The Relationship between Attachment Styles and Rejection Behavior in Online Partner Selection. Van den Broek, M. ANR:

Transcription

1 The Relationship between Attachment Styles and Rejection Behavior in Online Partner Selection Van den Broek, M. ANR: Maser Thesis Social Psychology Program Economic Psychology Tilburg University First supervisor: Dr. Tila Pronk Second supervisor: Prof. Jaap Denissen 16 June 2017

2 2 Abstract The current research has investigated the question: what are the influences of attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) on partner selection in an online dating setting? Across two studies, participants decided to accept or reject potential romantic partners in a Tinder simulation. Attachment styles were measured after the Tinder simulation task with the Revised Adult Attachment Scale. The expectations were that high scores on attachment avoidance would be related to more rejection of potential partners, while high scores on attachment anxiety would be associated with less rejection of potential partners. Study 1 supported these predictions, while Study 2 did not. Both studies have confirmed that high scores on attachment avoidance are related to less relationship seeking as a motive for Tinder use, while high scores on attachment anxiety are related to more relationship seeking. Both studies were inconsistent concerning the relationship between attachment styles and satisfaction with choices in the Tinder simulation task and also regarding expectations of the participants about rejection by others. These differences suggest that there a variety of factors that could eliminate, reduce or increase the relationship between attachment styles and partner selection.

3 3 The Relationship between Attachment Styles and Rejection Behavior in Online Partner Selection The way people form romantic relationships has changed over the years. Before the invention of the internet people got to know each other in real-life situations. Nowadays, many people have experiences with online dating. Between 1998 and 2003, 1.7% of the couples in the Netherlands met online. That number increased to 13.1% between 2008 and 2013 (CBS, 2014). Still, there were 2.9 million singles in the Netherlands in 2015 (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2016). This raises the question: which factors would predict whether someone enters a relationship or not? Differences in attachment styles may be related to differences in partner selection. The concept of attachment was introduced and developed by John Bowlby. In his attachment theory he suggested that humans are born with a genetic program that causes a young child to attach to an adult, primarily the caregivers (Bowlby, 1973). Attachment styles are developed during childhood, but it affects the adult life in a variety of ways. For example, people experience an attachment process in romantic love and attachment styles influence cognitive beliefs about relationships (Monteoliva, Garcia-Martinez, & Calvo-Salguero, 2016). There is no research that examined whether attachment styles influence the earliest stage of relationship formation online. Therefore, the main research question of this master thesis is: what are the influences of attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) on partner selection in an online dating setting? It is important to answer this question, because it gives knowledge about the process of partner selection. By investigating rejection behavior, this study aims to increase the understanding of selective behavior of people in the process of choosing a partner.

4 4 Tinder as a tool to find a relationship Numerous tools on smartphones are used for dating purposes. Tinder, Badoo, Happn, and Grindr are just a few examples of popular dating apps. This research will use a Tinder simulation to investigate the influence of attachment styles on partner selection. Tinder was the most downloaded dating app in January 2017 (Eric, 2017). Therefore it has been chosen as a tool in this research. The app lets people evaluate pictures of potential partners by swiping: to the right when you like the appearance of the other and to the left when you do not like it. When two persons swipe to the right, they create a match which will enable them to start a conversation (Groot, 2013). Tinder statistics reveal that on an average day people swipe 1.6 billion times, leading to 26 million matches (Tinder, n.d.; Dating Insider, 2016). Half of the people using online dating sites aim to find a romantic partner (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Previous research has shown no differences in motivations for using Tinder compared to online dating websites (Gatter & Hodkinson, 2016). In fact, finding a relationship was identified, along with twelve others, as a motivation for Tinder use (Timmermans & De Caluwe, 2017a). Sexual experience, social approval, and belongingness are also mentioned as motivations. The motive to seek a relationship on Tinder was positively associated with consciousness, and negatively with extraversion (Timmermans & De Caluwe, 2017b). This indicates that personality factors affect by which motivation Tinder users are driven. Whether or not the motivation to seek a relationship drives Tinder users could be predicted by other factors as well, for example attachment styles.

5 5 Following Bowlby s attachment theory, attachment styles have been classified as secure, anxious, and avoidant (Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 2015). People with an avoidant attachment style can be described as being less likely to start a relationship (Schindler, Fagundes, & Murdock, 2010; Poulsen, Holman, Busby, & Caroll, 2013). They prefer to be alone and want to maintain distance towards people (McClure, Lydon, Bacuss, & Baldwin, 2010). This makes them more likely to use Tinder for other motives than relationship seeking. Anxious individuals on the contrary are more willing to commit themselves in a relationship (Schindler et al., 2010). They worry about their social relationships, which is expressed in seeking comfort in social approval and romantic relationships (Sibley, 2007). Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety are both defined as insecure attachment styles, resulting in uncomfortableness with intimacy or autonomy in relationships. (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The secure attachment style will not be examined in the current research, because people with this style experience comfortableness in relationships. Therefore it will probably have a lower impact on partner selection and rejection behavior. The focus in this research is placed on the cognitions, characteristics, and experiences of love of insecure attachment styles. The influences of attachment styles on partner selection Attachment consists of internal representations (or working models) of close relationships that are incorporated in the personality structure of a person in adulthood. These internal representations guide social behavior (Bowlby, 1973). According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), there are two dimensions on which attachment orientations are based. These dimensions consist of a person s cognitive internal representation of themselves and others. A person s beliefs whether they are worthy of love and attention from others is called the self-model. The

6 6 extent to which a person believes that other people are capable to give support is called the other model. A negative model of the self is related to feelings of anxiety, whereas a negative model of the other is associated with avoidance. (Henderson, Bartholomew, Trinke, & Kwong, 2005). Anxiously and avoidant attached people differ in cognitions about themselves and people in their environment. Differences in cognition translate into behavior. Anxious individuals desire attention and often they overact emotionally, while avoidant individuals experience difficulties when showing affection and love to others (Stomp, 2014). The characteristics and negative cognitions that avoidant individuals have about others make it more likely that they would reject potential romantic partners, while anxious individuals perceive others more positively and therefore would accept more potential romantic partners. Based on the attachment style, people differ in their cognitions about love and experiences of it. Anxious individuals experience love as obsessive, which is expressed by a desire for reciprocation and union. They endure extreme emotional forms of jealousy and sexual attraction (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Anxiously attached people fall in love more frequently and perceive intimacy more positive, while avoidant attached people are more doubtful of the existence of romantic love (Hazan & Shaver. 1987; Monteoliva, et al., 2016). It seems that anxious individuals perceive more benefits of a relationship, while avoidant individuals perceive more costs. This makes anxiously attached individuals more likely to accept more potential romantic partners compared to avoidant people. Anxious individuals perceive others as positive, but themselves as negative which expresses in a low self-esteem and the belief not to be worthy of love (Henderson et al., 2005). Their cognitions lead to a mismatch between motivation and expectation. They are motivated to

