Excerpts

A two-way between-subject multivariate analysis of variance indicated a significant Condition effect, F (10,154) = 2.418, p = 0.011; Wilks’ Λ = 0.747, and a borderline significant interaction effect between BMI percentile and Condition on the combined dependent variables, F (10,154) = 1.702, p = 0.085; Wilks’ Λ = 0.811.

The results indicated that in Chinese babble, the assimilators performed better than the convergers ( p = 0.047), and the divergers were better to a certain extent than the convergers (marginally significant, p = 0.085).

Normalized SCL moderately negatively correlated with the extent to which participants reported that such a situation would be stressful to them in a real encounter, again trending toward significance ( r = −0.32, p = 0.085).

HR decreased significantly between Small Talk and Conflict by an estimated 2.45 beats per minute ( SE = 0.93 bpm, p = 0.045), although also the difference manifested for the most part between Small Talk and Teaching near significance (est. decrease of 2.45 bpm ; p = 0.085).

In addition, there was also a marginally significant interaction between the two factors ( F (1,19) = 3.30, p = 0.085) but no main effect of valence with respect to originality.

5 Supplemental individual-level analysis using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ( Kenny et al., 2006 ) showed convergent results; the Actor × Partner interaction was marginally significant, b = -171.33, SE = 8.49, t (102) = -1.74, p = 0.085 95% CI[-366.68, 24.21].

The main effect of feedback time on the germane cognitive load was marginally significant [ F (1, 151) = 2.996, p = 0.085, η 2 p = 0.029], which indicates that the germane cognitive load of the immediate feedback group was higher than that of the delayed feedback group (see Figure 3 ).

Moreover, the same children showed prosocial behaviors generated by affiliative/conventional motivations in smaller proportions, although this difference is only marginally statistically significant [ F (1) = 3.010, p = 0.085, η 2 = 0.019].

The correlation between runs and accuracy on the chain model was marginally significant when condition was factored out, r (37) = 0.279, p = 0.085.

3.3 Enjoyment 3.3.1 Flow short scale Flow experience was initially high (5.18 ± 1.04 out of 7) in questionnaire trial 1 (Q1) and it increased marginally significant over time ( p = 0 . 085 , n g 2 = 0 . 04 ).

Knowledge retention scores showed marginal significance [ F (1, 88) = 3.01, p = 0.086], with the video group having higher retention scores, suggesting video learning had a slight short-term memory and knowledge retention advantage.

We found a significant positive interaction effect between sadness and the hand index ( b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p < 0 .001) and a slightly significant positive interaction effect between fear and the hand index ( b = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p < 0 .086).

Results We found a significant interaction between Similarity and Session [ Estimate = −13.35, SE = 4.93, 95% CI (−23.01, −3.69), t (51.65) = −2.71, p = 0.009], as well as a main effect of Similarity [ Estimate = 11.37, SE = 4.26, 95% CI (3.02, 19.72), t (43.98) = 2.67, p = 0.011] and a marginally significant main effect of Session [ Estimate = −4.44, SE = 2.54, 95% CI (−9.42, 0.54), t (58.32) = −1.75, p = 0.086] ( Figure 1 ).

We found that exploration decisions were associated with larger pupil size, but in marginal significance [ F (1.5200) = 2.95, β = 19.62 p = 0.086].

when gaze was not directed ( B = 0.07, p = 0.086, a nonsignificant trend), and lower emotion when gaze was directed to a non-arousing area vs. when gaze was not directed ( B = −0.17, p = 0.016).

In Model 1, Help Seeking showed a significant negative association with English learning anxiety ( B = −0.569, p = 0.006), while Self-Evaluation exhibited a marginally significant negative effect ( B = −0.397, p = 0.086).

To examine this possibility, we compared the two test choices to chance performance; these results revealed that there was no significant difference from chance performance for the massed features test choice, t (40) = 1.278, p = 0.209, and a marginally significant difference from chance for the interleaved features test choice, t (40) = 1.760, p = 0.086.

Comparatively, the difference between the Control Group and Experimental Group 1 approached significance (MD = −5.931, p = 0.086), further supporting the potential of rumba training to stimulate students’ interest and capability in analyzing dance construction and stylistic nuances.

None of the interactions approached significance ( p > 0.086).

However, with Bonferroni correction no significant pairwise differences were found, although difference between HR-ASD and HR-TYP showed a trend ( p = 0.086), with HR-ASD looking longer to faces.

A marginally statistically significant Time effect was found for parenting nurturance [ B = −0.14, SE = 0.08, (CI 95%: −0.31/0.02), χ 2 = 2.96, p = 0.086], which tended to increase in both groups.

Although the interaction between L2 proficiency and Condition was only marginally significant (the effect of L2 proficiency on the T2-T4 contrast vs. the T2-T3 contrast: β = −0.70, SE = 0.41, t = −1.72, p = 0.086), we nevertheless conducted post hoc pairwise comparisons because it was directly relevant to the aims of the present study.

When adding COVID-19 anxiety to the model in step 3, the results showed a trend for an increase in Δ R 2 , Δ F (8,191) = 2.986, p = 0.086, Δ R 2 = 0.0112).

A similar marginally significant difference between groups was also detected when averaging the three individual beliefs into one variable, F (1, 76) = 3.02, p = 0.086, M control = 4.83, SE = 0.17; M experimental = 4.35, SE = 0.22, η p a r t i a l 2 = 0.04.

There was a near-significant effect of Valence: χ 2 (1) = 2.94, p = 0.086, and a significant interaction between Cue and Valence: χ 2 (1) = 10.03, p < 0.005, both explored further below.