Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Master’s Thesis
Match, Chat, Date?
The Relationship between Mobile Dating and
Romantic Competence among Emerging Adults
Name: Maria Omidi
Student Number: 12021334
Supervisor: Dr. Sindy Sumter
Wordcount: 7254
Abstract
Mobile dating has changed the landscape of intimate relationships, especially among emerging adults. The present study investigated the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence among 500 emerging adults (18 – 30 years old, M = 22.92, SD = 3.28) and examined the roles of rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking in this context. Romantic competence was defined as the ability to initiate, establish and maintain a healthy romantic relationship. To measure romantic competence, a new scale was created measuring romantic competence and its six subdomains Initiation, Self-Disclosure, Sexual Assertiveness, Support, Assertiveness and Communication. The results of a cross-sectional online survey revealed a negative relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence overall and three subdomains, i.e. Self-Disclosure, Support and Communication. Neither rejection sensitivity, nor sensation seeking predicted mobile dating. Sensation seeking moderated the negative relationship between mobile dating and Self-Disclosure. Further research is needed to
investigate the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence longitudinally in order to draw conclusions on whether mobile dating has a negative impact on romantic competence.
Introduction
The Internet has been used for decades to facilitate new and maintain existing romantic relationships (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). According to Sumter and Vandenbosch (2018) mobile dating applications have taken the possibilities for online dating to a new level. What sets mobile dating from established online dating websites apart, are, inter alia, the geolocation functionality of the mobile dating applications, which enables users to find potential matches in their proximity, receive instant notifications and the accessibility at any time and place due to the smartphone. Though mobile dating differs from online dating in its functionality, Gatter and Hodkinson (2016) found no difference between mobile dating users and online daters. It is evident that online dating and specifically mobile dating have changed the current landscape of intimate relationships; Ortega and Hergovich (2017) found that more than one-third of marriages start online and while online dating is for heterosexual couples the second most common way to meet, for homosexual couples it is by far the most popular method. It is therefore important to consider consequences and effects mobile dating might be accompanied by.
According to Timmermans and De Caluwé (2017a) mobile dating is integrated
especially in the everyday life of single emerging adults. Emerging adulthood is the transition from adolescence into adulthood and it is accompanied by the exploration of one’s identity and trying out various possibilities, especially when it comes to love and sexual relationships (Arnett, 2004). Although developmental stage theories, supported by a plethora of studies (e.g. Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Tuval-Mashiach & Shulman, 2006) indicate that emerging adults strive to settle into serious committed relationships, Shulman and Connolly (2013) argue that the number of young people involved in casual romantic encounters rather than stable and committed relationships is growing. Especially in western societies emerging adulthood seems to be characterized by relational instabilities, commitment difficulties and
postponement of marriage (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). These characteristics may serve as an indicator for lower levels of romantic competence, hindering emerging adults to enter and engage in serious romantic relationships. A lack of romantic competence can furthermore result in an unhealthy romantic relationship, which is associated with mental and physical health problems (Davila, Capaldi, & La Greca, 2016; Davila, Stroud, & Starr, 2014; Dush & Amato, 2005). It is therefore important to examine the concept and how it is connected to mobile dating.
A plethora of research has focused on motivations and dispositional factors of individuals that lead them to engage in mobile dating (e.g. Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2018; Sumter, Vandenbosch & Ligtenberg, 2017; Timmermans & De Caluwé 2017b). Nonetheless, many scholars have only examined the relationship between mobile dating and risky sexual behavior or negative outcomes of mobile dating (Choi, Wong & Fong, 2018; Sawyer, Smith & Benotsch, 2018). Consequently, much less is known about the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence and therefore outcomes on overall well-being.
It is important to consider these aspects especially for emerging adults, because
according to the most popular dating application Tinder, emerging adults between the ages of 18 and 24 compile the largest group of users (Iqbal, 2018). Media generally play a big role in the lives of emerging adults with a usage for up to twelve hours daily (Coyne, Padilla-Walker & Howard, 2013). Research has shown that emerging adults select and use their media as a way to explore their identity, especially when it comes to gender, love and sexuality (Arnett, 1995; Padilla-Walker, 2007). Mobile dating might seem like an attractive platform to explore oneself and potential partners and to find love, which is in line with research on motivations driving emerging adults to engage in mobile dating. Sumter, Vandenbosch und Ligtenberg (2017) found that one of the main reasons for mobile dating, contrary to public opinions, is love seeking, which underlines the importance of examining the relationship between mobile
dating and romantic competence. Arnett (2004) states that the road into adulthood takes now longer than it used to, so the present study will focus on the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence among emerging adults between the ages of 18 – 30 years old.
Theoretical Background Romantic Competence
The societal relevance of studying romantic competence and identifying necessary skills for a well-functioning romantic relationship has been under scholarly investigation (e.g. Davila et al., 2016; Loving & Slatcher, 2013). Davila et al. (2017) associated romantic
competence “with more positive views of relationships, greater security, healthier choices about sexual behavior, and fewer depressive symptoms” (p. 163). La Greca and Mackey (2007) argue that having higher levels of romantic competence can diminish anxiety and depression in challenging romantic experiences. It is important to gain a full understanding of romantic competence as it affects every single individual and a lack of romantic competence can lead to mental and physical health problems (Davila et al., 2016; Davila et al., 2014). Furthermore, only by studying romantic competence thoroughly, skills can be identified necessary for well-functioning and healthy romantic relationships so that potential harmful outcomes of romantic relationship dysfunction can be counteracted.
Although romantic competence might seem to be a common construct, there is no clear consensus on the definition or domains constructing the concept across literature. Generally, romantic competence is considered as part of social competence, which Valkenburg and Peter (2008) define as the “ability to effectively form and manage (…) interpersonal relationships” (p. 225). Social competence is comprised of being able to initiate new relationships, support others, having the ability of self-disclosure and being assertive
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2008). These interpersonal skills are also necessary for competency in romantic relationships as those take place in social settings.
