Excerpts

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).

group emotion had a marginally significant multivariate effect, F (3,119) = 2.33, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.055, although none of its univariate effects was significant.

The main effect of AI thematic relevance was marginally significant, F (1, 373) = 3.13, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.008, indicating a trend for implicit AI topics to elicit greater dissonance than explicit topics, although the effect size was small.

The results indicated that there was no significant main effect of net-speak experience or word type ( F 1,57 = 0.065, p = 0.799; F 1,57 = 2.652, p = 0.109), but there was a nearly significant interaction between the two variables ( F 1,53 = 3.231, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.054) ( Figure 5 ).

A marginally significant correlation also emerged between children’s above chance performance with differently colored cups in 90° and 180° rotations, ρ( n = 24) = 0.37, p = 0.078.

There was a marginally significant interaction of grammaticality and WM proficiency ( Estimate = 0.036, SE = 0.02, df = 20.2, t = 1.854, p = 0.078), suggesting that higher Spanish reading proficiency may improve ability to correctly accept the grammatical sentences.

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 ).

Duration During the appearance of the 80–160 ms ERF component, the left Frontal cluster showed a trend for Hemisphere × Duration interaction: [ F (1,9) = 3.96; p = 0.078; η 2 = 0.31], due to a duration effect localized in the left hemisphere [ F (1,9) = 22.06; p = 0.001; η 2 = 0.71] with larger negativities for the short condition [ t (9) = -4.7; p < 0.001; d = 1.48].

The sole exception was the analysis for motivation of another to wear a face mask, for which the focal interaction was only marginally significant ( p = 0.078).

The between-group difference in PR was significant for startle probe 2 [ t (24) = 2.51, p = 0.019], while the difference in PR was marginally significant for startle probe 1 [ t (24) = 1.84, p = 0.078].

Explicit attitudes had a significant positive correlation with implicit attitudes ( r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and chocolate evaluation ( r = 0.21, p = 0.040), and a marginally significant positive correlation with chocolate consumption ( r = 0.18, p = 0.078).

The significant interaction was mainly due to the very small difference between Cz (5.42 μV) and FCz (5.58 μV; p = 0.528) in win condition and the difference between Cz (3.38 μV) and FCz (2.96 μV) was marginally significant in loss condition ( 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).

The comparison of the second wanting and liking ratings showed a main effect with tendency toward significance of “evaluated aspects” [ F (1, 16) = 3.55; p = 0.078] but neither a significant main effect of “sex” [ F (1, 16) = 0.02; p = 0.881], nor a significant interaction between these two factors [ F (1, 16) = 0.22; p = 0.648].

This analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between target size and feedback factor, F (9, 189) = 1.8, p = 0.079, η 2 p = 0.077 (additionally to a significant main effect of target size, see above).

The association between environmental attitudes and behavior was marginally significant, F (1, 138) = 3.13, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022, meaning that there was a trend for participants with higher levels of environmental attitudes to select environment-friendly options when printing (Cohen’s d = 0.30).

An interaction between group and test was marginally significant [ F (2,52) = 2.66, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.09].

That said, the main effect of animacy on study time approached significance after accounting for beliefs, F (1,96) = 3.146, MSE = 1.790, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.03, with average study time being slightly higher for inanimate than animate items. 3.2.3.

There was a marginally significant culture by somatic words interaction, B = 0.17, β = 0.19, SE = 0.10, t = 1.77, p = 0.079, a significant culture by relational concerns interaction, B = -0.31, β = -0.20, SE = 0.14, t = -2.22, p = 0.028, and a significant culture by interaction partner interaction, B = 0.65, β = 0.38, SE = 0.20, t = 3.22, p = 0.002.

Moreover, the main effect of training order was marginally significant, F (1, 26) = 3.34, p = 0.079, η 2 g = 0.05 for task 2.

The compatibility effect in RT was larger with marginal significance when the preceding trial type was incompatible compared to compatible, t (19) = 1.860, p = 0.079, d = 0.299 ( Figure 3A ).

Second, we expected this difference to be larger in male than female observers and therefore we compared the difference between threatening minus neutral male body expressions between male and female observers which yielded a marginally significant difference ( t (24) = 1.454, p = 0.079, one-tailed).

For the GD, the difference between regular and homophone phonograms was significant ( b = 28.52, SE = 13.68, t = 2.084, p < 0.05), and the difference between semi-regular and homophone phonograms was marginally significant ( b = 24.12, SE = 13.72, t = 1.758, p = 0.079).

The statistical results of mean accuracy revealed a significant main effect of radical markings [ F (1, 38) = 9.45, p = 0.004, ηp 2 = 0.20], a marginally significant main effect of stroke order animations [ F (1, 38) = 3.27, p = 0.079, ηp 2 = 0.08] and a significant main effect of testing time [ F (1, 38) = 106.04, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.74].

The IEs for F tended to be larger than the IEs for H, but with just marginal significance for young adults ( p = 0.079) and failing statistical significance ( p = 0.323) for middle-age adults.