7 7 find a relationship, but they do not believe that their efforts for dating will succeed and expect rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Avoidant people on the other hand can be divided into a dismissing and fearful group. The dismissing group has a negative view towards other people and a sense of self-worthiness. This group of people protect themselves against anticipated rejection by avoiding social relationships and creating feelings of invulnerability by independence. The fearful group has negative thoughts about the self and others. They experience strong dependency of the opinions of others in order to have a positive self-image. The fearful group of people believe that others are untrustworthy and rejecting. Rejections in their past learn them to expect rejection in current life (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These cognitions suggest that people in both insecure attachment styles expect rejection from potential romantic partners. Similarities between avoidant and anxious attachment styles are expressed in lower levels of life satisfaction and less satisfaction in relationships (Guzmán-González et al., 2016; Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2011). Past research showed that irrational relationship beliefs of insecurely attached people are related to dissatisfaction in a relationship (Stackert & Bursik, 2003). In fact, insecurely attached individuals tend to have more mental problems, like emotional distress. Both insecure attachment styles predict depressive symptoms (Hankin, Kassel, & Abela, 2005). Insecure attached individuals fail in establishing stable satisfying relationships. Their difficulties with connecting to others decreases their ability to perceive meaning in life. This lack of meaning decreases feelings of well-being (Yen, 2014). The lack of well-being along with negative views leads to the expectation that insecurely attached people would be less satisfied with choices in partner selection.

8 8 Previous research has revealed that women are more selective in partner selection than men. From an evolutionary view this makes sense, because women make more investments in their offspring, compared to men (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002). These differences in selective behavior between men and women are present in the earliest stage of partner selection (Poulsen et al., 2013). For this reason, I will explore whether gender influences the effect of attachment style on rejection behavior. The current research This current research differs and has added value, because it lets people evaluate potential partners online, instead of examining which kind of people develop a relationship over time. This could give more information about whether attachment styles influence the earliest stage of partner selection, before and without having emotional connections to potential partners. The aim is to add knowledge about the effect of attachment styles on partner selection and rejection for users of online dating apps such as Tinder. In the beginning of this article the main research question was specified: what are the influences of attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) on partner selection in an online dating setting? In order to answer this question, the following hypotheses are formulated: Hypothesis 1: an avoidant attachment style predicts a higher amount of rejection of potential romantic partners in a Tinder simulation task. Hypothesis 2: an anxious attachment style predicts a lower amount of rejection of potential romantic partners in a Tinder simulation task. Hypothesis 3: participants that score high on both insecure attachment styles expect that they will be rejected by potential romantic partners in a Tinder simulation task.

9 9 Hypothesis 4: both insecure attachment styles predict less satisfaction with choices in potential romantic partner selection in a Tinder simulation task. Hypothesis 5: participants that score high on attachment avoidance do not seek a relationship on Tinder. Hypothesis 6: participants that score high on attachment anxiety seek a relationship on Tinder. This research will use a Tinder simulation task, in which participants have to decide whether they want to reject a potential romantic partner or not. After this task, participants will answer self-report questions about satisfaction, expectations, attachment styles, and motivations for Tinder use. The hypotheses will be tested by regression analyses with attachment styles as predictors. Study 1 Method Participants and study design Participants were recruited through social media (e.g., Facebook), and by contacting friends and family of the experimenters. Participants did not receive any incentive for their participation. A total of 706 participants started the study, but because of several reasons 349 participants were included in data analysis. A total of 79 participants were excluded, because they were currently involved in a romantic relationship or they did not wanted to answer the question. Two participants were excluded, because they reached an age above 30 years old and 276 participants were removed from analysis, because they did not completed the questionnaires. The eventual sample of participants contained 132 (37.8%) males, and 217 (62.2%) females. The

10 10 participants differed in their sexual preferences, whereby 303 (86.8%) identified themselves as heterosexual, 33 (9.5%) identified themselves as homosexual, and 13 (3.7%) identified themselves as bisexual. A correlational study design was conducted. Participants saw 60 pictures of potential romantic partners (for examples, see appendix C). The participants were asked to decide whether they would accept or reject the persons on the pictures. The dependent variables in this study were the amount of pictures that were rejected in a Tinder simulation, satisfaction with choices, the expectation of participants about how many people would accept them as potential partner, and the motivation to seek a relationship on Tinder. The independent variables were scores on attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Procedure To examine the relationship between different attachment styles and rejection behavior in an online dating setting, an online survey was made in the Dutch language in Qualtrics. First of all, participants filled in an informed consent, which stated that the goal of this research was to examine behavior in an online dating setting. It was noted that the answers were processed anonymously and only used for scientific purposes. Participation was voluntarily and participants could withdraw at any time. The participants indicated whether they were attracted to males, females, or both sexes. The answer that participants gave on this question determined whether participants saw 60 pictures of males, females, or both sexes. The 60 pictures that were used in this study were chosen based on a pre-test. In this pretest 50 men evaluated 120 pictures of women, and 50 women evaluated 120 pictures of men on attractiveness, estimated age, and appropriateness. Attractiveness was measured, on a scale from

11 11 1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very attractive). An independent t-test confirmed that the pictures of men (M=6.14, SD=.63) were even in attractiveness, compared to the pictures of women (M= 6.20, SD=.59), t (118) =.56, p=.576, CI [-.16,.28]. The appropriateness of the pictures were evaluated on a scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 7 (very appropriate). The pictures of men (M= 6.04, SD=.28) were perceived as significantly more appropriate than the pictures of women (M= 5.88, SD=.29), t (118) = -2.91, p=.004, CI [-.26, -.05]. Participants in the pre-study estimated men (M= 27.8, SD= 2.83) as significantly older, compared to women (M= 26.73, SD= 2.86), t (118) = -2.08, p=.040, CI [-2.11, -.05]. It was decided to still use this set of pictures, because the requirement of similarity in attractiveness was fulfilled. In the current study, the participants received the following instructions: in the next task, you will see 60 pictures of potential partners and we ask you friendly to judge them. By pressing on the red mark, you will reject that person. By pressing on the green heart, you will accept that person. For our research it is important that you judge people, like you would do in real life. Forget that you are participating in a research, and imagine that you will use a real dating application, like Tinder. Imagine that the persons on the pictures will also evaluate a picture of you. So imagine that it is possible to get a match with the persons on the pictures. After the participants evaluated the 60 pictures, the participants answered the question: How satisfied are you with the choices that you have made? on a scale from 1 (totally unsatisfied) to 7 (totally satisfied). The participants were also asked to give an expectation on how many people of the pictures they thought would accept a picture of them when they would see one. Pickiness was measured on a slider from 0 (not picky) to 100 (very picky) with the question: How picky do you see yourself in selecting a romantic partner. Additionaly, participants filled in the Revised Adult Attachment Scale and Tinder Motives Scale. The order of

