Excerpts

In Attriters, only a main effect of C was marginally significant at midline sites [ F (1,23) = 3.26, p = 0.08].

The analysis of children’s performance in the object group when performing the acting-out task revealed only a statistical trend toward a main effect of relation, F (1,14) = 3.6, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.20.

Results revealed that a group effect approached significance [ F (43) = 3.11, p = 0.08], suggesting that the PD group accumulated fewer total winnings than controls.

The main effect of pre-/post-test was close to significance, F (1, 44) = 3.3, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating a small practice effect.

The interaction between condition and adherence showed a trend of statistical significance, F (1,12) = 3.65, p = 0.080, which means that visual imagery (QMI) could be a moderator of the effect of the condition on adherence, accounting for 13.98% of the variance.

The main effect of task approached significance [ F (3,48) = 2.38, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.13] and the interaction was not significant.

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 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.

The correlation with the level of regularity of tactile image practice was also positive, but marginally significant ( τ = 0.22, p = 0.08).

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].

We found a marginally significant interaction between session and phase [ F (1, 14) = 3.716, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.21].

Post-hoc tests controlling for multiple testing found that speakers show a significant inverse relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p < 0.005) and recipients show a marginally significant direct relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p = 0.08).

Choice horizon was a significant positive predictor of pupil size at bin −6 ( β = 51.32, p = 0.016) and bin −1 ( β = 21.80, p = 0.039), with a marginally significant effect at bin 0 ( β = 18.25, p = 0.08).

Correlations between groups differed by marginal significance for the composite measure ( z = −1.73, p = 0.08) and reaction times ( z = −1.6, p = 0.09), indicating a different relationship between implicit and explicit emotion recognition performance in the NT as compared to the ASD group (see Figure 5 for group specific scatter plots of the composite measure correlation).

For awe, the overall regression model was marginally significant, F (2, 47) = 2.66, p = 0.08, R 2 = 0.10.

As can be seen Table 6 , the results showed that the product term of the scenario and the attribution for the old target's behavior was marginally significant (β = −0.15, 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.

Moreover, the two identity difference waves that directly tested the effect of UR Relation (#5 and #6) were also marginally significant at the S1-S2 transitional region ( p- values < 0.08, two-tailed tests), showing that the UR-mismatch conditions were more positive than the UR-match conditions.

We found a marginally statistically significant main effect of embodiment with probability p = 0.08 (see Figure 7 ).

ANOVAs performed for each odor revealed a marginally significant increase in pleasantness for leather [ F (1,39) = 3.22, p = 0.08] and significant increases in pleasantness for the blank pen, lilac, and shampoo odors [ F s (1,39) = 25.45, 7.2, 5.47; p s < 0.001, 0.01, 0.05; η 2 s = 0.39, 0.15, 0.12, respectively; see Figure 1A ].

3 This relation is nearly significant, p = 0.08, but can only have occurred by chance as the number of probes presented was independent of MW-S scores.

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

attachment styles consumer behavior life history risk-sensitivity risk-taking When risk-taking tendency was individually tested across domains, similar interactions were found in the domains of ethics, recreation, gambling, and investment domains (marginally significant, p = 0.08), but not in the domains of social and health.

The differences for PPI-R-SF Fearless Dominance were in the same direction but fell short of significance [ t (3175) = 1.74, p = 0.08, d = 0.12] (subsidiary analyses excluding Eastern Europeans and focused on Western Europeans only yielded very similar results for all psychopathy variables).

However, given the LMR value of the 5-profile solution was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08), which indicates that this model might not be superior to solutions with lesser profiles, we then carefully examined it in conjunction with the 3-, 4-, and 6-profile solutions.