackson and Kirkpatrick , whom said you to definitely short-name and a lot of time-label positioning need not feel opposite poles, however, proportions you to definitely, when you’re negatively associated, should be classified. More experts show this new appropriateness out of abandoning brand new vintage unidimensional stance of quick-term orientations and listening to an excellent multidimensional perspective . age., earlier sociosexual choices), attitudes (we.e., opinions on the everyday sex), and attract (we.elizabeth., arousal due to odds of everyday sex). But not, it is still well-known you to researchers continue steadily to investigation mating tips particularly other posts and you can sociosexuality away from good unidimensional strategy once they get to know demographic correlates.
“A disorder if you are good option would be you to definitely relationship software users is enough time-title mainly based or, about, for as long-identity centered given that general society.” Which concern can also be none be addressed, neither replied regarding attempt, come across next part.
Response: After the the testimonial we have changed which sentence (pp. 5-6, brazilcupid-app outlines 128-130): “A disorder if you are good option would be you to matchmaking applications users is actually a lot of time-name based otherwise, at the least, for as long-title centered since low-users”. However, you will find maybe not managed to find the “second point” which was highly relevant to this issue. Ergo, i just altered this problem regarding your very first the main reviewer’s opinion.
A major part is the claiming getting generalizability of the shot while there had been a few exclusions generated: Once: Years is actually restricted off 18 to help you twenty-six.
Response: Many thanks for the remark. We’re unsure on what ‘s the trouble with the final attempt many years. From our skills, there are two solutions. Basic, our very own take to cannot be general to all the populace. I totally agree with this. This is the reason why, currently in the last sort of the new manuscript, we within the Dialogue part (now during the p. 15, contours 336-340):
Other constraints was in fact linked to the brand new representativeness of the shot and the brand new generalization of one’s efficiency. Among the many finally participants, the test is actually mostly women, old between 18 and you can twenty-six, solitary and in one college or university, putting some overall performance difficult to generalize to students and, nevertheless quicker to help you more youthful low-students.
2nd, if the issue is to prohibit the individuals exterior you to age groups, that it decision was made become uniform and you can coherent to your introduction conditions regarding earlier in the day training held which have college products (look for, eg: Barrada ainsi que al., 2018; Barrada ainsi que al., 2019; Castro and you will Santos-Iglesias, 2016; Castro mais aussi al., 2020; Fernandez del Rio mais aussi al., 2019). This appears on description of study’s addition requirements (now, in the p. six, traces 144-19). I made a decision to be consistent around the knowledge to attenuate researchers’ degree off versatility and, for this reason, stop potential p-hacking. The fresh exclusion conditions concerning decades is actually predetermined and consistent throughout all of our studies.
For example sociosexual choices (i
Second: Merely anybody offered on their own since men or women had been utilized in the fresh analyses (nevertheless they was fell and you may thought to be destroyed regarding regression).
Therefore, for example, it is possible to focus a reliable relationships and you may, when you find yourself seeking it, manage numerous intimate relationships as opposed to relationship [twenty seven,28]
Response: In terms of those who don’t choose on their own given that people or female, as can rise above the crowd in the section Members (now, into the p. 6, outlines 144-19), there are 13 people from a primary shot of just one,996, hence stands for 0.65% of that shot. Due to the small-size on the test away from users (currently really small just before most other different standards was indeed applied), it actually was ple. Which have such as for instance a small shot proportions, analytical energy could well be low. And additionally, this is not you are able to to combine this community with some of the 2 most intercourse identities.