12 12 these questionnaires were randomized. The final part of the study contained questions about demographic data (sex and age), and a debriefing, in which participants were informed that the study was about psychological properties and partner selection in an online dating setting. Measures The Revised Adult Attachment Scale was used to measure the independent variable attachment style (Collins, 1996). The questionnaire was translated from English to Dutch by the experimenter (for the full scale, see appendix A). People were asked to think about their romantic relationships in the past. When a participant had never been in a romantic relationship, he or she was instructed to answer the questions in terms of how they thought they would feel in a relationship. The questionnaire consisted of 18 items and participants rated the items on a 5 point Likert scale from; 1 (not at all characteristic for me) to 5 (very characteristic of me). The Revised Adult Attachment Scale had a scoring in the two dimensions attachment anxiety (α=.74), and attachment avoidance (α=.82). An example of an item of the anxiety dimension was; I want to get close to people, but I worry about being hurt. An example of an item of the avoidance dimension was; I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need them. In order to measure whether attachment predicted if participants use Tinder in their real life to find a relationship, the Tinder Motives Scale was added (for the full scale, see appendix B). There were five items that measured the motivation to seek a relationship (α=.92). An example of an item of relationship seeking was; I Use(d) Tinder to fall in love. Participants answered on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). There was one questionnaire added to the study that was not relevant for the current research, namely the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991).

13 13 Results The dependent variable rejection behavior was created by calculation of the total amount of pictures that were rejected in the Tinder simulation task. The scores on an avoidant attachment style and anxious attachment style were created by summing up the scores on the items that measured the different attachment styles, and then taking the mean of it. There was investigated with an independent t-test, whether women and men differed significantly in their scores on attachment style anxiety, and attachment style avoidance. The results indicated that women (M = 2.76, SD =.66) did not differ from men (M = 2.67, SD =.56) in attachment style avoidance, t (346) = -1.39, p =.166, CI [-.23,.04]. There was also no significant difference between women (M = 2.85, SD =.92), and men (M = 2.89, SD = 1.01) in attachment style anxiety, t (347) =.42, p =.674, CI [-.16,.25]. An additional independent t-test was conducted to look whether rejection behaviour in the Tinder simulation task differed between males and females. It appeared that women rejected more potential romantic partners (M = 47.8, SD = 7.1), compared to men (M = 39.54, SD = 10.6), t (202.23) = -7.94, p <.001, CI [-10.31, -6.21], d =.92. Because of this result, gender was taken into account in further analysis by adding it as a moderator in analyses. In order to test whether attachment styles influence rejection behaviour, a regression analysis was conducted. Regression analysis showed that attachment style avoidance, and attachment style anxiety significantly predicted rejection behavior, F (2, 345) = 5.4, p =.005, R 2 =.03. Just as expected, it appeared that a higher score on an avoidant attachment style was related to a significantly higher amount of rejection of pictures, β =.15, t (345) = 2.42, p =.016. Higher scores on attachment anxiety predicted a significantly lower amount of rejection of pictures, β = -.19, t (345) = 3.1, p =.002. This supported hypothesis 2: an anxious attachment

14 Amount of rejections THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTACHMENT STYLES AND REJECTION BEHAVIOR 14 style predicted a lower amount of rejection of potential romantic partners in an online dating setting. Two additional analyses were done with gender as a moderator, amount of rejections as dependent variable, and attachment style (anxiety and avoidance) as independent variables in PROCESS (Hayes & Rockwood, 2016). The analysis with an attachment avoidance showed no significant effect of gender, β = 5.62, t (345) =1.26, p =.209, and no significant interaction effect for gender and avoidance, β =.95, t (345) =.59, p =.556. This suggested that the effect of an avoidant attachment style on rejection behavior did not depend on gender. In another PROCESS analysis with an anxious attachment style as independent variable, gender as moderator, and amount of rejections as dependent variable there was no significant effect of gender, β = -.47, t (346) = -.16, p =.871, but there was a significant interaction effect between gender and anxiety, β = 3.02, t (346) = 3.17, p =.002. There was only a relationship between attachment anxiety and rejection of potential romantic partners in men, β = -2.81, t (346) = -3.87, p <.001. This meant that only men who scored high on an anxious attachment style rejected less potential romantic partners. 51,0 48,0 45,0 42,0 39,0 Male Female 36,0 1,7 2,2 2,7 3,2 3,7 4,2 Anxiety attachment style Figure 1. The effect of attachment anxiety on the amount of rejections, for female and male participants.

15 15 Furthermore, there was examined whether attachment styles influenced whether participants expected if they would get accepted by the people of the pictures. The expectation was that participants that scored high on attachment anxiety and participants that scored high on attachment avoidance, would expect that they would get more rejections by potential romantic partners. The variable expectation of the participants was not normal distributed, so a log transformation was performed. The regression model with attachment styles significantly predicted the expectations of the participants, F (2, 343) = 5.65, p =.004, R 2 =.03. Attachment style avoidance did not significantly predicted the expectation of participants on how many people of the pictures would accept them as potential partners β = -.09, t (343) = -1.45, p =.149. As expected, attachment style anxiety predicted the expectations of participants, β = -.12, t (343) = -2, p =.047. PROCESS analysis with expectations of participants as dependent variable, attachment anxiety as independent variable, and gender as moderator revealed that there was no significant effect of gender, β =.14, t (344) =.94, p =.348, and no significant interaction effect, β = -.01, t (344) = -.12, p =.908. This meant that the effect of attachment anxiety on the expectations of participants was the same for men and women. An additional PROCESS analysis with attachment avoidance showed that there was no significant effect of gender, β =.26, t (343) = 1.15, p =.250, and no significant interaction effect, β = -.05, t (343) = -.56, p =.573. The influence of attachment style on satisfaction with general choices in potential partner selection was examined in a regression analysis. A log transformation was conducted on the variable satisfaction in order to satisfy the assumption of a normal distribution. The model was not significantly predictive for satisfaction with choices, F (2, 345) =.56, p =.569, R 2 =.003. Attachment avoidance, β = -.06, t (345) = -1.05, p =.293, and attachment anxiety, β =.02, t

