Überspringen zu Hauptinhalt
+49-7271-767120 info@was-logistics.com

step three.2parison ranging from Profiles which have Pet and you can Users rather than Pets

step three.2parison ranging from Profiles which have Pet and you can Users rather than Pets

Socio-market investigation and you may number of reputation photos showed for everybody analysed profiles (n = 2400) and you may independently to have Vienna (n = 1200) and you will Tokyo (letter = 1200).

Of the 2400 investigated profiles, 373 (15.5%) displayed at least one animal photo. In both cities, we found a positive correlation between the number of profile photos and the number of profile photos showing animals (Vienna: rs = 0.184; p = 0.008 | Tokyo: rs = 0.206; p = 0.009).

Comparison of the users who displayed animal photos on their profile and the users who did not do so resulted in the following significant differences (see Desk 5 ). On the selected analysed dating app, significantly more women than men (p = 0.049) present animal photos on their profiles. Further, significantly more users in Vienna (p = 0.006), and significantly more older users (p = 0.019), have profiles with animal photos as compared with users in Tokyo and younger users. In addition, users who display an animal photo on their profile post, on average, display one more photo than users who do not do so (p < 0.001). No significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual users of the analysed app were identified (p = 0.639) (see Table 5 ).

Table 5

Socio-market study and you may amount of reputation images shown for all users having animals (n = 373) and profiles instead pet (letter = 2027).

3.step 3. Frequency and you can Classification out of Dogs Showed into Users

A further function of the research were to regulate how of several profiles demonstrated pets and you may what forms of creature was exhibited. Typically, a great deal more profiles inside the Vienna (211; 17.6%) tell you dogs to their reputation than just profiles for the Tokyo (162; 13.5%) (? dos (1) = 7.622; p = 0.006). Every profiles-i.e., 77.7% inside Vienna and you can 76.5% during the Tokyo-showed the pet, or pet, toward an individual profile pictures. During the a smaller sized ratio regarding instances-i.e., 22.3% within the Vienna and 23.5% inside Tokyo-the pages got several photo indicating the animal, otherwise animals, within their reputation.

3.step 3.step 1. Speech regarding Animals in the 1st Character Pictures

Of your own 373 profiles choosing to become animal pictures, 73 (19.6%) shown the newest pets to their earliest reputation photographs. Here, assessment regarding users in Vienna and you dil mil username will Tokyo shown tall distinctions because the 65.9% users within the Vienna displayed your dog into first photographs due to the fact compared to 31.3% of users into the Tokyo (? 2 (1) = 8.610, p = 0.003). In addition to that, only pages during the Vienna (several.2%) have demostrated farm pets on the first profile images. It triggered a big change to profiles in Tokyo (? 2 (1) = 4.189, p = 0.041). I together with discovered that so much more users within the Tokyo presented cats (forty.6%) and you will amazing dogs (fifteen.6%) within very first profile images than pages inside Vienna (kitties = dos.4%; amazing pet = 0.0%) (cats: ? dos (1) = eight.819, p = 0.005; amazing pet: ? 2 (1) = six.877, p = 0.009).

step three.3.2. Speech off Dogs in most Profile Photo (For instance the Basic Character Images)

Figure 1 shows the percentages of various animal species shown on the analysed profiles. Again, comparison between the profiles in Vienna and Tokyo revealed significant differences here. Users in Tokyo were significantly more likely to show cats (35.8%) and small animals (6.8%) than users in Vienna (cats = 18.0%; small animals = 0.0%) (cats: ? 2 (1) = , p < 0.001; small animals: ? 2 (1) = , p < 0.001). The Viennese profiles included farm animal (10.9%) and horse (7.1%) photos significantly more often than the profiles in Tokyo (farm animals = 0.6%; horses = 1.2%) (farm animals: ? 2 (1) = , p < 0.001; horses: ? 2 (1) = 7.270, p = 0.007) (see Figure 1 ).

Dieser Beitrag hat 0 Kommentare

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.

An den Anfang scrollen