Bouchey (2007) and Davila et al. (2009) have conceptualized romantic competence across literature. Bouchey (2007) first made an attempt to define romantic competence, though she uses the term romantic self-concept in her definition. According to Bouchey (2007) the romantic self-concept is the interplay between an individuals’ perceived
competence in six domains related to romantic competence and the perceived importance of valuing these domains. The six domains are perceived abilities in the aspects Romantic Appeal, Sexual Competence, Communication, Relationship Maintenance, Power Balance and Partner Acceptance. According to Bouchey (2007), Romantic Appeal refers to an individual’s perceived ability to get someone to go out with them. Sexual Competence compromises of perceived confidence in experiences regarding sexual matters. Communication refers to the perceived ability in disclosing information to a romantic partner. Relationship maintenance covers the perceived ability to stay in a romantic relationship, while power balance addresses the establishment of equal power balance between two romantic partners. Partner acceptance describes to what extent an individual feels accepted and understood by their partner.
Bouchey (2007) found a positive link between her domains Romantic Appeal, Partner Acceptance, Power Balance and Communication and psychosocial adjustment among
adolescents. Her results suggest that low romantic competence poses as a risk factor for anxiety, poor self-esteem and overall well-being.
In contrast to Bouchey (2007), Davila et al. (2009) conceptualize romantic
competence as the interplay of the skills Insight, Mutuality and Emotion Regulation that lead to healthy romantic functioning. Insight compromises of skills such as active listening, insight and understanding, which overlaps with Bouchey’s (2007) domain of Communication.
problem solving, similarly to Bouchey’s (2007) Partner Acceptance domain. Emotion regulation is comprised of appropriate emotion expression and reduction of emotional intensity, which is a domain, Bouchey (2007) did not include in her construct.
Neither Bouchey (2007) nor Davila et al. (2009) considered the importance of sexual assertiveness in their conceptualization of romantic competence, though research identified sexual assertiveness as a protective factor in romantic relationships since it was positively linked to relationship satisfaction and positive feelings towards the romantic partner (Sayyadi, Golmakani, Ebrahimi & Saki, 2018).Hurlbert (1991) argues that sexual assertiveness affects couples emotional and sexual relationship, which underlines the importance of sexual
assertiveness in romantic relationships.
In order to capture romantic competence in a holistic manner, various aspects of romantic competence were examined. The present study relies on a romantic competence construct mainly based on the competence domains suggested by Valkenburg and Peter (2008), Bouchey (2007) and sexual assertiveness by Hurlbert (1991). Since there is no set definition of romantic competence, in the present study it will be defined as the ability to initiate, establish and maintain a healthy romantic relationship. The following nine domains are assumed to capture best all aspects of romantic competence: Initiation, Romantic Appeal,
Communication, Self-disclosure, Support, Maintaining Relationships, Assertiveness, Sexual Assertiveness and Sexual Competence.
Individual Differences
In the present study it is anticipated that mobile dating is positively related to romantic competence. This hypothesis is inspired by the Internet-induced social skills hypothesis (Koutamanis, Vossen, Peter & Valkenburg, 2013), which argues that online communication can positively affect offline skills because the skills can be rehearsed in the online
mobile dating would be able to practice their romantic competence skills within the dating application. The rehearsal of romantic competence skills, i.e. initiation of dating or
communicating openly, should according to the Internet-induced social skills hypothesis translate to the offline world.Several theories argue though that this assumption might not be applicable to all individuals due to selection effects, hence the positive relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence might be influenced by individual differences.
The Uses and Gratifications theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973) states that individuals select their media based on their needs and desires and this selection is filtered by psychological and social factors. Expanding this theory, The Differential Susceptibility to
Media Effects Model (DSMM; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013) proposes that individual-difference
variables, such as dispositional, developmental and social factors predict a person’s selection of media as well as moderate the media effects. Thereby, the differential susceptibility variables can enhance or reduce the effect of the selected media, which is in this case any dating application. The present study will consider the individual difference variables
rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking as predictors for mobile dating use as well as
consider both traits as moderators, influencing the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence.
Rejection Sensitivity. Rejection sensitivity is defined as the disposition to “anxiously
expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection” (Downey & Feldman, 1996, p. 1327). Rejection sensitive individuals report greater feelings of rejection than less rejection-sensitive individuals (Downey & Feldman, 1996). According to Blackhart, Fitzpatrick and Williamson (2014) individuals higher in rejection sensitivity are more likely to use online dating sites than those lower in rejection sensitivity, because the online environment offers the opportunity to choose which aspects of their personality they want to present to others (Walther, 1996),
therefore diminishing the chances of potential rejection. Hence, it is anticipated, that rejection sensitivity is positively related to mobile dating (H2).
In line with the DSMM (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013), the rich-get-richer hypothesis (Kraut et al., 2002) postulates that mobile dating would only raise the romantic competence level for individuals who already have the premises for romantic competence skills.
According to Downey and Feldman (1996) individuals high in rejection sensitivity show dysfunctional behaviors in romantic relationships and consequently negatively impact the relationship with a romantic partner, because their rejection sensitive nature affects their romantic competence skills negatively. It is therefore expected that the positive relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence will be weaker for individuals higher in rejection sensitivity (H3).
Sensation Seeking. Sensation seeking is a biological-based psychological construct
and can be defined as the tendency to actively engage in stimulating behaviors, which includes the willingness to take risks in order to seek for sensations (Zuckerman, 1979). According to Chan (2017) individuals high in sensation seeking are more likely to engage in online dating, which is according to Sumter and Vandenbosch (2018) due to the thrill of excitement offered by dating applications. Hence, it is assumed that sensation seeking is positively related to mobile dating (H4).
