In the first, the relationship anywhere between PCM and you will NCM was evaluated plus it was found that PCM ( M = ; DP = ) correlates negatively to the NCM ( Meters = ; DP = ); p =
Mention. PCM = Determination for positive childbearing; NCM = Desire for negative childbearing; Mann-Whitney “U”; PSest = Probability of superiority directory.
PCM account shown zero differences between individuals who were relationship and people who was hitched or in a constant connection ( 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 = ).
One or two Spearman correlations were presented. 000; r = -.494; r dos = .twenty-four. About next study the latest relationship ranging from PCM, NCM and you may 16 private and you will contextual variables have been looked at and can be seen during the Desk dos. Weakened contacts were receive each other positive and negative ranging from PCM or NCM and you will 12 of your own parameters examined. Particularly the sociodemographic variables: “level of siblings” and “delivery order” therefore the identity products: “conscientiousness” and you may “transparency to try out” exhibited zero extreme correlations which have PCM and you may NCM.
As a result of the correlations located, a few numerous regressions was basically did knowing which details might be regarded as predictor parameters off PCM and you will NCM in the modern try (Dining table step three).
The fresh models demonstrated for the Desk step 3 had been mathematically extreme and said 24% of one’s complete difference out-of PCM and you can ten% of NCM. Seven of your fourteen details analyzed presented themselves as the significant predictors out-of PCM. Brand new parameters: religiosity, which have or otherwise not with students, and you may age displayed more powerful relationship that have PCM, acquiring coefficients out of ? = .32, ? = -.twenty two and you may ? = .17, correspondingly. Concerning your NCM, only five of the a dozen variables surveyed demonstrated on their own because predictor variables. The variables which have or perhaps not that have people (? = .17), decades (? = .14), religiosity (? = -.12) and you will gender (? = .10) demonstrated healthier dating to the NCM.