Excerpts

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).

A post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction revealed that the difference between the immediate and the delayed condition was almost significant for the explicit measure ( P = 0.08), but not for the implicit one ( P = 0.25).

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).

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

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).

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].

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).

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 difference between the monetary incentive and the control condition approached significance, t (46) = 1.8, p = 0.080, whereas the value of the proactive index did not differ between the social pressure and the control condition, t (46) = 0.1, p = 0.941.

For the post-silence events, only the DM exposure group demonstrated slower RT for Block 6 in comparison to the surrounding exposure blocks, even if this learning score fell short of significance, F (1, 45) = 3.17, p = 0.08.

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 main effect of Test was close to significance, F (1,14) = 3.56, p = 0.080, and no other factor or interaction was significant ( F s ≤ 0.71).

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.

A marginally significant difference was observed at 6 months [χ 2 (1) = 3.10, p = 0.08], and no significant difference was observed in the other two age groups [10-month-olds: χ 2 (1) = 0.10, p = 0.80; adults: χ 2 (1) = 2.10, p = 0.20], suggesting that the detection of vowel or consonant change was affected similarly by vocoding in the three groups.

The ANOVA revealed a nearly significant Speaker main effect ( F (1, 150) = 3.11, p = 0.08) and Speaker × Age interaction ( F (2, 150) = 2.72, p = 0.07).

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%).

A marginally non-significant difference was found between the stretching and control conditions, M = -0.18, SD = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.44], d = 0.91, t = 1.76, p = 0.08.

The main effect of tonal function was significant for normalized RTs, F 1 (1, 31) = 6.05, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.05, F 2 (1, 23) = 7.71, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.03, and marginally significant for correct responses, F 1 (1, 31) = 3.28, p = 0.08, MSE = 32.41, F 2 (1, 23) = 3.70, p = 0.07, MSE = 20.02, target word processing was more accurate and faster when presented in synchrony with a tonic chord than with a subdominant chord.

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 association with neuroticism was only marginally significant (β = −0.15, p = 0.08).

Notably, consistent with Studies 1 through 3, the main effect of the reason was marginally significant in Study 4 (β = −0.07, p = 0.08), with retributivists more in favor of the death penalty than non-retributivists.

The interaction term for BLOCK × PROPORTION was marginally significant [ F (5, 16) = 2.43; p = 0.081].

Pairwise comparisons showed that all ADM MEPs recorded at baseline were significantly smaller than rest MEPs in all conditions ( p < 0.05, the uncued pure condition showed a trend toward significance, p = 0.081).

This analysis revealed an intercept’s estimate of 3.138 ( SE = 0.032, t = 97.249, p < 0.001); the individual-level helping tendency is a marginally significant predictor ( B = 0.028, SE = 0.016, t = 1.747, p = 0.081); COS is an insignificant predictor ( p = 0.202); and the country-level helping tendency is an insignificant predictor ( p = 0.242).

Irritability showed a trend toward worsening in manifest carriers (β = −0.39, p = 0.081), with pre-manifest individuals exhibiting a modest but significant increase at follow-up (group*visit β = 0.39, p = 0.047).