16 16 (345) =.37, p =.712 were no significant predictors for satisfaction with choices. Analysis with satisfaction as dependent variable, attachment avoidance as independent variable, and gender as moderator in PROCESS revealed that gender did not influence the result β =.12, t (345) =.81, p =.419, and that there was no significant interaction, β = -.04, t (345) = -1.04, p =.299 This indicated that there was no effect of attachment avoidance on satisfaction for men and women. Additional PROCESS analysis with satisfaction as dependent variable, attachment anxiety as independent variable, and gender as moderator also revealed no effect of gender β =.08, t (345) =.78, p =.437), and no significant interaction effect, β = -.04, t (345) = -1.24, p =.216. There was no evidence for hypothesis 4, an insecure attachment style (anxious and avoidant) did not predicted less satisfaction with general choices in potential romantic partner selection in the Tinder simulation task. The expectation of the study was that participants that scored high on attachment avoidance would not seek a relationship on Tinder, while participants that scored high on attachment anxiety would seek a relationship on Tinder. A total of 250 participants who currently use or have used Tinder in the past were included in a regression analysis. The regression model with attachment styles predicted significantly relationship seeking as a motive for Tinder use, F (2, 247) = 13.41, p <.001, R 2 =.1. As predicted, high scores on attachment avoidance were associated with lower scores on relationship seeking, β = -.3, t (247) = -4.39, p <.001, while high scores on attachment anxiety were associated with higher scores on relationship seeking, β =.31, t (247) = 4.48, p <.001. In an additional analysis in PROCESS, gender was taken into account as a potential moderator of the relationship between attachment avoidance, and relationship seeking as a motivation for Tinder use. The results showed that gender had a significant effect on the

17 17 relationship between relationship seeking, and attachment avoidance, β = -1.93, t (247) = -2.07, p =.040, and there was no significant interaction between gender and attachment avoidance, β =.55, t (247) = 1.63, p =.104. This meant that gender influenced the relationship between attachment avoidance, and less motivation to seek a relationship on Tinder. The last PROCESS analysis revealed that there was no significant effect of gender as a moderator in the relationship between attachment anxiety and relationship seeking, β = -.21, t (248) = -.31, p =.760, and there was no interaction effect, β = -.08, t (248) = -.38, p =.702. This indicated that men and women who scored higher on attachment anxiety were more motivated to use Tinder in order to find a relationship. Discussion Study 1 showed that high scores on attachment avoidance were related to a higher amount of rejection of potential romantic partners. Men who scored high on attachment anxiety rejected less potential romantic partners. Significant results revealed that participants who scored high on attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety expected more rejection by potential partners. It appeared that participants that scored high on attachment avoidance did not seek a relationship on Tinder, while participants that scored high on attachment anxiety did seek a relationship on Tinder. All hypotheses were confirmed, except hypothesis 4. Results did not show an effect of attachment styles on satisfaction with choices in partner selection. Study 2 tried to replicate the findings of Study 1. In Study 1 the sample of participants consisted of Dutch singles, while in Study 2 the sample contained of Americans. Study 2 was part of a larger research, and in this study participants evaluated 50 pictures of potential romantic partners in 5 blocks of 10 pictures.

18 18 Study 2 Method Participants and study design The participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk and they received an incentive of 2 US dollars in exchange for their participation. A total of 434 participants completed the study, but due to the fact that not all participants met the requirements of the study, only 309 participants were included in data analysis. Only participants that were single, heterosexual, bisexual, and within the age range between 18 and 30 years were included in data analysis. This meant that 121 participants were not included in data analysis because they indicated that they had a relationship, did not answer the question, or did not wanted to answer the question. Additionally, 3 participants were excluded because their age was above 30. One participant did not filled in the Revised Adult Attachment questionnaire, and was therefore excluded. The eventual sample of participants contained 154 (49.8%) males, and 155 (50.2%) females. With regard to sexual preferences, 304 (98.4%) participants identified themselves as heterosexual, and 5 (1.6%) identified themselves as bisexual. A correlational study design was conducted. It is important to notice that this study was part of a larger research with other questionnaires, only the questions that were relevant for this study are mentioned in the method section. This time, participants evaluated 50 pictures of potential romantic partners in a Tinder simulation. The participants were requested to accept the person of the picture by clicking on the heart shaped button or by pressing the cross button (for examples, see Appendix C). The dependent variables were the amount of pictures that were rejected, the expectation of participants about the amount of how many people from the pictures

19 19 would accept a picture of them, satisfaction with accepted/ rejected choices, and relationship seeking as a motivation for Tinder use. The independent variable was the attachment styles of participants. Procedure and measures Participants filled in the informed consent, which informed the participants about the different tasks that were included in the study. It was described that participation was voluntary, participants could withdraw anytime, responses were confidential, and it would took participants approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In the first part of this study, participants performed the Tinder simulation task. In this task, participants saw 50 pictures of potential partners in 5 blocks of 10 pictures. The pictures were selected from the same pre-study as in Study 1. For a more extensive description about how the variables in the pre-test were measured, see the method section of Study 1. An independent t- test revealed that the pictures of women (M = 6.41, SD =.54), and men (M = 6.28, SD =.59) did not differ in attractiveness, t (98) = 1.13, p =.262, CI [-.1,.35]. Men (M = 27.83, SD = 2.68) were seen as significantly older, compared to women (M = 26.65, SD = 3.05), t (98) = 2.05, p =.043, CI [-2.32, -.04]. The pictures of men (M = 6.05, SD =.29) were also perceived as more appropriate for Tinder, compared to the pictures of women (M = 5.93, SD=.29), t (98) = 2.13, p =.035, CI [-.24, -.01]. In the current study, participants answered after every set of 10 pictures a couple of questions. One open ended question between every set of pictures was relevant for this study; how many of the people from the previous block do you think have accepted your picture?

20 20 After the Tinder simulation task, satisfaction with accepted choices was measured with the question; are you satisfied with the choices you made for the people that you have accepted? Satisfaction with rejected choices was measured with the question; are you satisfied with the choices you made for the people that you have rejected? In both questions, satisfaction was measured on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much). In order to check, whether the selfimage of the participants in pickiness was the same between Study 1, and Study 2, pickiness was measured on a slider from 0 (not picky) to 100 (very picky). Subsequently, just like the first study, the level of attachment avoidance (α=.90) and attachment anxiety (α=.91) was measured with the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (see appendix A). In order to measure whether attachment predicted if participants use Tinder in their real life to find a relationship, the Tinder Motives Scale was added (see appendix B). Only participants who use or have used Tinder were directed to this questionnaire. There were 5 items that measured the motivation to seek a relationship (α=.92). The final part of the questionnaire, which was filled in by all participants, it contained questions about demographic data (sex, age, relationship status), and a debriefing, in which participants were informed that the study was about psychological properties, and partner selection in an online dating setting. Results The dependent variable rejection behavior was created by calculation of the total amount of pictures that were rejected in the Tinder simulation task. The scores on an avoidant and anxious attachment style were created by summing up the scores on the items that measured the different attachment styles, and then taking the mean of it. There was checked with an independent t-test, whether women and men differed in their scores on attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The results indicated that women (M = 2.85, SD =.93) did not differ from

