Note. PCM = Desire to own confident childbearing; NCM = Inspiration for negative childbirth; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Likelihood of superiority list.
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 ( http://www.datingmentor.org/escort/new-orleans 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 had been conducted. 000; r = -.494; r 2 = .twenty four. From the second research this new relationships ranging from PCM, NCM and 16 personal and you will contextual variables was tested and will get noticed within the Table 2. Weakened associations was basically located each other negative and positive anywhere between PCM or NCM and a dozen of parameters checked-out. Particularly the sociodemographic details: “quantity of sisters” and you will “birth buy” and character factors: “conscientiousness” and you will “transparency playing” exhibited zero significant correlations having PCM and NCM.
Considering the correlations receive, a couple of numerous regressions have been did to know and this variables might possibly be thought to be predictor details away from PCM and you may NCM in the current take to (Desk step three).
The brand new activities showed in the Table step three was in fact statistically tall and informed me 24% of full difference away from PCM and you can 10% of NCM. Eight of your 14 variables examined presented on their own because tall predictors from PCM. Brand new variables: religiosity, having or perhaps not having college students, and you can age showed more powerful dating that have PCM, obtaining coefficients from ? = .thirty-two, ? = -.twenty two and you may ? = .17, correspondingly. Regarding your NCM, just five of one’s a dozen details interviewed exhibited themselves as predictor variables. The brand new variables having or perhaps not with college students (? = .17), age (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and sex (? = .10) displayed more powerful relationships to your NCM.