Excerpts

Results revealed a marginally significant main effect of valence in mPFC F (2, 24) = 2.80, p = 0.081.

A marginally significant distractor interference ( p = 0.081) was also found in the high-load condition (HLND).

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).

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).

The interaction between valence and load showed a marginal trend, F (1, 24) = 3.32, p = 0.081, η2 p = 0.12.

The follow-up regression models for each language showed that naming in the Uyghur language was significantly faster [ β = −20.61, SE β = 3.39, χ 2 (1) = 36.95, p < 0.001] when Language Dominance was more towards L1, while there was a marginally significant tendency [ β = 5.86, SE β = 3.37, χ 2 (1) = 3.02, p = 0.082] towards a slower response speed in the Chinese language as bilinguals were more L1-dominant.

Similar to the by-subjects analysis, the interaction between Congruency and Letter String Type showed a trend toward interaction, F (3, 24) = 2.522, MSE = 106.723, p = 0.082, showing largely the same pattern by-items as by-subjects.

The results were nearly significant [ F (2, 389) = 2.520, p = 0.082].

The paternal helicopter attitude showed a positive but marginally significant effect (B = 0.005, p = 0.082), while self-determination had a significant negative effect (B = −0.048, p < 0.001).

The expectancy effect was marginally significant [ F (1,21) = 3.34, MSe = 31.22, p = 0.082, η p 2 = 0.14; observed power = 0.42] and manifested itself as a negativity to low-expected words.

The correlation was marginally significant between Raven’s IQ and PA ( r = 0.232, p = 0.082) and not significant between Raven’s IQ and RAN ( r = 0.220, p = 0.101).

For regret (step 1: R 2 = 0.15, p = 0.076, step 2: Δ R 2 = 0.08, p = 0.082) there was a marginally significant two-way interaction between behavior and anticipated emotion in the reverse direction, β = −0.51, SE = 0.28, p = 0.082.

The difference between TD and FXS-O approached significance ( p = 0.082, d = 0.56).

Contrast analyses showed a decrease in negative deactivating affect between Time 0 and Time 1 in the self-compassion condition that approached significance ( M diff = −0.25, p = 0.082), and an increase in the control condition that approached significance ( M diff = 0.24, p = 0.069).

In this reduced sample for active sourcing, we found no effect for age but a negative effect for gender ( OR = 0.464, SE = 0.065, p < 0.001), a positive effect for people with dual citizenship ( OR = 2.960, SE = 1.025, p = 0.002), and a negative trend for people born in Southern/Eastern Europe ( OR = 0.603, SE = 0.176, p = 0.082).

More importantly, the three-way interaction between Avatar Position, PT Group and Motion Adaptor was also marginally significant, F (1, 10) = 3.726, p = 0.082, η 2 = 0.271.

Only for the conversational material (CONV) a marginally significant correlation ( r = -0.23, p = 0.082, Pearson’s r ) was found.

However, note that there was a marginally significant interaction of round by age ( F 3,32 = 2.44, p = 0.082, η 2 = 0.078) suggesting a stronger trend for younger children.

Here we found a significant two-way interaction between group and orientation [ F (1,68) = 5.307, p = 0.024] whereas the two-way interaction just failed to reach statistical significance [ F (1,68) = 3.087, p = 0.083].

The experience of being left-behind did not reach statistical significance in either group ( p > 0.05), although the odds ratio showed an increasing trend with the severity of anxiety (OR = 1.44, p = 0.083 for the moderate-to-severe group).

For career control, the group × time interaction was not significant and the main effect of group was marginal significance [ F (2, 78) = 2.564, p = 0.083, Partial η 2 = 0.062].

For the main effects in Model 1 (only independent variables included), teachers’ need-thwarting interpersonal behaviors significantly negatively predicted students’ PE class engagement ( β = −0.407, SE = 0.062, t = −7.429, p < 0.001***), while the predictive effect of need-supportive interpersonal behaviors on class engagement was marginally significant ( β = 0.095, SE = 0.047, t = 1.741, p = 0.083).

This resulted in significant effects of salience for the durations of 60 ms [ F (2, 14) = 12.968, p = 0.001] and 120 ms [ F (2, 14) = 14.958, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant effect of salience for the duration of 480 ms [ F (2, 14) = 2.985, p = 0.083].

However, one effect showed a trend toward significance (Group × tolerance: B = −0.192, SE = 0.110, p = 0.083).

Statistically significant differences are found in two of the five factors: Influence of the Performance Evaluation ( p = 0.030; d = −0.389) and Mental Skills ( p = 0.030; d = −0.788); and there is a marginal significance in Stress Control ( p = 0.083; d = −0.234).