Individuals high in sensation seeking were found to date more frequently compared to low sensation-seekers (Seto, Lalumière & Quinsey, 1995),which leads to the assumption that their levels of romantic competence are also higher. Applying the rich get richer hypothesis, individuals high in sensation seeking might benefit from mobile dating in regards to their romantic competence skills. Thus, it is expected that the positive relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence will be stronger for individuals high in sensation seeking (H5).
Current Study
After a thorough literature research, no existing study to date could be found examining mobile dating and romantic competence in the same context. Thus, the present study tries to shed light on the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence. Furthermore, the goal of the current study was to develop and refine an instrument to assess romantic competence quantitively and in a holistic manner.
The following research question will be examined: to what extent is mobile dating associated with romantic competence among emerging adults and what are the roles of rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking in this relationship (see Figure 1)? Based on this research question, the following five hypotheses will be tested:
H1: Mobile dating is positively related to romantic competence overall and its
subdomains.
H2: Mobile dating is positively related to rejection sensitivity.
H3: The positive relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence is
weaker for individuals with higher levels of rejection sensitivity.
H4: Mobile dating is positively related to sensation seeking.
H5: The positive relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence is
stronger for individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking.
Methods Participants
Participants were recruited through posts and personal messages on the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, WhatsApp and through postings on the UvA Lab website and Surveycircle. Requirements for partaking in this study were being above the age of 18 years old. All participants took part in the study voluntarily and incentives for UvA students were offered in form of 0.5 research participation credit points. Other participants had the chance to win a 20€ gift card from Amazon or bol.com by taking part in the raffle.
After the recruitment process a total of 543 participants had taken part in the study, but since the present research focused on emerging adults, only participants aged 18 – 30 years old were included in the analysis. The final sample included 500 participants, from which 401 participants fully completed the questionnaire, while 99 participants had missing values. Nonetheless, all participants were included in the final analysis. The final sample included 346 (69.2%) women and 154 (30.8%) men. The average age of the sample 22.92, SD = 3.28. The participants mentioned 71 different countries as their country of origin with The
Netherlands (26.1%) and Germany (23.7%) being stated the most. Regarding the level of education, 41.8% of the participants indicated a non-university education while 28.6% of the participants had at least a Bachelor’s degree. Most of the participants (67.4%) were students and mainly followed studies in social sciences. From the rest of the sample, 25.8% were currently working and 5.2% were not.
Next, sample characteristics regarding mobile dating experiences and relationships are described. In terms of relationship status, 46.6% of the participants indicated to be single, while 47.2% were in a committed relationship and 3.2% in an open relationship. From the participants that indicated to be currently dating somebody, 8.6% met their partner through a
dating app or website and in this context the dating app Tinder was mentioned the most. 80.6% of the sample had at least one serious, romantic relationships in the past. From the final sample 74.6% identified as exclusively heterosexual and 20.2% as exclusively homosexual.
Design
The current study is part of a larger study on online dating and therefore some data was collected within this study, which are not relevant for answering the present research question. In order to examine the relationship between mobile dating and romantic
competence and the potentially predicting and moderating roles of rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking in this context, a cross-sectional online survey was applied to evaluate the general extent of these relationships. All data were collected online via self-report measures in individual settings of the participants. The survey was available in Dutch, German and
English so that participants could choose their preferred language.
Measures
Mobile Dating Use. The frequency of engaging in mobile dating was initially used as
an indicator for the independent variable in the current study. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 7 (multiple times a day) how often they engaged in mobile dating, M = 4.24 , SD = 1.68. From the entire sample, only 76 participants indicated to currently engage in mobile dating. Analysis were first ran with mobile dating users only, but the models were not significant because of the small sample size. Therefore, mobile dating users and non-users were split into two groups and mobile dating was used as an dichotomous variable for all analysis.
Romantic Competence. To assess romantic competence, a new scale was created
based on the Social Competence Scale (Valkenburg & Peter, 2008), the Romantic
Self-Concept (Bouchey, 2007) and the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Hurlbert, 1991).
were instructed to rate the level of difficulty of actions and behaviors regarding a potential romantic partner or someone they might want to date. The items were expected to cover the following nine domains of romantic competence: Initiation (5 items), Romantic Appeal (3 items), Communication (4 items), Self-disclosure (5 items), Support (5 items), Maintaining Relationships (4 items), Assertiveness (4 items), Sexual Assertiveness (5 items) and Sexual Competence (4 items). The responses were captured on a 7-point Likert scale, reaching from 1 (extremely easy) to 7 (extremely difficult). Example items include “to tell someone that he or she is attractive or charming”, “to work on a relationship when things are not going well” and “to communicate your sexual desires to your partner” (see Appendix A for full scale).
In order to check the factor structure, I ran a principal components factor analysis with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) on the 39 items. The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .905. Nine factors had eigenvalues over 1 and together explained 62.63% of the variance. After excluding factors with loadings below .40, cross loadings above .40 and factors with less than three items for each domain, six factors remained. Table 1 shows the factor loadings for each of the six final factors.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, the following six subscales of romantic competence were constructed: (1) Initiation consists of five items and reflects on making the first move on someone; (2) Self-Disclosure comprises three items and reflects on the ability to share personal information; (3) Sexual Assertiveness has seven items and addresses sexual matters with a (potential) partner; (4) Support consists of three items and reflects on
supporting others; (5) Assertiveness comprises three items and describes the ability to stand up for oneself; The cross loading of the item “Asse_4” in Factor 4 and 5 was assigned only to Factor 4 because of the higher loading in order to minimize multicollinearity among
subscales; (6) Communication includes three items and reflects on the ability to openly communicate. The correlations between the six final subscales are presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Factor Loadings and Reliabilities for Domains of Romantic Competence Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
Initiation (α = .83)*
(a) Ini_5: Ask someone to get together and do something? .833 (a) Ini_4: Call someone whom you wanted to get to know
better?