21 21 men (M = 2.74, SD =.76) in attachment avoidance, t (295.62) = -1.11, p =.268, CI [-.3,.08]. There was no significant difference between women (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), and men (M = 2.59, SD = 1.02) in attachment style anxiety, t (307) = -1.92, p =.056, CI [-.49,.01], d =.22. An additional independent t-test revealed that women rejected more potential romantic partners (M = 28.75, SD = 10.88), compared to men (M = 19.35, SD = 11.93), t (307) = -7.23, p <.001, CI [-11.95, -6.84], d =.82. Because of this result, gender was taken into account in further analyses by adding it as a moderator in PROCESS analyses (Hayes & Rockwood, 2016). In contrary to expectations, regression analysis revealed that attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance did not predict significantly rejection of potential romantic partners in the Tinder simulation, F (2, 306) =.46, p =.631, R 2 =.003. Attachment anxiety, β = -.05, t (306) = -.66, p =.510, and attachment avoidance, β =.07, t (306) = 1, p =.339 were no significant predictors for the amount of pictures that were rejected. Two moderator analyses with PROCESS, one with attachment anxiety as independent variable and one with attachment avoidance as independent variable were conducted. The analysis with attachment avoidance showed that gender had a significant effect on the amount of rejection, β = 11.16, t (306) = 2.44, p =.015, but there was no significant interaction between gender, and attachment avoidance, β = -.64, t (306) = -.41, p =.684. The moderator analysis with attachment anxiety showed also a significant effect of gender on rejection behavior, β = 11.16, t (306) = 2.44, p =.015. There was no significant interaction effect between gender, and attachment anxiety, β = -.64, t (306) = -.41, p =.680. Adding of gender into the model did not change the results, there was no evidence for a relationship between attachment styles and rejection behavior.

22 22 The expectation of participants was measured five times after evaluation of ten pictures in each five blocks. For this analysis, the mean of the total expectation was calculated, and used in regression analysis. There was decided to exclude 5 participants, because they gave in at least one of the five blocks an answer above 10, while there were only 10 pictures per block. An anxious, and avoidant attachment style were included as independent variables. The mean expectation of how many people of the previous five blocks would you think accepted your picture was the dependent variable. The linear regression analysis with 304 participants showed that the model with the predictors attachment style anxiety and attachment style avoidance was significant, F (2, 301) = 3.04, p =.049, R 2 =.02. The coefficients revealed that attachment anxiety was not a significant predictor for the expectation to get accepted, β =.07, t (301) = 1, p =.344, while attachment avoidance was a significant predictor, β = -.18, t (301) = -2.36, p =.019. This was partly in line with the prediction of this research, only attachment avoidance was associated with the expectation that less people would accept a picture of them. Separate regression analyses for each block instead of the total blocks revealed the same pattern, results of these separate analyses were added in table 1. PROCESS analysis with gender as moderator, attachment avoidance as independent variable, and expectation as dependent variable revealed that gender did not affected the expectation of participants, β = -.48, t (301) = -.56, p =.577. There was no significant interaction between gender and attachment avoidance, β =.23, t (301) =.77, p =.441. Another PROCESS analysis with gender as moderator, attachment anxiety as independent variable, and expectations of participants was conducted. There was no effect of gender on the expectations of participants,

23 23 β = -.74, t = -1.13, p =.259, and no interaction between gender, and attachment anxiety, β =.33, t (301) = 1.45, p =.146. In order to test the fourth hypothesis, an insecure attachment style will predict less satisfaction with general choices in potential romantic partner selection in a Tinder simulation task, a regression analysis has been performed with attachment styles as independent variables and satisfaction with accepted choices as dependent variable. The assumption of normally distribution of the variable satisfaction with the accepted choices was violated, so a log transformation was performed. The model was significantly predictive for satisfaction with accepted choices, F (2, 306) = 3.69, p =.026, R 2 =.02. It was revealed that attachment anxiety was no significant predictor, β = -.03, t (306) = -.37, p =.714. Attachment avoidance predicted significantly the satisfaction with accepted choices, β =.17, t (306) = 2.31, p =.022. A higher score on attachment avoidance was related to higher satisfaction with accepted choices. In the next analysis it was investigated if attachment styles were related with satisfaction with rejected choices. Attachment styles were included as independent variables, and satisfaction with the rejected choices as dependent variable. Satisfaction with rejected choices was not normally distributed, so in order to satisfy the assumption of normal distribution, a log transformation was performed. The model was not significantly predictive for satisfaction with rejected choices, F (2, 306) = 2.38, p =.095, R 2 =.02. Attachment anxiety, β =.05, t (306) =.7, p =.485, and attachment avoidance, β =.08, t (306) = 1.15, p =.253, were no significant predictors for satisfaction with rejected choices. The results of the analyses did not support hypothesis 4, because there was no evidence found that attachment styles predicted less satisfaction with choices.

24 24 To be sure that gender had no moderated effect, PROCESS analyses were included, with attachment avoidance as independent variable, satisfaction with accepted choices as dependent variable, and gender as moderator. It appeared that there was no effect of gender on satisfaction with accepted choices, β =.14, t (306) = 1.16, p =.191, and there was no significant interaction effect between gender, and attachment avoidance, β = -.04, t (306) = -.97, p =.33. The following PROCESS analysis with attachment anxiety as independent variable, satisfaction with accepted choices as dependent variable, and gender as moderator did not reveal any significant results. Gender did not have an effect on the level of satisfaction with accepted choices, β =.14, t (306) = 1.77, p =.077, and gender did not interacted with attachment anxiety, β = -.04, t (306) = -1.37, p =.172. In order to look whether the same pattern occurred for satisfaction with rejected choices, PROCESS analysis were included, with gender as moderator. In the analysis with attachment avoidance it appeared that gender did not have an effect, β =.2, t (306) = 1.7, p =.093. The interaction between gender, and attachment avoidance was on the edge of significance, β = -.08, t (306) = -1.92, p =.056. A moderator analysis with PROCESS regarding attachment anxiety as independent variable, satisfaction with rejected choices as dependent variable, and gender as moderator revealed no significant results. Gender did not influence the satisfaction with rejected choices, β =.06, t (306) =.62, p =.538, and did not interacted with attachment anxiety, β = -.03, t (306) = -.91, p =.366. There were no results that supported hypothesis 4, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance did not predicted less satisfaction with choices. Regression analyses were conducted to test hypothesis 5; participants that score high on attachment avoidance do not seek a relationship on Tinder, and hypothesis 6; participants that score high on attachment anxiety seek a relationship on Tinder. Only 150 participants who

