In the 1st, the connection between PCM and you can NCM is examined also it was discovered that PCM ( Yards = ; DP = ) correlates adversely into NCM ( M = ; DP = ); p =
Notice. PCM = Inspiration to have positive childbirth; NCM = Desire to own bad childbearing; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Probability of superiority index.
PCM account exhibited no differences between people that have been relationships and you will individuals who was married or in a constant partnership ( U = 29; p =
Statistically significant differences with small effect sizes were found in PCM in three categories tested: occupation ( U = 37; p = .035; PS est = .47), presence/absence of partner ( U = 10; p = .000; PS est = .29) and presence/absence of children ( U = 21; p = .002; PS est = .44). It was observed that the participants who were unemployed ( Mdn = ), who had one or more children ( Mdn = ) and who were in a relationship ( Mdn = ); had significantly higher levels of PCM than people who worked ( Mdn = ), who had no children ( Mdn = ) and who did not have a relationship ( Mdn = ).
On the other hand, NCM indicated statistically significant differences with small effect sizes related to sex ( U = 19; p = .000; PS est = .43) and the presence/absence of children ( U = 10; p = .000; PS est = .34). It was observed that both women ( Mdn = ) as for the participants who do not have children ( Mdn = ) have significantly higher levels of NCM than men ( Mdn = ) and participants with children ( Mdn = ).
Based on the results obtained in the comparison between people who are or are not in a stable relationship, we tested the possible differences in PCM according to the type of relationship using the Kruskal Wallis test. 000). Mann-Whitney tests were used to follow up on this finding. A Bonferroni correction was applied and all effects were tested at the .02 level. 039; PS est = .47). However, statistically significant differences were found in PCM levels between married and in a stable union ( U = 5; p = .000; PS est = .41), of which married people ( Mdn = ) had higher levels of PCM when compared to people who were in a stable union ( Mdn = ).
A couple of Spearman correlations was indeed conducted. 000; roentgen = -.494; roentgen dos = .24. Regarding the second study the brand new relationship anywhere between PCM, NCM and you may 16 private and you may contextual details was in fact checked and certainly will be seen into the Desk dos. Weakened contacts was indeed found one another negative and positive ranging from PCM otherwise NCM and you may a dozen of the details checked-out. Especially the new sociodemographic variables: “quantity of siblings” and you may “delivery purchase” while the character issues: “conscientiousness” and you will “openness to try out” shown no tall correlations that have PCM and you can NCM.
Due to the correlations discover, several multiple regressions was basically did understand and this variables could be regarded as predictor variables out of PCM and you can NCM in the modern shot (Desk 3).
The models shown into the Desk step three was mathematically tall and you can said 24% of the overall difference out-of PCM and you will ten% of NCM. Seven of your fourteen variables analyzed displayed themselves because extreme predictors from PCM. The brand new variables: religiosity, with or perhaps not with children, and decades showed more powerful matchmaking with https://datingmentor.org/escort/pearland/ PCM, acquiring coefficients out-of ? = .thirty-two, ? = -.22 and ? = .17, correspondingly. About your NCM, only four of your own twelve parameters interviewed demonstrated on their own since the predictor variables. The brand new variables that have or otherwise not that have people (? = .17), years (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you will intercourse (? = .10) showed healthier dating towards NCM.