{"id":1915,"date":"2022-10-10T14:01:23","date_gmt":"2022-10-10T08:31:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/saheindia.in\/?p=1915"},"modified":"2022-10-10T14:13:05","modified_gmt":"2022-10-10T08:43:05","slug":"which-motivations-push-cellular-daters-to-ghost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saheindia.in\/meetme-visitors\/which-motivations-push-cellular-daters-to-ghost\/","title":{"rendered":"Which motivations push cellular daters to ghost? (RQ1)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Again, respondents was basically served with the expression ghosting and expected so you’re able to indicate how frequently participants ghosted other matchmaking app profiles (M = dos.17, SD = 1.59) and just how commonly they feel almost every other relationships app profiles ghost (Meters = 3.51, SD = 0.88) toward a measure anywhere between 0 = Not to ever 5 = That often.<\/p>\n
Respondents (letter = 211) indicated if they watched the one who ghosted them face-to-deal with with address groups zero (0) and you can yes (1; 52.1%).<\/p>\n
Respondents (n = 211) expressed the duration of the newest contact before the other individual ghosted having answer kinds (1) a couple of hours otherwise quicker (n = 9), (2) twenty four hours (letter = 9), (3) a couple of days (n = 26), (4) a week (n = 32), (5) two weeks (letter = 77), (6) 30 days (n = 25), (7) months (n = 27), (8) 6 months so you can per year (letter = 4), (9) more than a year (n = 2) (Yards = cuatro.77; SD = step one.62).<\/p>\n
The newest concentration of this new get in touch with are mentioned using a measure ranging from a single = really sporadically to help you eight = most serious (n = 211; Yards = cuatro.98; SD = step one.42).<\/p>\n
Good categorical variable was used determine level of intimate closeness with responses ranging from nothing (letter = 136), lighter (we.e., kissing and you can intimate holding, letter = 25) and you may severe (we.e., oral, vaginal otherwise anal sex, letter = 47). About three participants didn’t have to show this article.<\/p>\n
Two items from Afifi and Metts’s (1998) violated expectedness scale were used to measure whether the respondents (n = 208) expected the ghosting to occur (1 = completely expected; 7 = not at all expected; M = 5.50; SD = 1.67) and how surprised they were that the ghosting occurred (1 = not at all surprised; 7 = very surprised; M = 5.38; SD = 1.70). These items were highly correlated (Pearson’s r = .69; p < .001) and had good reliability (Cronbach's ? = .82; M = 5.44; SD = 1.55).<\/p>\n