In the 1st, the connection anywhere between PCM and you can NCM are analyzed and it are learned that PCM ( M = ; DP = ) correlates negatively into the NCM ( Yards = ; DP = ); p =
Notice. PCM = Motivation for confident childbirth; NCM = Determination to own bad childbearing; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Probability of quality index.
PCM account displayed no differences between individuals who was basically relationship and those who was married or in a constant connection ( 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 ( outpersonals Profielen Mdn = ).
Several Spearman correlations was indeed conducted. 000; roentgen = -.494; r 2 = .twenty four. On the second data new relationships ranging from PCM, NCM and you can 16 personal and you may contextual variables was indeed tested and can get noticed during the Dining table 2. Weakened connectivity was basically found both positive and negative between PCM or NCM and you may twelve of one’s variables checked. Particularly this new sociodemographic details: “amount of sisters” and you will “delivery purchase” and character items: “conscientiousness” and you can “openness to tackle” displayed zero tall correlations having PCM and you will NCM.
As a result of the correlations located, a couple multiple regressions have been did to understand and therefore variables could be considered as predictor parameters regarding PCM and you may NCM in the present take to (Table 3).
The fresh new activities displayed within the Dining table step three was basically statistically extreme and you will explained 24% of one’s overall variance out-of PCM and 10% away from NCM. 7 of the 14 details assessed demonstrated by themselves since significant predictors of PCM. The fresh new variables: religiosity, having or perhaps not having students, and you can age exhibited healthier dating with PCM, acquiring coefficients out of ? = .thirty two, ? = -.22 and you will ? = .17, respectively. About your NCM, just five of a dozen parameters surveyed presented themselves because predictor parameters. The latest variables that have or not that have students (? = .17), many years (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you will gender (? = .10) demonstrated stronger matchmaking to the NCM.