Excerpts

Mothers’ Utterances Emotion terms: Negative There was a marginally significant main effect of maternal utterances of negative emotion terms on child internalizing problems, F (1, 51)=3.18, p =0.08, η p 2 =0.06, M(SD) Talk =1.50 (0.20), M ( SD ) Not Talk =1.58 (0.26).

Results showed that across 200 trials, both males and females learned the task; females did not perform significantly differently than men in terms of choosing advantageous cards, although the trend approached significance, p = 0.08, with males selecting 69% advantageous cards with females selecting 62% advantageous cards, which is similar to results on the normal IGT.

The Gender main effect was not significant ( p = 0.73), whereas the Session main effect was marginally significant, F (1,14) = 3.57, p = 0.08, MSe = 405.33: the SCR percentages tended to decrease in the second session (Ms = 58% vs. 52%).

The main effect of nouns was not quite significant, F 1(1, 64) = 3.08, p = 0.08, F 2(1, 29) = 1.56, p = 0.22, although the pattern observed in Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2A appeared once again, with shorter reading times when there were more nouns.

Response accuracy Results indicated that sex was a marginally significant predictor of overall accuracy during the selective attention task, B = 0.02, t (37) = 1.79, p = 0.080.

First, there appears to be a drop again in mean density of %REC (29.4, 22.5, 22.1%), but this is only marginally significant, t (23) = 1.6, p = 0.08.

Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that participants with marginal significance rated robots as more eerie after Interaction I ( M = 3.25, SD = 0.52) than after Interaction III ( M = 3.11, SD = 0.6), p = 0.08.

While the overall model was significant, χ 2 (2) = 8.91, p = 0.01, only children’s engagement predicted variance in children stating that they learned something, and only at a marginally significant level, B = 0.90, SE = 0.52, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.02, p = 0.08, Odds Ratio = 2.47.

Relative to females, the proportion of those reporting Less than monthly (35.0%) use was significantly higher than Monthly (8.5%, p < 0.001), Daily (20.5%, p < 0.01), and Multiple times daily (10.7%, p < 0.001), while the proportion of those reporting Weekly (25.2%) use showed a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.08).

Importantly, this main effect of parental role was qualified by a marginally significant interaction with parental role salience manipulation, F (1,95) = 3.04, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.031.

In amusics, the correlation with the interval test was marginally significant, r (17) = 0.41, p < 0.08, in agreement with the findings for the Mandarin material in Experiment 1.

The one-year findings showed borderline significant findings ( p =0.08) for motilin – the hormone regulating gut activity mentioned above – and self-reported IBS pain according to scores in the standardized questionnaire (p=0.08).

Although there were no statistically significant differences between users and non-users for the four scaffolding measures, the emotional-verbal comparison approached significance, F (1,102) = 3.14, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.03.

There was a marginal significance of the interaction effect between Switch Type and Language [ β = 0.37, SE β = 0.21, χ 2 (1) = 3.07, p = 0.080].

The two conditions showed a statistical trend to differ reliably from each other (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, N = 5, Z = 1.75, p = 0.080).

For perceived emotional challenge, the differences were marginally significant [ t (26) = 1.84, p = 0.08, 95% CI (–0.06, 1.03)], with interactivity enhancing the experience, being higher in Gameplay ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.63) than in GameWatch ( M = 3.83, SD = 0.75).

Figure 3 also indicates that a four-way interaction between congruence, prime type, visibility, and quintile should have obtained – basically because the absence of the congruence effect with masked valence primes only – but this interaction fell short of significance, F (4, 152) = 2.10, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.05.

However, only a trend toward significance was observed in relation to the interaction of the variables ( p = 0.08).

Moreover, the Sobel test showed that the mediating effect of cultural values was marginally significant, Z = 1.77, p = 0.08 ( Figure 3A ).

sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).

N2 The ANOVA for mean N2 amplitudes revealed a marginally significant four-way interactions of cue type × face type × laterality × caudality, F (16,304) = 2.83, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.14.

Finally, a marginally significant ( p < 0.08) interaction of Task Choice and ERPI/IRSI emerged, F (2,154) = 2.69, MSE = 0.00057, being due to the fact that restricted task choices went along with a smaller ER (3.5%) than unrestricted task choices (4.5%) with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-2,000, whereas with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-100 and 2,000-100, ERs were virtually the same ( p ’s < 0.36) with unrestricted and restricted choices (3.2 vs. 3.1% and 3.6 vs. 3.4%, respectively).

Within the visual motion ROI, there were significant effects of action similarity [ F (2, 22) = 8.3, p = 0.002] and format type [ F (2, 22) = 7.0, p = 0.005], and a marginally significant interaction between the two [ F (4, 44) = 2.2, p = 0.08] (Figure 4A ).

Model 1: Effects of Condition by Content A binary-logistic mixed-effect model on likelihood that a child’s utterance is a question found a significant main effect of Causal Content, B = 1.83, SE = 0.47, p < 0.0001, OR = 6.26, 95% CI (2.55, 16.25), and a marginally significant interaction between Condition and Causal Content, β = −1.31, SE = 0.74, p = 0.08, OR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.06, 1.17].

For 1:1 mappings in the first familiarization, we found a marginally significant positive correlation ( R = 0.225, p = 0 .08, N = 60) between accuracy and confidence ratings.