25 25 currently use or have used Tinder were included in this analysis. Attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were the independent variables, and relationship seeking was the dependent variable. The model predicted relationship seeking, F (2, 147) = 4.83, p =.009, R 2 =.06. Just as expected, attachment avoidance predicted lower scores on relationship seeking as a motive for Tinder use, β = -.27, t (147) = -2.78, p =.006, and attachment anxiety predicted a higher score on relationship seeking as a motive for Tinder use, β =.26, t (147) = 2.72, p =.007. PROCESS analysis with gender as a moderator, attachment avoidance as independent variable, and relationship seeking as dependent variable, showed that there was no effect of gender on relationship seeking, β = 1.26, t (147) = 1.42, p =.156. There was no interaction effect between gender, and attachment avoidance, β = -.27, t (147) = -.86, p =.390. This implied that the effect of attachment on relationship seeking did not depend on gender. A last PROCESS analysis with attachment anxiety showed similar results, gender did not have an effect on relationship seeking β =.55, t (147) =.85, p =.396, and there was no interaction between gender and anxiety, β = -.02, t (147) = -.1, p =.917. Discussion Participants with an avoidant attachment style expected to get more rejected, in line with hypothesis 3, but there was no relationship found between attachment anxiety and the expectation to get rejected. In contrary to hypothesis 4, which expected that attachment avoidance was related to less satisfaction with choices, the results indicated that attachment avoidance predicted more satisfaction. The findings from Study 1 were not replicated in Study 2, except the fact that attachment avoidance was negatively related to relationship seeking on Tinder, and attachment anxiety was positively related to relationship seeking.

26 26 Comparative analyses of Study 1 and Study 2 The results of the two studies were inconsistent with each other, and therefore extra analyses were performed in order to look whether the participants differed significantly in the amount of rejections and in their self-image of pickiness. Differences in rejection behavior were tested by converting the amount of rejections to percentages. An independent t-test revealed that Study 1 (M = 74.46, SD = 15.75), and Study 2 (M = SD = 24.66), differed significantly in percentages of rejection, t (511.62) = 16.5, p<.001, CI [23.11, 29.54], d = An additional independent t-test for only males showed the same effect, males in Study 1 (M = 65.9, SD = 17.67) rejected significantly more pictures in percentages, compared to males in Study 2 (M = 38.7, SD = 23.86), t (278.36) = 11.05, p <.001, CI [22.35, 32.04], d = 1.3. The same effect occurred when an independent t-test was performed for only females. Females in Study 1 (M= 79.66, SD = 11.76) rejected significantly more pictures in percentages, compared to females in Study 2 (M = 57.5, SD = 21.76), t (218.19) = 11.53, p <.001, CI [18.38, 25.95], d = The finding that the participants in Study 1 differed in rejection behaviour from the participants in Study 2, was in line with the self-image of pickiness of the participants. An independent t-test revealed that In Study 1 (M = 73.27, SD = 18.72) participants saw themselves as significantly more picky than the participants in Study 2 (M = 67.64, SD = 25.96), t (553.12, p =.002, CI [2.12, 9.13], d = An analysis with only males showed an effect at the same direction, whereas males in Study 1 (M = 68.42, SD = 23.55) saw themselves as more picky than males in Study 2 (M = 60.33, SD = 25.67), t (282.68) = 2.78, p =.006, CI [2.35, 13.82], d =.33. When an independent t-test was only performed with females, there appeared to be no significant

27 27 difference between Study 1 (M = 76.22, SD = 14.32), and Study 2 (M = 74.91, SD = 24.21), in self-image of pickiness, t (230.34) =.60, p =.547, CI [-2.63, 5.26]. Table 1: Separate regression analyses in Study 2 for each block over the variable: how many of the people from the previous block do you think would have accepted your picture? Block Attachment β p-value 1 Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance * 2 Anxiety Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance ** 4 Anxiety Avoidance * 5 Anxiety Note: the p-values of the coefficients table of the regression analyses are reported when they were significant at α<.05* and α<.01**.

28 28 General Discussion Across two studies, the following research question was investigated: what are the influences of attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) on partner selection in an online dating setting? The results of Study 1 showed support for hypothesis 1: an avoidant attachment style predicted a higher amount of rejections of potential romantic partners. This finding was however not replicated in Study 2. Similarly, the results of Study 1 showed support for hypothesis 2: an anxious attachment style predicted a lower amount of rejections, but this effect only applied to men and was not replicated in Study 2. Study 1 revealed support for hypothesis 3, which stated that participants with high scores on attachment anxiety and avoidance expected that they would be more rejected. In Study 2 this hypothesis was only confirmed for people with high scores on attachment avoidance. The results of both studies did not support hypothesis 4: an anxious and an avoidant attachment style will predict less satisfaction with choices. In fact, higher scores on attachment avoidance predicted more satisfaction with accepted choices in Study 2. Hypothesis 5 on the contrary was supported by evidence in both studies. Avoidant people indeed do not seek a relationship on Tinder. Finally, the results of both studies supported hypothesis 6: attachment anxiety was associated with the motivation to use Tinder in order to seek a relationship. Theoretical implications The finding that avoidant participants in Study 1 rejected more potential partners can be explained from the view that avoidant people apply a deactivating strategy, meaning that they are characterized by detachment, compulsive self-reliance and avoidance of intimacy (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). By rejecting more potential partners, these participants maintain distance in order to avoid intimacy. In a research by Poulsen et al. (2013), in which participants reported for 32 weeks their dating status, the results revealed that attachment avoidance predicted

29 29 more weeks without dating. The current research shows similar results. Furthermore, avoidant people have negative views of others (Henderson et al., 2005). This negative view goes along with experiences of rejection in the past, learning them to expect rejection in current life (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). This may be a reason why they rejected more people and expected rejection in Study 1 of the current research. There are several possible reasons to explain why anxiously attached participants accepted more potential partners in Study 1. First of all, attachment anxiety is characterized by a hyper activation strategy. The resulting behavior can be described as demanding, coercive, clingy and controlling. This strategy influences anxious individuals to accept more potential partners, because their behavior is related to an obsessive desire for attention (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Secondly, anxiously attached people fear to miss opportunities in the dating market (McClure et al., 2010). This could result in accepting more potential partners. Thirdly, it was concluded by Henderson et al. (2005) that anxious individuals perceive others more positively and themselves negatively, making them more likely to accept potential partners. The negative cognitions about the self are expressed in disbelief to be worthy of love and attention (Henderson et al., 2005).This also implies the expectation to get more rejected by others, just like the result in Study 1 of the current research. The results of Study 1 suggested that attachment styles are not associated with satisfaction. A possible explanation can be that the choices in this research were only hypothetical and therefore, did not have consequences in real life. It is also possible that the effect of attachment styles on satisfaction occurs later in time. D Angelo and Toma (2017) showed that participants were less satisfied when, in an online dating setting, they had a large set of potential partners and the possibility to change their choices. However, this effect only