.749 (a) SelfDis_4: Tell someone that you liked him or her? .658 (a) SelfDis_3: Tell someone that he or she is attractive or
charming?
.624 (a)Ini_1: Start a conversation with someone you find attractive
but do not know very well? Self-Disclosure (α = .81)*
.613
(b) SelfDis_1: To express your feelings to someone else? .779 (b) Comm_1: To share personal information with your partner? .749 (b) SelfDis_5: To show your sensitive side to your romantic
partner?
Sexual Assertiveness (α = .78)*
.670
(c) SexCom_1: To think that you are able to please your partner in a physical/ sexual way?
.716 (c) SexAsse_2: To tell your partner what feels good? .712 (c) SexAsse_1: To communicate your sexual desires to your
partner?
.678 (c) SexCom_3: To be happy with the amount of sexual activity
you engage in?
.653
(c) SexAsse_5: To initiate talking about sex? .637
(c) SexAsse_4: To initiate sex with your partner? .608 (c) SexAsse_3: To give sexual praise to your partner?
Support (α = .73)*
.574
(d) Asse_4: To stand up for someone you like was made a fool of?
.671 -.306
(d) Supp_5: To help someone to feel at ease? .621
(d) Supp_4: To help someone when he or she asked you? Assertiveness (α = .78)*
.575
(e) Asse_1: To stand up for your rights when someone you like wronged you?
-.841 (e) Asse_2: To stand up for yourself when someone you like
made a fool of you?
-.808 (e) Asse_3: To stand up for yourself when someone you like
accused you of something you did not do? Communication (α = .77)*
-.768
(f) MainRe_2: To work on a relationship when things are not going well?
-.772
(f) Supp_3: Help others cope with an unpleasant experience? -.656
(f) SelfDis_2: To tell others about things you are ashamed of? -.636
(f) Supp_2: To comfort someone who is feeling down? -.631
Note. Factor loadings below .40 and cross loadings above .40 are not shown. For original Pattern Matrix including dropped
items see Table 3 (Appendix B). *Reliabilities for English, German and Dutch version were also tested separately and revealed similar results.
Reliabilities for each subscale were acceptable to good (see Table 1), and the overall Romantic Competence Scale (M = 5.12, SD = 0.80) presented with a Cronbach's alpha of .79. Table 2
Romantic Competence Subscale Correlation Matrix and Mean and Standard Deviations for each Subscale M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Initiation 4.25 (1.31) - .10 -.33 -.23 -.43 .26 2 Self-Disclosure 5.12 (1.36) - .08 -.15 -.17 .07 3 Sexual Assertiveness 5.12 (1.13) - .26 .21 -.10 4 Support 5.89 (0.80) - .16 -.02 5 Assertiveness 5.46 (1.17) - -.13 6 Communication 4.95 (0.99) -
Rejection Sensitivity. Participants completed the short version of the Rejection
Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 2013). The scale included eight hypothetical scenarios, in which the respondents would make a request to someone and the answers to these hypothetical situations cover the degree of anxiety and concern about the outcome, as well as expectations of acceptance or rejection. Participants were asked to indicate on a 6-point Likert scale, reaching from 1 (not at all concerned) to 6 (very
concerned) to what extent they would experience anxiety and concern about making a request
and the likelihood that the other person would respond as expected (1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely)). Sample items include “You ask your boyfriend/ girlfriend if he/ she really loves you”, “You ask a friend to do you a big favor”, “You go to a party and notice someone on the other side of the room, and then you ask them to dance.” Accordingly to Downey and
Feldman’s (1996) instruction, an overall scale was created by multiplying the level of rejection anxiety with the reverse for acceptance expectancy for each item and afterwards calculating the average across the eight items. Higher scores indicated greater sensitivity to rejection, M = 7.66 , SD = 2.23. The scale resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .82
Sensation Seeking. Sensation seeking was assessed with four items from the Brief
Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS; Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale, reaching from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) whether they would engage in certain behaviors. Example
items include “I would like to explore strange places” and “I’d rather have exciting and unpredictable friends”. None of the items were excluded in the analysis, M = 4.61, SD = 1.16. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .65.
Background variables. Background variables included general questions regarding
age, gender, country of origin and current residence, current living situation, level of
education, academic discipline that fits the current degree and current employment status. In addition, respondents provided information on their relationship status, dating history (number of partners and duration of last relationship) and sexual orientation.
Procedure
Data collection took place over four weeks in April and May in 2019. The online survey took approximately fifteen minutes to complete. Participants could complete the survey in their preferred language, i.e. English, Dutch or German. Participants were asked to give their consent to partaking in the study by being informed about their voluntary
participation, meaning that they could leave the survey at any time as well as withdraw their participation within seven days. Also, anonymity was assured. At the end of the survey participants had the option to leave their E-Mail address if they were interested in the results of the study or wanted to participate in the raffle.
Statistical Procedure
All analyses were conducted in SPSS version 25. After excluding participants above the age of 30 years old, a sample size of N = 500 remained for the analysis. To assess whether mobile dating is positively related to romantic competence and its subdomains (H1), pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients between mobile dating and romantic competence overall, as well as the six subdomains were investigated. To examine whether rejection sensitivity (H2) and sensation seeking (H4) were positively related to mobile dating, a binary logistic regression was applied, using age, gender and sexual orientation as covariates. To assess the interaction effect of rejection sensitivity (H3) and sensation seeking (H5) on mobile dating and romantic competence, regression analysis using Model 2 in the PROCESS macro for SPSS version 3.2 (Hayes, 2013) were performed. The latter analysis was also performed for every subdomain of romantic competence separately.
Results
Relationship between Mobile Dating and Romantic Competence
Hypothesis 1 predicted that mobile dating use would be positively related to romantic competence overall and its subdomains. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients revealed in contrast to H1 a significant negative correlation between mobile dating and romantic competence, r = -.13, p = .010. Moreover, correlations between the subdomains of romantic competence and mobile dating showed significant negative correlations between mobile dating and Self-Disclosure, r = -.18, p < .001, Support, r = -.14, p = .004 and
Communication, r = -.14, p = .004. No significant relationships were found for mobile dating and Initiation, Assertiveness and Sexual Assertiveness, ps > .694.
