And that motives push mobile daters to ghost? (RQ1)

Once again, participants was basically presented with the word ghosting and you may questioned in order to indicate how many times respondents ghosted most other relationship application pages (Yards = 2.17, SD = step 1.59) and exactly how have a tendency to they think almost every other relationship software users ghost (Yards = step 3.51, SD = 0.88) to the a level between 0 = Not to ever 5 = That frequently.

Face-to-face contact

Respondents (letter = 211) indicated whether or not they spotted the one who ghosted her or him face-to-deal with which have address kinds zero (0) and you can sure (1; 52.1%).

Lifetime of contact

Respondents (letter = 211) shown the size of the contact up until the other individual ghosted which have respond to groups (1) several days or smaller (letter = 9), (2) 24 hours (n = 9), (3) a couple of days (n = 26), (4) a week (n = 32), (5) fourteen days (n = 77), (6) thirty day period (letter = 25), (7) months (letter = 27), (8) half a year so you can a year (n = 4), (9) longer than annually (n = 2) (Meters = 4.77; SD = 1.62).

Intensity of the newest get in touch with

The new intensity of the fresh get in touch with is actually measured playing with a size ranging from a single = extremely periodically so you’re able to eight = most serious (letter = 211; Yards = 4.98; SD = step one.42).

Quantity of sexual intimacy

A categorical variable was utilized determine quantity of sexual intimacy which have answers anywhere between not one (n = 136), lightweight (i.e., kissing and you may intimate coming in contact with, n = 25) and you may severe (i.elizabeth., dental, vaginal or rectal intercourse, letter = 47). Around three participants failed to need certainly to share this particular article.

Span pass

Two items from Afifi and Metts’s (1998) violated expectedness scale were used to measure whether the respondents (n = 208) expected the ghosting to occur (1 = completely expected; 7 = not at all expected; M = 5.50; SD = 1.67) and how surprised they were that the ghosting occurred (1 = not at all surprised; 7 = very surprised; M = 5.38; SD = 1.70). These items were highly correlated (Pearson’s r = .69; p < .001) and had good reliability (Cronbach's ? = .82; M = 5.44; SD = 1.55).


Respondents (n = 207) ranked exactly how mundane the ghosting experience is (ranging from 0 = definitely not bland to help you 10 = really humdrum; M = six.03; SD = 2.67).


Given that demonstrated from the method point, into the earliest research question, i used thematic studies to spot emerging themes associated with grounds as to the reasons cellular daters ghost. These were formulated of the an excellent logistic regression data where we examined issues predicting that have ghosted others to your dating programs when you look at the order to answer the first one or two hypotheses. Similarly, with the second lookup matter, i utilized thematic data to determine the various consequences out-of ghosting in addition to some dealing components out-of ghostees. Once again, these qualitative findings had been followed closely by a decimal regression analysis so you can attempt hypotheses about products leading to sense ghosting as more mundane.

To totally know motivations in order to ghost, we earliest questioned ghostees (n = 217) so you can involved with the as to the reasons it believe they were ghosted, and that we next compared which have ghosters’ (letter = 142) reasons why you should ghost anybody else. To possess ghostees, about three head templates emerged one to describe as to why it thought they certainly were ghosted while the said below.

Fault to the other (ghoster)

A pretty high proportion of the people have been ghosted (letter = 128; 59%) attributed the other person to have ghosting them. They envision the latest ghoster is communicating with, matchmaking, or perhaps in a relationship with others (n = 60); they demonstrated the fresh new ghoster as an individual who had “issues” which means that cannot invest in the brand new matchmaking matchmaking at this time (letter = 43). Numerous respondents as well as indicated its frustration from the describing new ghoster since the someone who are childish, cowardly, lazy, rude, or disrespectful for ghosting him or her (n = 29). Ultimately, specific players indicated that this new ghoster is not any longer interested otherwise as well active (n = 27).

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *