Excerpts

The combined group showed a trend of improvement on TMT-A (combined vs. control, p = 0.09) while memory group did not.

The difference in depression scores between the two groups was marginally significant [ t (71) = 1.72, p = 0.09], with greater depression scores exhibited in the HP group than in the LP group ( Table 1 ).

The difference between Basque and Japanese showed a trend toward significance ( p = 0.09), with Basque participants having a higher number of IF responses than Japanese participants.

Additionally, a correlation analysis was run between average SCRs for each round and total number of strikes, bordered on significance ( r = 0.82, p = 0.090).

The result for the mother communication × grade (age) × gender interaction variable was marginally significant ( B = 0.086, SE = 0.051, t = 1.69, p = 0.090, 95% CI = [−0.014, 0.185]).

Main effect of language was marginally significant, F (1, 40) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.07.

The main effect of gender was not significant, F (1, 73) = 1.87, p = 0.18, η 2 p = 0.03; however, the interaction between gender and age was marginally significant, F (3, 77) = 2.25, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.09.

The relationship between interoceptive awareness and emotional involvement during reappraisal approached significance [β = -0.34, t (25) = -1.73, p = 0.09].

Also, WE at T2 was positively associated with both SS at T1 ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01) and resilience at T1 ( r = 0.38, p < 0.001), with SS at T1 also being positively associated with log DHEA(S) at T2, although this association was marginally significant ( r = 0.16, p = 0.09).

Although the interaction effect was not significant, it has to be noted that in the unfair precue condition, there was a marginally significant simple slope for the regression of the endorsement of unjust foils on victim sensitivity, B = 0.32, t (27) = 1.76, p = 0.09.

In the self-referential condition, there was a marginally significant difference between the memory of positive words and negative words [ F (1,32) = 2.98, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.09], indicating that the memory of the former was enhanced.

For intensity ratings, the effect of facial expression type did not reach statistical significance [although it showed a trend: F (2,42) = 2.69, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.11].

Although this effect was just slightly smaller than that of lexical animacy, it was only marginally significant, β = 0.48, SE = 0.28, p = 0.09.

A medium effect, albeit of marginal significance, in favor of the UT group immediately after the training was found for two far transfer tasks: story recall, F (1,39) = 3.09, p = 0.09, MSE = 11.04, η p 2 = 0.07, and RAPM, F (1,39) = 2.73, p = 0.10, MSE = 4.27, η p 2 = 0.07 ( Figure 5 ).

As Table 4 shows, we found a significant interaction effect (γ = 0.40, p < 0.01) between the employees’ gender and their WAL to predict their leadership potential rated by their supervisors, whereas employees’ WAL had a marginally significant negative effect (γ = −0.14, p = 0.09), and their gender (0 = woman, 1 = man) had a positive and significant main effect (γ = 0.32, p < 0.01).

For negative affect, there was no main effect of Time, F < 1, and a marginally significant Condition × Time interaction, F (1,218) = 2.93, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.01.

Importantly, a marginally significant interaction effect was found, b = 0.44, p = 0.09.

Push) ANOVA indicated a marginally significant Two-Way interaction [ F (1, 49) = 2.93, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.057]: Pulling the lever with positive words was a little faster [ t (49) = 1.054, p = 0.297.] than pushing, whereas pulling the lever with negative words [ t (49) = 1.742, p = 0.088] was slower than pushing.

Two other variables narrowly missed significance: those who were less religious (β = −0.15, t = −1.70, p = 0.09) and those who were less Open-to-Experience (β = −0.16, t = 1.78, p = 0.07) endorsed the idea of commercial conspiracies.

The overall difference in lever pressing between groups was marginally significant, F (1, 22) = 3.05, p = 0.09, η G 2 = 0.08.

A repeated measures ANOVA showed a main effect of inter-element alignment [ smooth > jagged ; F (1,5) = 7.7, p < 0.01]; a main effect of closure (with circles persisting longer than semi-circles) approached significance [ F (1,5 = 2.9, p = 0.09], and there were no significant interactions.

When all participants were included, regardless of having seen the nudge, the effect of condition was marginally significant, F (2,254) = 2.43, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.02.

Finally, obese participants displayed a marginally significant tendency to delay less than participants with a healthy weight ( t (132) = 1.69, p = 0.09, d = 0.307).

In the restricted cubic spline regression, the intercept term for age reached significance ( p = 0.014), and its linear term approached significance ( p = 0.091).

A marginally significant multiple regression equation was obtained [ F (2, 18) = 2.74, p = 0.091, R = 0.43]; the effect of communication was significant [ t = 2.12, p = 0.048, partial regression coefficient (β hereinafter) = 20.69, standardized β = 0.63], and that of attention switching was also significant ( t = −2.21, p = 0.040, β = −21.98, standardized β = −0.65).