Individual Factors as Predictors for Mobile Dating
Hypothesis 2 and 4 predicted that mobile dating would be positively related to
rejection sensitivity (H2) and sensation seeking (H4). A logistic regression was applied to test if rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking significantly predicted participants' mobile dating use. Age, gender and sexual orientation were included as covariates. Although the overall model was significant, χ2(5) = 22.04, p < .001, Cox and Snell R2 = .051 and Nagelkerke R2 = .084, neither rejection sensitivity nor sensation seeking significantly
predicted mobile dating (see Table 4). Only sexual orientation was significantly associated with mobile dating use, i.e. homosexual participants were more likely to engage in mobile dating. Therefore Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4 were rejected.
Table 4
Results of Logistic Regression Predicting Mobile Dating
B SE B p Exp (B) Main Predictors Rejection Sensitivity 0.08 0.06 .157 1.09 Sensation Seeking 0.12 0.12 .299 1.13 Covariates Age 0.01 0.04 .910 1.01 Gender -0.73 0.28 .009 0.48 Sexual Orientation -0.97 0.28 .001 0.38 Constant -1.63 1.29 .206 0.20
Note. Sexual Orientation: 0 = heterosexual, 1 = homosexual; Gender: 0 = Female, 1 = Male
Rejection Sensitivity and Sensation Seeking as Moderators
Hypothesis 3 and 5 predicted that the positive relationship between mobile dating use and romantic competence would be moderated by rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking, in the sense that the relationship would be weaker for individuals with higher levels of rejection sensitivity (H3) and stronger for individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking (H5). The regression analysis, including age, gender and sexual orientation as covariates, revealed the following results:
The overall model with rejection sensitivity as the moderator was significant, R² = .048, F(6, 411) = 3,47, p = .002, but the interaction effect was not significant, b = .048, t = -0.91, p = .364, 95% CI = - 0.15, .056. Therefore Hypothesis 3 was rejected.
In regards to sensation seeking, the overall model was significant, R² = .043, F(6, 413) = 3.07, p = .006, but no interaction effect was found, b = -.011, t = -0.13, p = .899, 95% CI = - 0.19, 0.17, hence H5 was rejected.
To see whether the moderation yielded in different results for the individual
subdomains of romantic competence, a regression analysis was conducted using Model 2 in PROCESS, testing the interaction effects of both moderators simultaneously on each subdomain individually. These analyses revealed one significant interaction effect, i.e. the interaction between sensation seeking and mobile dating on Self-Disclosure (see Table 5).
Table 5
Results of Regression Analysis with Rejection Sensitivity and Sensation Seeking as Moderators on Self-Disclosure B SE B t p B 95% CI LL UL Constant Main Effects 5.10 0.62 8.28 .000 3.89 6.31 Mobile Dating 1.16 1.02 1.14 .257 -0.85 3.16 Rejection Sensitivity -.051 .032 -1.61 .109 -0.11 .012 Sensation Seeking -.025 .062 -0.39 .694 -0.15 0.10 Interaction MD by RS -.019 .091 -0.21 .835 -0.20 0.16 Interaction MD by SS -0.32 0.15 -2.10 .036 -0.63 -.021 Covariates Age .030 .021 1.45 .149 -.011 .072 Gender -.016 0.15 -0.11 .914 -0.32 0.28 Sexual Orientation -0.25 0.16 -1.57 .118 -0.56 .064
Note. MD = Mobile Dating; RS = Rejection Sensitivity; SS = Sensation Seeking
The interaction effect of mobile dating by sensation seeking on Self-Disclosure is not significant for sensation seeking levels below the mean, b = 0.26, t = -0.52, p = .600, 95% CI = - 0.65, 0.37 but becomes significant for individuals with levels of sensation seeking at the mean level, M = 4.75, b = 0.17, t = -3.13, p = .002, 95% CI = - 0.89, -0.2, and one standard deviation above the mean, b = 0.23, t = -3.75, p < .001, 95% CI = - 1.33, -0.41. The higher the level of sensation seeking among mobile dating users, the lower their level of Self-Disclosure. Figure 2 serves as visualization for the interaction effect.
Figure 2. Visualization for Interaction Effect of Mobile Dating Use by Sensation Seeking on
Self-Disclosure
For the remaining domains, if the overall model showed no significance, the interaction was not further investigated, which was the case for Sexual Assertiveness and Assertiveness. The analysis for Communication revealed an overall significant model, R² = .044, F(8, 409) = 2.33, p = .019, but no other significant results. For Initiation the overall model was significant, R² = .072, F(8, 409) = 3.94, p < .001, while the interaction effect was not, but sensation seeking positively predicted Initiation, b = -.013, t = 2.23, p = .026, 95% CI = - .015, 0.24. The overall model for Support was significant R² = 0.11, F(8, 409) = 6.08, p < .001, but no interaction effect was found, though rejection sensitivity negatively predicted Support, b = -.053, t = -2.87, p = .004, 95% CI = - .089, -.017.
Discussion
The main aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence among emerging adults and to examine the potentially moderating roles of rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking in this context. Though mobile dating is widespread and commonly used by emerging adults and romantic competence was
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Low Sensation Seeking Mean Sensation Seeking High Sensation Seeking
Self
-Dis
clo
su
re
found to be crucial for healthy relationships as a lack of it can negatively impact overall well-being (Davila et al., 2016; 2014), research examining both factors in the same context
remained scarce. A possible reason for the lack of research on the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence might be due to the scarcity of self-report assessment instruments that capture romantic competence holistically. The published instruments
available (RSC-Q, Bouchey, 2007; MAHC, Grover, Nangle & Zeff, 2005) were originally designed for adolescents and less suitable for a study among emerging adults. Hence, a
secondary goal of this study was to establish a quantitative self-report measure which captures all domains that together reflect romantic competence as a whole.
