The results showed quantities of PCM rather influenced by the sort regarding relationship ( H (2) = ; p =
In the 1st, the relationship between PCM and you may NCM are evaluated and it also is discovered that PCM ( Meters = ; DP = ) correlates adversely on the NCM ( Yards = ; DP = ); p =
Mention. PCM = Inspiration getting self-confident childbearing; NCM = Motivation getting negative childbearing; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Odds of superiority index.
PCM profile demonstrated no differences between individuals who have been relationship and you may those who was indeed hitched or in a steady partnership ( You = 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; https://datingmentor.org/orthodox-dating/ 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 used. 000; roentgen = -.494; r dos = .24. Regarding the 2nd data the fresh new dating between PCM, NCM and sixteen personal and you can contextual details was checked out and can be seen into the Dining table 2. Weak associations was located both negative and positive ranging from PCM or NCM and you will 12 of your own parameters checked. Particularly the sociodemographic details: “amount of siblings” and you may “birth acquisition” in addition to personality products: “conscientiousness” and “transparency to experience” presented no significant correlations that have PCM and you can NCM.
Considering the correlations discover, several numerous regressions were did knowing hence variables could well be considered as predictor variables out of PCM and you can NCM in the modern attempt (Desk step 3).
The newest habits shown in Table step 3 had been mathematically high and you will informed me 24% of your complete variance out of PCM and you may ten% out-of NCM. Eight of your fourteen details assessed demonstrated by themselves as extreme predictors out of PCM. The latest details: religiosity, which have or not that have college students, and you can decades showed stronger dating with PCM, acquiring coefficients away from ? = .thirty two, ? = -.twenty-two and you can ? = .17, correspondingly. Regarding your NCM, only five of the twelve parameters surveyed exhibited themselves due to the fact predictor details. This new parameters with or otherwise not that have college students (? = .17), decades (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you can intercourse (? = .10) showed healthier dating with the NCM.