30 30 occurred one week after making the decisions. The fact that the current research showed no relation between attachment styles and satisfaction may be explained by a lack in time to think after choices and inability to change decisions. Both studies provide evidence for a relation between attachment styles and relationship seeking as a motivation for Tinder use: a negative one for avoidance and positive for anxiety. The result regarding the avoidant attachment style can be explained by lower levels of commitment and a negative association with intimacy that avoidant people have (De Wall et al., 2011; Snapp, Lento, Ryu, & Rosen, 2014). Avoidant people prefer to be single instead of having a relationship. On the contrary, anxious individuals would be motivated to seek a relationship, because they perceive intimacy as a positive thing (Monteoliva et al., 2016). Their need to form relationships is driven by dependency and desire for attention (Levy, Ellison, Scott, & Bernecker, 2011). Differences in the methodology of the studies may explain any inconsistencies in the results between Study 1 and Study 2. In Study 2 participants evaluated five sets of ten pictures with questions between the sets, while in Study 1 there were 50 pictures without questions in between. It is well possible that in Study 2 participants made choices more based on rational decision making, because they were stimulated to think about reasons behind their choices. In Study 1 participants were more likely to decide based on intuition. Bowlby (1973) noted that humans are born with a genetic program that causes a child to attach to caregivers. The fact that attachment is developed during childhood makes it likely that attachment influences intuitive decision making more, because of automaticity. After all, Bowlby stated that attachment is processed deep in the identity of a person. Attachment could be not related in the current second study, because they were more likely to decide rational, instead of intuitive.

31 31 Cultural differences could also explain differences between the results of the studies. Study 1 was filled in by Dutch participants and Study 2 was filled in by Americans. There is a lack in scientific research about cultural differences between Western countries (van den Bos et al., 2010). Hofstede (1983) has made a database in which countries are ranked on cultural dimensions. A comparison between the Netherlands and the United States of America showed the biggest difference in masculinity (Hofstede, 1983; Itim International, n.d.). This means that Americans are more driven by competition, achievement, and success. However, there are no clear indications to relate these differences in masculinity to the differences in the results of the studies. Future research should examine whether cultural aspects could influence attachment related behavior. Contrary to Study 1, Study 2 gave some evidence that attachment avoidance was related to more satisfaction with accepted choices. An explanation could be that avoidant participants were more satisfied with accepted choices, because the accepted choices online felt more safe to them then in the real world. After all, avoidant people do not want to seek a relationship according to the results of this research. This may lead to an increase in satisfaction after accepted choices, because the accepted choices do not provide relational opportunities for them. Influence of gender on rejection behavior The current study confirmed that in general women were more selective in partner selection compared to men. There was also an interaction effect between gender and attachment anxiety in rejection behavior in Study 1. This meant that only males rejected less potential partners when they scored higher on attachment anxiety. From an evolutionary perspective, women do not accept more potential partners when they score higher on anxiety, because they make higher parental investments than men. Women can get a limited number of times pregnant

32 32 in their life and have to fulfill a pregnancy, which costs high investments (Buunk et al., 2002). This could imply that women have to be more selective in order to select a partner with good genes. On the other hand, men could invest minimal with only sexual intercourse. Men do not have to be picky in selecting a partner, because they can reproduce themselves more than women. Men want to optimize chances to reproduce own genes (Bjorklund & Shackelford, 1999). Optimizing their chances starts by accepting more potential romantic partners. Differences in sexual strategies are even present at the earliest stage of mate selection (Poulsen et al., 2013). Therefore it could explain the influence of gender on rejection behavior in the current research. Limitations and strengths There are a couple of limitations of the current research that should be mentioned. First of all, the current research consisted of a hypothetical situation, in which participants did not have real opportunities when selecting potential romantic partners. It remains unclear whether people would behave the same in real online dating, in which participants themselves would be evaluated by potential partners as well. This could make an impact on the results, because anxious individuals would have real possibilities to find a relationship. Online dating would reduce psychological distance between participants and potential partners, while avoidant people dislike this. In theory, the effect of attachment styles on rejection behavior could be strengthened, when choices in online dating would have real consequences. A second limitation of the current research was that according to the results of the pretest the pictures of women and men differed significantly in perceived age and appropriateness. Therefore, it could not be excluded that gender had an effect on rejection behavior due to differences in perceived age and appropriateness of the pictures instead of attachment styles.

33 33 The third limitation was that external influences could have had an effect on the results. An example of this is that participants could fill in the survey on multiple locations. Some locations might have distracted participants and influenced rejection behavior. For example, when participants would sit in an environment with many attractive people, this could increase the amount of rejections, because the set of standards would be placed higher. Nevertheless, the research showed strengths in large sample sizes, which gave this research much power. The Tinder simulation task was nearly identical to Tinder (for examples, see appendix C). The participants were shown a diverse set of pictures with variation in ethnicity and other appearance characteristics. It was a strength that only single participants who had a similar age as the people on the pictures were included in the study. This way, they would perceive them more as a potential romantic partner. This research adds value to the current state of science. Previous researches focused mostly on rejection behavior from the perspective of people who get rejected and excluded by others. This research differed, by focusing on the perspective of people who decide to reject and investigated attachment styles as a possible reason that influences this decision. Future research The inconsistent results suggest that there are more factors that could affect the relationship between attachment styles and partner selection. Therefore, future research should focus on identifying those factors. An example of this could be whether culture moderates the relationship between attachment styles and rejection of potential romantic partners. Future research should also examine how attachment influences the development of online relationships over time, because it is not clear what happens after the first evaluation of potential partners. In the current research, participants were unable to experience real negative and positive dating

34 34 experiences, such as rejection and dating success. Therefore, future research should examine whether positive and negative dating experiences influence decision making of avoidant attached and anxiously attached people. Lastly, it would be interesting to examine whether attachment styles could influence rejection behavior in other settings. Rejection in a job interview or rejection in other social relationships like friends could also be influenced by attachment styles. Practical implications Current findings suggest that, at least under certain circumstances, attachment styles can influence the selectivity of people when viewing potential partners. Singles could use this knowledge in real life, by being aware of the fact that some people are motivated on Tinder to find a relationship, and some are not. The notion that women are more selective in partner selection, than men could help men cope better with rejections, by framing rejections as an evolutionary based effect instead of relating it to self-image. Men showed less rejection behavior and women could use this information by being aware that men are more inclined to look for multiple dating partners. In general, people could use this knowledge by being more aware that their own attachment style could influence decision making in dating choices. Dating apps could use the knowledge from this research in order to improve their application. An example of this could be that dating apps add the option for users to mention by which motivations they are driven. After all, this research suggested that based on attachment styles people use Tinder for different kind of reasons. By adding information about motivations, users could infer whether their own motivation fits with the motivation of a potential romantic partner.

