In the 1st, the partnership anywhere between PCM and you will NCM is actually analyzed and it also is unearthed that PCM ( M = ; DP = ) correlates adversely towards the NCM ( M = ; DP = ); p =
Note. PCM = Inspiration to have self-confident childbearing; NCM = Inspiration having bad childbirth; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Odds of excellence directory.
PCM levels demonstrated zero differences between individuals who was basically relationships and individuals who had been partnered or even in a stable commitment ( 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; 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 Spearman correlations was held. 000; roentgen = -.494; roentgen dos = .24. Regarding next studies the relationships between PCM, NCM and you will 16 personal and you may contextual parameters was examined and certainly will rise above the crowd into the Table 2. Poor connections had been found one another positive and negative anywhere between PCM otherwise NCM and you will twelve of variables checked. Specifically the fresh new sociodemographic variables: “amount of siblings” and you may “delivery purchase” and the identification items: “conscientiousness” and you may “transparency to tackle” displayed zero extreme correlations that have PCM and you may NCM.
As a 
result of the correlations located, a couple of multiple regressions have been did to understand and this variables could be considered as predictor details of PCM and NCM in the current attempt (Dining table 3).
The patterns shown for the Dining table step 3 was basically mathematically significant and you may said 24% of one’s overall variance away from PCM and you can 10% away from NCM. 7 of your fourteen variables reviewed displayed themselves since high predictors regarding PCM. New details: religiosity, with or otherwise not that have people, and you can many years exhibited stronger dating which have PCM, obtaining coefficients regarding ? = .thirty two, ? = -.twenty-two and ? = .17, respectively. Regarding the NCM, simply five of one’s 12 parameters interviewed presented themselves since the predictor variables. The newest variables which have or not having students (? = .17), decades (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you can sex (? = .10) displayed healthier relationship for the NCM.