Excerpts

However, the result of a chi-square difference test showed that the difference in fit of the two models approached significance, but did not surpass the 0.05 alpha level, Δχ 2 (1) = 3.14, p = 0.076.

While most other physical health conditions, including digestive complaints, diabetes, chronic headaches, and sleep difficulties did not significantly predict body satisfaction, skin rash presented a marginally significant positive association ( p = 0.077).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Error data There was a marginally significant interaction of Congruency N × Congruency N-1 , F (1,27) = 3.375, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.111, reflecting a typical conflict adaptation effect.

The fourth (bottom right) position also attracted (marginally significant) longer fixations ( p = 0.077), while the second and third positions were less fixated on.

darkness anxiety facial expression face memory The main effect of lighting condition was marginally significant, F (1, 41) = 3.29, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.001.

Drum breaks performed at 120 BPM showed higher ratings than those at 150 BPM (marginally significant, p = 0.077).

Univariate ANCOVAs indicated a significant effect for scenario 1, F (1, 95) = 9.11, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.088, and scenario 3, F (1, 95) = 5.04, p = 0.027, η p 2 = 0.050, and a marginally significant effect for scenario 2, F (1, 95) = 3.20, p = 0.077, η p 2 = 0.033.

We repeated the analysis without controlling for whether the asker chose answer A as the best answer, and received similar but only marginally significant results: the estimated hazard ratio of the guilt-relief score was exp(B) = 0.90 ( B = -0.11, SE = 0.06, p = 0.077).

There was an effect of Familiarity that narrowly missed significance ( F 1,27 = 3.39, p = 0.077), and a significant interaction of Familiarity with Quadrant ( F 3,81 = 2.74, p = 0.05).

The categorization of 4-year-old children was already approaching significance for above chance assignments in Round 1 ( p = 0.077, n = 16) and Round 2 ( p = 0.210, n = 16), but not significantly.

Indeed, analyses with shorter time windows revealed that the interaction of RC-Type * Electrodes * WM approached significance between 750 and 900 ms in the medial analysis [ F (2, 34) = 3.125, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.148], and reached significance between 850 and 900 ms [ F (2, 34) = 4.711, p = 0.022, η 2 = 0.207].

Unexpectedly, and contrary to H3 that feeling rejected would explain the positive effect of angry reactions on conformity, we found marginally significant evidence that the likelihood of conformity was reduced to the degree that participants had felt rejected, OR = 0.78, Wald’s z = -1.77, p = 0.077.

Specifically, we found a marginally significant cubic trend ( F (1,1 4 ) = 3.6, p = 0.077) at SOA = 133 ms and a significantly linear trend at the long SOA = 466 ms ( F (1,1 4 ) = 13.2, p < 0.01).

Response Time analysis shows that high-PRVS participants respond more quickly, though this effect just fails to reach significance [low-PRVS = 691.5, high-PRVS = 620.3, F (1, 26) = 3.390, p = 0.077, η 2 p = 0.115].

A repeated measures ANOVA on RTs showed a significant load effect [ F (1,17) = 97.64, MS e = 3791.33, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.85], a significant reward effect [ F (2,34) = 13.13, MS e = 639.96, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.44], and a marginally significant interaction between them [ F (2,32) = 2.77, MS e = 662.64, p = 0.077, η p 2 = 0.14].

For the second graders, the regression model in the first step was marginally significant, F (3, 48) = 2.43, p = 0.077.

Of critical interest were paths ab (i.e., the indirect effects of daydreaming on social adaptation via loneliness), which were significant for daydreams that made participants feel more connected (β = 0.12, SE = 0.06, p = 0.047, 95% CI[0.02, 0.22]) and positive (β = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p = 0.033, 95% CI[0.03, 0.24]), marginally significant for daydreams that made participants feel less lonely (β = –0.13, SE = 0.07, p = 0.077, 95% CI[–0.24, –0.01]), and were more positive in content (β = 0.16, SE = 0.07, p = 0.013, 95% CI[0.06, 0.27]), and less fanciful (β = –0.19, SE = 0.09, p = 0.024, 95% CI[–0.35, –0.05]).

When the circle tool was not available, the between-subject effect was marginally significant, though still positive, b = 1.42, 95% CI [−0.15, 3.00], z = 1.77, p = 0.077.

3.2.3 Cognitive flexibility Linear mixed-effects model analysis showed a time × group interaction effect that approached significance for cognitive flexibility [ F (2, 601.0) = 2.575, p = 0.077, ICC = 0.000], indicating a trend toward differential change patterns between groups across time points (see Figure 6 ).

Results Linear mixed-effects models revealed significant time-by-group interaction effects for executive function components: inhibitory control ( p = 0.020, ICC = 0.057) and working memory ( p = 0.002, ICC = 0.054), with cognitive flexibility showing a trend toward significance ( p = 0.077, ICC = 0.000).

The correlation between leaders’ rational thinking and follower-rated intellectual stimulation was not significant in Study 1 [ r (160) = 0.06, p = 0.421] but was approaching significance in Study 2 [ r (74) = 0.207, p = 0.077].

A one-way ANOVA on the mean proportion of gaze points to the target object relative to the non-target object on the first question of the first trial revealed a marginally significant difference between conditions, F (2, 42) = 2.73 p = 0.077 (see Figure 4 ).

Moreover, we performed an ANOVA on the changed rating (posttest minus pretest) of inappropriateness for strong violation scenarios, which revealed marginally significant condition effects, F (1,46) = 3.25, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.07, 95%CI [0.000,0.230] (see Figure 1 ).

A simple-effect analysis revealed that: (1) when no noise was present, the AULCSF was largest in TE, followed by GE and BE (all, p < 0.05); (2) when low noise was present, the AULCSF was also largest in TE, followed by GE and in BE (all, p < 0.05); (3) when high noise was present, only the difference in the AULCSF between TE and BE reached marginal significance ( p = 0.078).

Additionally, they showed higher PA scores, with a difference of 0.5 points between the median scores, approaching significance ( p = 0.078).