Excerpts

When considering these correlations within males and females separately, for males a significant increase in correlation strength was demonstrated ( p < 0.05), whereas for females a nearly significant difference was shown in the same direction ( p = 0.08; see Table 1 ).

incongruent condition was approaching significance [ F (1, 26) = 3.3, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.11].

In support of this possibility it is worth noting that even after filtering out 25% of their patient data (66 out of 262), their reported effect remained near-significant ( P = 0.08 – ANOVA interaction), and in fact, would be significant if a single-tailed test were applied, an approach that would be justified on the basis of previous published data.

The residual variances for the high level measures were uncorrelated, although e2↔e3 was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

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).

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.

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).

The main effect of Target Position was marginally significant, F (2,76) = 2.5, p = 0.08, MSE = 0.00352, and only modulated by Version, F (2,76) = 5.2, p < 0.01, MSE = 0.00352.

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

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.

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).

By contrast, in the Opposite Perspective condition, the pattern was reversed, though only marginally significant, with the majority (60%) of participants placing the “good” animal on their left (i.e., on Bob’s right: 51 left = good vs. 34 right = good, sign test p = 0.08).

The last row in Table 5 shows that the three second-order polynomial terms are marginally significant ( F = 2.29, p = 0.08).

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).

A significant main effect of Body Action Type, F (2,54) = 3.72; p = 0.03; η 2 = 0.12, and a marginal trend for the factor Language Group, F (1,27) = 3.12; p = 0.08; η 2 = 0.10, were found.

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between condition and list [ F (1,27) = 3.27, MSE = 1.80, p = 0.08, = 0.11].

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).

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).

M sink-slower = 0.87), there was a marginally significant interaction between trial type and condition, F (4,200) = 2.08, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04.

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.

Compared with the low-risk class, age had no significant effects on the likelihood of being in a particular cluster; while gender (female) had a marginally significant effect on predicting the membership of the moderate-risk class ( OR = 1.407, p = 0.080) and a significant effect on predicting the membership of the high-risk class ( OR = 2.485, p = 0.080).

When the hypothesized three-way interaction was included in the third step, this changed the model in a marginal significant way, Δ F (1,343) = 3.07, p = 0.08, R 2 = 0.09, Δ R 2 = 0.01, and the Moral Argumentation × Prior behavior × Moral Identity interaction was marginally significant ( B = 0.21, p = 0.08).

We ran an ANOVA with difficulty level and chanting conditions as factors, but there was no main effect of condition [ F (1,6) = 1.1], only a marginally significant effect of difficulty level [ F (1,59) = 3.51, p = 0.08], and no significant interaction [ F (1,6) = 0.83].

There was a marginally significant difference in the amount of first-person singular forms between phase 1 ( M = 5.19, SD = 5.77) and phase 2 ( M = 4.35, SD = 4.46); t 220 = 1.71, p = 0.08.

The results of Model 3 show significant direct and positive effects of Lead entrepreneur attractiveness [unstandardized beta (B) = 0.232, p = 0.001] and VC investor attractiveness ( B = 0.138, p = 0.038), while the interaction term is negative and approached significance ( B = −0.113, p = 0.080).