The outcomes demonstrated quantities of PCM rather dependent on the sort off relationship ( H (2) = ; p =

In the 1st, the connection between PCM and you can NCM was evaluated plus it was learned that PCM ( Yards = ; DP = ) correlates adversely on NCM ( Yards = ; DP = ); p =

Note. PCM = Motivation getting self-confident childbirth; NCM = Motivation for negative childbirth; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Odds of excellence directory.

PCM membership displayed zero differences between people who were dating and you may individuals who was basically partnered or in a reliable commitment ( 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. France inmate dating 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 = ).

One or two Spearman correlations have been presented. 000; r = -.494; roentgen 2 = .24. From the 2nd data the latest dating ranging from PCM, NCM and you will 16 individual and you can contextual parameters was checked and certainly will get noticed from inside the Desk 2. Poor contacts had been receive each other negative and positive anywhere between PCM or NCM and you may 12 of the variables checked-out. Particularly the new sociodemographic parameters: “quantity of sisters” and you can “beginning purchase” and also the identity items: “conscientiousness” and you can “openness to relax and play” shown zero tall correlations with PCM and you may NCM.

As a result of the correlations discovered, several several regressions have been performed to understand which parameters might be considered as predictor parameters regarding PCM and you can NCM in today’s shot (Desk 3).

Brand new activities presented within the Desk step three was mathematically significant and you may said 24% of full variance out-of PCM and 10% out of NCM. Eight of your own fourteen details analyzed demonstrated themselves since the extreme predictors out of PCM. The fresh new details: religiosity, which have or not having people, and you may ages showed healthier relationship which have PCM, getting coefficients off ? = .32, ? = -.twenty-two and ? = .17, respectively. About your NCM, merely five of 12 parameters interviewed demonstrated themselves once the predictor details. The new details that have or perhaps not which have pupils (? = .17), decades (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you will sex (? = .10) displayed stronger relationship for the NCM.