Measuring Romantic Competence
There is no clear consensus on the definition of romantic competence, so in the present study romantic competence was defined as the ability to initiate, establish and maintain a healthy romantic relationship. Due to a relative dearth of multi-dimensional measures for romantic competence among emerging adults across the literature, I developed a Romantic Competence Scale, which is available in English, German and Dutch. In its final version the thirty-one-item-scale could be divided into six subscales, which were in line with the skills identified by prior research as crucial for establishing and maintaining a healthy relationship (Bouchey, 2007; Hurlbert, 1991; Valkenburg & Peter, 2008).
The subscale Initiation reflected on making the first move on a potential romantic partner; Self-Disclosure described the ability to disclose personal information, feelings and thoughts; Sexual Assertiveness addressed sexual matters with a (potential) romantic partner; Support reflected on the ability to support others; Assertiveness described the ability to stand up for oneself; Communication covered the ability to openly communicate.
Applying the Romantic Competence Scale in the present study revealed that emerging adults scored on average high on romantic competence overall, as well as in the domains of
Self-Disclosure and Sexual Assertiveness. Emerging adults are particularly skilled in the domains of Support and Assertiveness, but somewhat less in the domains of Initiation and Communication. These findings are in contrast to previous literature (Shulman & Connolly, 2013), indicating that emerging adults have lower levels of romantic competence because of the relational instabilities and commitment difficulties they are facing. Based on the results in this study, emerging adults seem to have all the necessary skills for a healthy romantic
relationship. Interestingly, emerging adults scored lowest in the domains of Initiation and Communication, which are necessary skills for a romantic relationship to even begin. The latter finding might explain the declining numbers of serious relationships among emerging adults.
Main Findings Mobile Dating and Romantic Competence
Based on the Internet-induced social skills hypothesis (Koutamanis et al., 2013), Hypothesis 1 predicted that mobile dating would be positively related to romantic
competence. It was proposed that emerging adults could use mobile dating as a space to safely rehearse their romantic competence skills. However, counter to the expectation, mobile dating users reported lower levels of romantic competence than emerging adults who did not engage in mobile dating. A glance at the separate domains revealed that the more emerging adults engaged in mobile dating, the lower their levels of romantic competence in the domains of Self-Disclosure, Support and Communication.
Explaining the Findings
The negative relationships between mobile dating and romantic competence overall, and especially in the domains of Self-Disclosure, Support and Communication can be
explained with the idea, that the assumed rehearsal of romantic competence skills takes place behind a mobile screen and cannot be easily conveyed to the offline world. It should be noted that this finding contradicts Koutamanis et al. (2013) who showed that instant messaging had
a positive effect on the offline social competence skills among adolescents. It seems that romantic competence involves skills that cannot be rehearsed in the mobile dating environment. The contradicting finding could also be caused by the mobile dating measurement applied in the present study, because it was based on a broad definition of mobile dating and not sensitive enough to capture skills and activities on the dating application. Furthermore, mobile dating has its downsides by having a fast paced and
superficial nature and offering too many choices for potential partners, which according to the
choice overload hypothesis (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder & Todd, 2010) could negatively
affect the whole experience.
On the other hand, the mobile dating environment offers the advantage to hide or cover up a lack of romantic competence (Blackhart et al., 2014; Hance et al., 2018; Walther, 1996). Thus, it is equally possible that emerging adults with deficits in romantic competence, especially in the domains of Self-Disclosure, Communication and Support, are drawn to mobile dating with the hope to find a romantic partner there, as it might be more difficult for them in the offline world. The latter argument is supported by the selection effects described in the DSMM, which explain why certain individuals, in this case individuals with lower levels of romantic competence, are drawn to certain media.
Findings on Individual Factors
In contrast to previous research (Blackhart et al., 2014; Peter & Valkenburg, 2007), support for a positive relationship between mobile dating and rejection sensitivity (H2) and mobile dating and sensation seeking (H4) could not be found. Hence, in the current study rejection sensitivity and sensation seeking were not related to mobile dating. According to the DSMM and uses-and-gratification-theory, people are known to use media for different
because different motivations could lead to different types of use as well as different outcomes.
In the present research I was particularly interested to understand whether the
relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence was the same for everyone. In terms of the assumed interaction effect of rejection sensitivity and mobile dating on romantic competence and its domains, no support for Hypothesis 3 could be found. Hence, the level of rejection sensitivity of an individual does not influence the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence.
As for sensation seeking and mobile dating (H5) the results showed an interaction effect on the domain of Self-Disclosure; In the sense that mobile dating negatively affects Self-Disclosure, especially for individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking.
Higher levels of sensation seeking in the context of mobile dating might therefore serve as a risk factor for lower Self-Disclosure. Self-Disclosure describes the ability to share
information about oneself with someone else and is crucial for establishing a serious romantic relationship. Self-disclosure was found to contribute to the process of relationship
development (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and relationship continuation (Berg & McQuinn, 1986). Richardson, Medvin and Hammock (1988) found that individuals high in sensation seeking were involved in numerous short-term relationships and rather avoided commitment. Hence, the moderating effect of sensation seeking on self-disclosure found in this study is plausible, knowing that sensation seekers are continuously looking for thrills and excitement which a single romantic partner could not offer as much as a variety of partners. Sensation seekers likely communicate rather superficial with their matches on dating applications instead of sharing personal information in order to avoid intimacy and the establishment of a serious romantic relationship. Further research should examine more closely communication styles and conversation exchanges in mobile dating applications in order to classify type of
mobile dating use and identify problematic mobile dating use behavior, such as that of sensation seekers.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Though the present study has its strengths by being conducted among a large international sample of emerging adults and filling a gap by providing important insights into the
conceptualizing of romantic competence and its relationship with mobile dating, at least three limitations need to be addressed.