35 35 Conclusions In the beginning of the research the question was: what are the influences of attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) on partner selection in an online dating setting? The current findings suggest that attachment styles in some way influence rejection behavior in online dating. However, the results are too ambiguous to conclude the specific effect of an anxious and avoidant attachment style on rejection behavior. At least can be concluded that people who score high on attachment anxiety are driven by the motivation to seek a relationship, while people with high scores on attachment avoidance are not motivated to seek a relationship in online dating. The results suggested that when Tinder tells you: it is a match! You are far from knowing whether this will become your future romantic love. It will certainly make anxious and avoidant people s heart beating, for different kind of reasons.

36 36 Appendix A: Original Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 2008). Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it describes your feelings about romantic relationships. Please think about all your relationships (past and present) and respond in terms of how you generally feel in these relationships. If you have never been involved in a romantic relationship, answer in terms of how you think you would feel. Please use the scale below by placing a number between 1 and 5 in the space provided to the right of each statement Not at all Very characteristic characteristic of me. of me. 1) I find it relatively easy to get close to people. 2) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others. 3) I often worry that romantic partners don't really love me. 4) I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. 5) I am comfortable depending on others. 6) I don t worry about people getting too close to me.

37 37 7) I find that people are never there when you need them. 8) I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. 9) I often worry that romantic partners won t want to stay with me. 10) When I show my feelings for others, I'm afraid they will not feel the same about me. 11) I often wonder whether romantic partners really care about me. 12) I am comfortable developing close relationships with others. 13) I am uncomfortable when anyone gets too emotionally close to me. 14) I know that people will be there when I need them. 15) I want to get close to people, but I worry about being hurt. 16) I find it difficult to trust others completely. 17) Romantic partners often want me to be emotionally closer than I feel comfortable being. 18) I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need them.

38 38 Dutch translation of the Revised Adult Attachment Scale: Lees onderstaande stellingen en beoordeel in welke mate deze van toepassing zijn op jouw gevoelens over romantische relaties. Denk aan romantische relaties uit het verleden en geef je antwoord in termen van hoe je je over het algemeen gevoeld hebt in deze relaties. Als je nog nooit een romantische relatie hebt gehad, beantwoord de stellingen dan op basis van hoe je denkt dat je je zou voelen als je wel een relatie zou hebben Helemaal niet Helemaal wel karakteristiek voor mij. karakteristiek voor mij. 1) Ik vind het relatief gemakkelijk om een hechte band met iemand op te bouwen. 2) Ik vind het moeilijk om mezelf toe te staan afhankelijk van anderen te zijn. 3) Ik ben vaak bang dat mijn partner niet echt van mij houdt. 4) Anderen willen vaak niet zo n hechte relatie met mij als ik met hen zou willen. 5) Ik voel mij er prettig bij om van anderen afhankelijk te zijn. 6) Ik maak me niet vaak zorgen dat mijn relatie met iemand te hecht wordt. 7) Mensen zijn er nooit wanneer je ze nodig hebt. 8) Ik voel mij er een beetje ongemakkelijk bij om met anderen een hechte band te hebben. 9) Ik ben vaak bang dat mijn partner niet bij mij wil blijven. 10) Wanneer ik mijn gevoelens aan anderen laat zien, ben ik bang dat zij niet hetzelfde voor mij voelen.

39 39 11) Ik vraag mezelf vaak af of mijn partner echt om mij geeft. 12A) Ik voel me er goed bij om een hechte band met iemand op te bouwen. 12B) Ik voel me comfortabel om intieme relaties met anderen te ontwikkelen. 13) Ik vind het niet prettig als iemand emotioneel te dicht bij mij komt. 14). Ik weet dat mensen er voor mij zullen zijn wanneer ik ze nodig heb. 15) Ik wil een hechte band met mensen, maar ik ben bang dat ik gekwetst word. 16) Ik vind het moeilijk om anderen compleet te vertrouwen. 17) Vaak willen romantische partners een hechtere emotionele band met mij dan waar ik mij prettig bij voel. 18) Ik weet niet of ik er altijd op kan vertrouwen dat anderen er voor mij zullen zijn als ik ze nodig heb.

40 40 Appendix B: Tinder Motives Scale (Timmermans, & De Caluwe, 2017). TMS Factor Items (N = 58) Social Approval Relationship Seeking Sexual Experience Flirting/Social Skills To get an ego-boost. To get self-validation from others. To see how desirable I am. To find someone for a serious relationship. To fall in love. To meet a future husband or wife. To find a friend-withbenefits/fuckbuddy. To find a one-night-stand. To see how easy it is to find a sex partner. To learn to flirt. To improve my social skills. To increase my flirting To get compliments. To be able to better estimate my own attractiveness. To get attention. To build an emotional connection with someone. To seek out someone to date. To increase my sexual experience. To live out a sexual fantasy. To find a lover/mistress. Because it is hard to talk to people in real life. Because it is a more

41 41 TMS Factor Items (N = 58) experience. To gain more self-confidence enjoyable to make the first move. in my social skills. Travelling To get tips from locals (in restaurants, shopping, party, ) when travelling. To meet other travelers/locals when in a foreign country. To learn about hotspots in foreign countries through locals. To easily find people that are willing to party when in a foreign country. To broaden my social network when on an abroad/exchange experience. Ex Belongingness To get over my ex. To think less about my ex. Because I want to be trendy. To be cool. So that I do not focus my attention on my ex anymore. Because it is a fad. Because everyone uses Tinder. Peer Pressure Because my friends thought I should use Tinder. As suggested by friends. Because someone else made me a Tinder profile.

42 42 TMS Factor Items (N = 58) Socializing To make new friends. To broaden my social network. To meet new people. To talk to people I don t know personally. Sexual Orientation To connect with other people with the same sexual orientation. To get to know people with the same sexual orientation. To meet singles with a similar sexual orientation. Pass Time/Entertainment To pass time. Because it passes time when I m bored. To occupy my time. When I have nothing better to do. For fun. Because it is entertaining. To relax. Distraction As a break at work or during a study period. To procrastinate things I should be doing (working, studying) To combat boredom when working or studying. Curiosity To see what the application is about. Out of curiosity. To try it out.

43 43 Appendix C: examples of pictures that were used in the current research