To make sure that the 3 catfishing groups had been notably distinctive from each other, an one-way analysis of variance ended up being carried out. Outcomes indicated there clearly was a significant distinction between the 3 catfish teams for anxiety, F(2, 1082) = 16.32, p 2005 ). Afterwards, the information came across a few presumptions: very very first, binary logistic regression calls for that the end result adjustable be dichotomous; 2nd, the findings in logistic regression is separate from one another; 3rd, logistic regression assumes little if any multicollinearity among separate factors; and 4th, a sizable test size (Menard, 2000 ). Lastly, three regression that is logistic had been tested. The model that is first whether sex had been an important predictor of catfishing status (in other terms., perpetrator, target). The model that is second whether gender and attachment avoidance had been significant predictors of catfish status. Finally, the model that is third whether sex, avoidance, and accessory anxiety had been significant predictors of catfishing status.
Published on the web:
Dining Dining Table 1. Descriptive data and crosstabulation of accessory measurements and online dating deception status.
Dining dining dining Table 2 presents the outcome through the three logistic regression models, with sex, accessory avoidance, and accessory anxiety predicting the likelihood that individuals defined as 1 of 2 catfishing status teams: objectives or perhaps the blended number of perpetrators and both. Model 1 analyzes sex being a predictor of catfish status. Model 2 analyses attachment and gender avoidance as predictors of catfish status. Model 3 analyses sex, accessory avoidance, and accessory anxiety as predictors of catfish status