First, due to the cross-sectional design employed in this study, assumptions regarding causality cannot be made. It therefore remains unclear, whether mobile dating leads to lower romantic competence or if emerging adults with already lower romantic competence levels are drawn to mobile dating. Further research on this matter should aim for a longitudinal study design to test the causality in this relationship in order to see whether selection effects apply, which would support the latter explanation of why emerging adults would engage in mobile dating.
Secondly, the gender distribution of the sample was unbalanced; more women than men participated in the study which was likely caused by the gender composition of the student population that participated in this study in return for research participation credit points. It remains unclear whether women and men differ in their levels of romantic competence in the context of mobile dating, but if they do, the results could have been influenced by the skewed gender distribution. Future research should examine potentially different outcomes of mobile dating on romantic competence across genders and aim for an equal gender distribution.
Unfortunately, from a sample size of 500 emerging adults, only 76 participants were current users of mobile dating. With a sample size that small, mobile dating could not be used as a continuous variable in the analysis, making a more nuanced comparison between mobile
dating users not possible. In future research it should be aimed to include more mobile dating users in the data collection and assess their frequency of use as well, so that the influence of the amount of mobile dating use on romantic competence can be examined in detail.
Overall, research is called upon to further investigate mobile dating and romantic competence in the same context by taking the above mentioned limitations into account. In order to paint a clearer picture of mobile dating, online communication styles between the matches, motivations for engaging in mobile dating and attitudes towards it should be considered besides frequency or length of use. It is possible that different types of use result in different effects on romantic competence, i.e. individuals who are specifically engaging in mobile dating for love seeking might be more likely to initiate dating or to communicate more openly. Moreover, other individual factors such as gender and age should be examined more closely in the context of mobile dating, because it is possible that, i.e. younger mobile dating users use dating applications differently than older individuals and therefore might profit from their use in regards to their romantic competence. Also, other dispositional factors and
character traits such as self-confidence or extraversion might have an influence on mobile dating and its relationship with romantic competence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, mobile dating is integrated into most single emerging adult’s lives, at the same time emerging adults face relational instabilities and difficulties to enter serious romantic relationships. With the prevalence of mobile dating in many young people’s lives, it is important to identify whether mobile dating is beneficial or harmful for emerging adult’s emotional as well as overall well-being. The present study made a first attempt towards a better understanding on the relationship between mobile dating and romantic competence, which prior literature identified as crucial for healthy relationships. Therefor romantic competence was scrutinized and six domains constructing romantic competence were
identified. Based on literature, a well-founded scale was developed, which is ready to use for future research.
According to the findings of this study mobile dating and romantic competence are negatively associated with each other and though individual factors such as sensation seeking and rejection sensitivity were not found to predict mobile dating use, sensation seeking might serve as a risk factor for the potentially negative impact of mobile dating on self-disclosure. There are a few interesting approaches and findings this study provides, which could be followed up on in future research with an improved study design and less limitations. Scholarly attention is urgently called upon to assess the emotional consequences and implications of mobile dating, since it can potentially have harmful effects on emerging adult’s social life and health.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 24, 519-533.
Arnett, J. (2004). A longer road to adulthood. In: Emerging adulthood: The winding road from late teens through the twenties (chapter 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and
noncontinuing dating relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology,
50(5), 942.
Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., & Williamson, J. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, 113-118.
Bouchey, H. A. (2007). Perceived romantic competence, importance of romantic domains, and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
36(4), 503-514.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of
communication, 55(4), 721-736.
Chan, L. S. (2017). Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the intent to use dating apps based on the integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 246-258.
Choi, E. P. H., Wong, J. Y. H., & Fong, D. Y. T. (2018). An emerging risk factor of sexual abuse: the use of smartphone dating applications. Sexual Abuse, 30(4), 343-366.
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood.
Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125-137.
Davila, J., Capaldi, D. M., & La Greca, A. M. (2016). Adolescent/young adult romantic relationships and psychopathology. Developmental psychopathology, 1-34.
Davila, J., Mattanah, J., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Feinstein, B. A., Eaton, N. R., ... & Zhou, J. (2017). Romantic competence, healthy relationship functioning, and well‐being in emerging adults. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 162-184.
Davila, J., Steinberg, S. J., Miller, M. R., Stroud, C. B., Starr, L. R., & Yoneda, A. (2009). Assessing romantic competence in adolescence: The romantic competence interview.
Journal of Adolescence, 32(1), 55-75.
Davila, J., Stroud, C. B., Miller, M. R., & Steinberg, S. J. (2007). Commentary: Defining and understanding adolescent romantic competence: Progress, challenges, and implications. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 534-540. Davila, J., Stroud, C. B., & Starr, L. (2014). Depression in couples and families. In I. Gotlib
& C. Hammen (Eds.), Handbook of depression (3rd ed., pp. 410 – 428). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1327.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. . (2013) . RSQ/RS - Personal (8 item and 18 item) . Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607-627.
Gatter, K., & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differences between Tinder™ versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1162414.
Grover, R. L., Nangle, D. W., & Zeff, K. R. (2005). The measure of adolescent heterosocial competence: Development and initial validation. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34(2), 282-291.
Hance, M. A., Blackhart, G., & Dew, M. (2018). Free to be me: The relationship between the true self, rejection sensitivity, and use of online dating sites. The Journal of social
psychology, 158(4), 421-429.
Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and
individual differences, 32(3), 401-414.
Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 17(3), 183-190.
Iqbal, M. (2018). Tinder Revenue and Usage Statistics (2018), Business of Apps. Available online: http://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/ [Accessed 16 January 2018]
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The public
opinion quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2013). Practice makes perfect: The longitudinal effect of adolescents’ instant messaging on their ability to initiate offline friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2265-2272. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002).
La Greca, A. M., & Mackey, E. R. (2007). Adolescents' anxiety in dating situations: The potential role of friends and romantic partners. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 522-533.
Loving, T. J., & Slatcher, R. B. (2013). Romantic relationships and health. The Oxford
handbook of close relationships, 617-637.
Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The strength of absent ties: Social integration via online dating. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10478.
Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2007). Adolescents’ developmental needs in relation to media use. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media (Vol. 1, pp. 2-5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richardson, D. R., Medvin, N., & Hammock, G. (1988). Love styles, relationship experience, and sensation seeking: A test of validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3), 645-651.
Sawyer, A. N., Smith, E. R., & Benotsch, E. G. (2018). Dating application use and sexual risk behavior among young adults. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(2), 183-191. Sayyadi, F., Golmakani, N., Ebrahimi, M., & Saki, A. (2018). The Relationship between
Sexual Assertiveness and Positive Feelings towards Spouse in Married Women.
Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 6(3), 1305-1310.
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(3), 409-425.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of
Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sensation seeking and males' sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(5), 669-675.
Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27-39.
Sumter, S. R., & Vandenbosch, L. (2018). Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-personality-based dating applications among emerging adults. New Media & Society, 1461444818804773.
Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(1), 67-78.
Timmermans, E., & De Caluwé, E. (2017a). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that's the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and
Individual Differences, 110, 74-79.
Timmermans, E., & De Caluwé, E. (2017b). Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 341-350.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849-852. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents' identity experiments on the Internet:
Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication
Research, 35(2), 208-231.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model.
Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research, 23(1), 3-43.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates. and David M. In Kuhlman (1978),“Sensation
Seeking and Risk Taking to Hypothetical Situations,” paper presented at the International Association of Applied Psychology meeting, Munich, Germany.
Appendix A
Initial Romantic Competence Scale based on 9 Domains (English Version)12
The following questions are about a potential romantic partner or someone you might want to date. Some questions are about the early stages of a new romantic relationship. Please think of the first three months of a new relationship.
The questions are not about your interactions with regular friends, acquaintances or family members. Every question is either about a potential or a new romantic partner.
How easy or difficult is it for you …? (1 = extremely easy – 7 = extremely difficult)
Initiation:
Ini_1: To start a conversation with someone you find attractive but do not know very well? Ini_2: To introduce yourself for the first time to someone?
Ini_3: To start a new friendship?
Ini_4: To call someone whom you wanted to get to know better? Ini_5: To ask someone to get together and do something?
Support:
Supp_1: To listen carefully to someone who told you about a problem he or she is
experiencing?
Supp_2: To comfort someone who is feeling down?
Supp_3: To help others cope with an unpleasant experience? Supp_4: To help someone when he or she asked you? Supp_5: To help someone to feel at ease?
Maintaining Relationships:
MainRe_1: To have a long-term relationship ?
MainRe_2: T work on a relationship when things are not going well?
1 The translated German and Dutch versions can be requested from the author of this paper via e-mail. 2 Questions were asked randomized.
MainRe_3: To stay committed to your partner when you meet someone else you like at a
party?
MainRe_4: To stay in a relationship with someone you like? Self-Disclosure:
SelfDis_1: To express your feelings to someone else? SelfDis_2: To tell others about things you are ashamed of?
SelfDis_3: To tell someone that he or she is attractive or charming? SelfDis_4: To tell someone that you liked him or her?
SelfDis_5: To show your sensitive side to your romantic partner? Communication:
Comm_1: To share personal information with your partner? Comm_2: To tell your partner what you like or need? Comm_3: To communicate with your romantic partner? Comm_4: To have romantic relationships?
Assertiveness:
Asse_1: To stand up for your rights when someone you like wronged you? Asse_2: To stand up for yourself when someone you like made a fool of you?
Asse_3: To stand up for yourself when someone you like accused you of something you did
not do?
Asse_4: To stand up for someone you like was made a fool of? Sexual Assertiveness:
SexAsse_1: To communicate your sexual desires to your partner? SexAsse_2: To tell your partner what feels good?
SexAsse_3: To give sexual praise to your partner? SexAsse_4: To initiate sex with your partner? SexAsse_5: To initiate talking about sex?
Romantic Appeal:
RomApp_1: To feel that others your age will be romantically attracted to you?
RomApp_2: To feel that if you are romantically interested in someone, that person will like
you back?
RomApp_3: To feel like you are fun and interesting on a date? Sexual Competence:
SexCom_1: To please your partner in a physical/ sexual way?
SexCom_2: To feel like you could benefit from more sexual experience? SexCom_3: To being happy with the amount of sexual activity you engage in? SexCom_4: To feel that you could use more knowledge about sex?
Appendix B
Factor Loadings of Romantic Competence (including dropped Items)
Table 3
Factor Loadings for Domains of Romantic Competence Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ini_5 .833 Ini_4 .749 SelfDis_4 .658 SelfDis_3 .624 Ini_1 .613 .358 RomApp_2 .430 .350 RomApp_3 .428 .310 SelfDis_1 .779 Comm_1 .749 SelfDis_5 .670 MainRe_4 .480 .348 MainRe_3 .363 Comm_3 .329 SexCom_1 .716 SexAsse_2 .712 SexAsse_1 .678 SexCom_3 .653 SexAsse_5 .637 SexAsse_4 .608 SexAsse_3 .574 Asse_4 .671 -.306 Supp_5 .621 Supp_4 .575 Asse_1 -.841 Asse_2 -.808 Asse_3 -.768 SexCom_4 .816 SexCom_2 .734 MainRe_2 -.772 Supp_3 -.656 SelfDis_2 -.636 Supp_2 -.631 Comm_2 -.358 Ini_3 .604 MainRe_1 .443 .561 Comm_4 .321 .555 RomApp_1 .333 .401 Supp_1 .659 Ini_2 .462 .499
