Excerpts

The interaction between environment and exercise was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.34, p = 0.08, and η p 2 = 0.11, suggesting that negative affect decreased more after exercise in the indoor condition than in the outdoor condition, see Table 1 .

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).

Second, we observed a marginally significant two-way interaction [ F (1,36) = 3.15, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.08] between Gender (Male vs.

Correlation results There was a significant correlation between the N2 amplitude and hit rate in Comp-ND condition (−0.78, p < 0.01) and almost significant in simple delay condition (−0.53, p = 0.08).

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

Despite the fact that yawning and itching appeared to reflect the influence of distinct predictors, these behaviors showed a trend toward correlation, ρ = 0.161, p < 0.08 meaning that those who exhibited one contagious behavior were more likely to exhibit the other.

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

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).

The interaction effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 24) = 3.39, p = 0.08, partial η2 = 0.12].

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.

We found a significant of 70% (32 dyads) on the two-way AAI and FFI systems (rphi = 0.31, p = 0.04) and a concordance of 61% (28 dyads) on the four-way system approaching significance (χ 2 = 8.29; df = 4, p = 0.08).

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).

Repeated-measures ANOVA on the ACC of emotional faces suggested that the main effect of the test was marginally significant ( F (2, 58) = 2.56, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.04), and the post-hoc t -test found that the ACC of pre-test was higher than that of mid- and post-test ( p < 0.05), with no significant difference between the mid- and post-test ( p > 0.05).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The post-hoc linear contrast was significant, F (1, 121) = 116.48, p < 0.001; however, the correlation between mean biphone probability and community size was marginally significant, p = 0.08.

The Morphology × Grade interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,1944) = 2.98, p = 0.08), indicating a significant effect of morphology in both groups, which was larger for 3rd graders whose error rates decreased from 17.4% to 8.9% passing from the R − S − to the R + S + conditions (difference = 8.5%, p < 0.0001); 5th graders’ errors decreased from 9.4% to 1.7% for R − S − and R + S + , respectively (difference = 7.7%, p < 0.0001).

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Feedback salience ( p = 0.08), and a marginally significant interaction between Age group and Feedback salience ( p = 0.09).

We find a marginally significant relationship between identification and performance ( b = 11.53, p = 0.08 two-sided; note that as our hypothesis was directed, one-sided tests resulting in significance on the 5% level could also have been applied).

The direct actor effect of Partner A’s general stress communication on his/her own interaction quality was marginally significant, b = 0.84, SE = 0.48, p = 0.08, and further, the partner-partner indirect effect was statistically significant, b = -0.93, SE = 0.31, p = 0.002.

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.

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

The analysis revealed a marginally significant negative interaction (β = −0.051, 95% CI [−0.109, −0.007], p = 0.08), suggesting PsyCap may weakly enhance DA’s effects on JB.