The outcomes shown amounts of PCM notably influenced by the sort out of dating ( H (2) = ; p =

In the 1st, the relationship anywhere between PCM and you can NCM is actually evaluated plus it was discovered that PCM ( M = ; DP = ) correlates negatively towards NCM ( Yards = ; DP = ); p =

Note. PCM = Motivation having confident childbirth; NCM = Inspiration to own negative childbirth; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Odds of excellence list.

PCM membership shown no differences when considering people who have been relationships and people that was married or in a reliable union ( 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 Muslim dating sites 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 few Spearman correlations was in fact held. 000; r = -.494; r dos = .24. On the second analysis the fresh new relationship between PCM, NCM and you may 16 private and you can contextual parameters was in fact tested and can get noticed when you look at the Table 2. Weakened associations was indeed located each other negative and positive between PCM otherwise NCM and a dozen of your details checked. Specifically brand new sociodemographic parameters: “amount of sisters” and you will “delivery purchase” and also the identification situations: “conscientiousness” and you may “transparency to play” presented no high correlations that have PCM and NCM.

Because of the correlations found, two numerous regressions was basically did knowing and that details might be regarded as predictor variables out-of PCM and NCM in the modern take to (Dining table step three).

The fresh patterns demonstrated inside Dining table 3 was statistically significant and explained 24% of your own overall difference out-of PCM and you will 10% out of NCM. Eight of one’s fourteen parameters analyzed shown themselves since the tall predictors regarding PCM. New details: religiosity, which have or not that have children, and you may years shown healthier relationship with PCM, acquiring coefficients away from ? = .thirty-two, ? = -.twenty two and you may ? = .17, respectively. Regarding the NCM, only four of your own a dozen details interviewed exhibited on their own while the predictor details. The fresh parameters which have or not with pupils (? = .17), ages (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you may sex (? = .10) presented healthier dating into NCM.