Although the subsequent univariate tests indicated a small marginally significant difference among artistic careers in extrinsic motives and the intrinsic to extrinsic ratio the Bonferroni post hoc showed no differences among them (lowest p = 0.091) (for details, see Figure 8 ).
Excerpts
approached significancep = 0 .091
Conversely, and consistent with our H2 b, participants with higher endorsement of the anti-COVID measures showed higher support for the policy in the experimental condition than in the control condition, although the conditional effect at high levels of endorsement only approached significance, B = 0.43, SE = 0.25; t = 1.71, p = 0 .091, 95% CI [−0.07; 0.93].
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).
Analyzing the intercept data, the main effects of configuration and epoch were not reliable, but the two-way interaction of configuration × epoch was marginally significant [ F (6,108) = 1.881, p = 0.091, η 2 = 0.095].
We found a marginally significant European Identity × Political Tendency ( b = −0.08, p = 0.091) on the Scarce Jobs argument but not a National Identity × Political Tendency interaction ( b = 0.03, p = 0.692).
As shown in Figure 2 , the first simple slope computed for centralization of decision making at one standard deviation below the mean is positive and marginally significant (1.631, p = 0.091).
Property victimization was marginally significant ( p = 0.091), suggesting a potential influence.
This pattern was marginally significant, F (1,57) = 2.96, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.025, suggesting that Japanese speakers may apply the visual-based strategy to the similarity judgment better than English speakers.
approached significancep = 0.091
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).
The interaction effect between decision-maker role and tDCS group was marginally significant ( F (2, 72) = 2.48, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.07).
This effect was marginally significant for the 2500 Hz tone ( Z = −1.69, p = 0.091).
Within the healthy-weigh group, there was a marginally significant difference [ F (1,114) = 2.933, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.038].
For BN, changes in thoughts associated with ‘ dietary restraint ’ were marginally significant, indicating a slight increase from pre- ( M = 11.15, SE = 9.32) to post-binge ( M = 14.86, SE = 13.38; W = 99.5, p = 0.091, Cohen’s d = -0.055), whereas no significant change emerged for individuals with BED (pre: M = 12.0, SE = 9.76, post: M = 11.07, SE = 9.80; W = 39.5, p = 0.354, Cohen’s d = 0.20).
The analysis revealed significant main effects of both gender (Wilks’ Λ = 0.85, F [4, 4271] = 187.92, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.150) and grade (Wilks’ Λ = 0.96, F [12, 11300.29] = 11.630, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.011, Roy’s GCR = 0.032, F [4, 4273] = 34.51, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.031), with the gender x grade interaction found to be marginally significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.99, F [12, 11300.29] = 1.57, p = 0.092, Roy’s GCR = 0.003, F (4, 4273) = 3.199, p = 0.012, partial η 2 = 0.003).
Further analysis revealed a marginally significant difference between L1 and L2 switch costs under the fearful condition ( p = 0.092), with L2 switch costs being marginally smaller than L1 switch costs, indicating a slight asymmetry between L1 and L2 switch costs under fearful emotion.
does not quite reach significancep = 0.092
Facilitation Short RSI = 47 ms), although this does not quite reach significance ( p = 0.092); (2) Like the present study Egner et al.
There was also a marginally significant interaction between congruency and consciousness, F (1,38) = 3.0, p = 0.092, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating a slightly larger congruency effect in the conscious group ( M : 5.3%), compared to the unconscious group ( M : 3.0%).
Omnibus ANOVA indicated that there is significant Anterior-posterior * Group interaction (Interaction effect: F (5.63, 95.73) = 4.5, p < 0.001) and marginally significant interaction between Group, Deviant, and Anterior-Posterior dimension (Interaction effect: F (21.41, 364.04) = 1.5, p = 0.092).
For Category A, the interaction of the within-individual factor Classification with the covariate Negative Affect was marginally significant, F (3,44) = 2.29, p = 0.092, η p 2 = 0.135, but not for Category B, F (3,46) = 2.06, p = 0.120, η p 2 = 0.123.
showed a trendp = 0.092
Applying the same univariate analysis for IRI-PT showed a trend for a main effect of discipline, F (2,132) = 2.44, p = 0.092.
Likewise, no significant differences between boys and girls appeared on temperament scales at any age, apart from a statistical trend towards boys scoring higher on Surgency at 9 months [ F (1,119) = 2.891, p = 0.092].
Comparing the scale scores within each condition, we find that the difference between moral and causal code misalignment scores was significant in the causal code condition, Δ = 1.93, t (38) = 12.338, p < 0.001, but only marginally significant in the moral code condition, Δ = 0.28, t (55) = −1.715, p = 0.092.
approached significancep = 0.092
The Impact of Bilingualism on the Relationship Between Cognitive Reserve Proxies and Cognitive Performance We registered a significant three-way interaction between L2 proficiency, trial type, and CR proxies (β = 45.276; p < 0.001), while it only approached significance for L2 years (β = 7.483; p = 0.092), consistently with the previous analysis showing a stronger contribution by L2 proficiency.
Furthermore, face type × group interactions were significant for representational ( p = 0.047) and evoked responses ( p < 0.001) but marginally significant for liking ( p = 0.092), partially supporting hypothesis 2.
approached significancep = 0.093
Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant change in emotional school engagement from T1 to T2, F (1, 58) = 2.28, p = 0.126, but the interaction between children's liking of their new group and time approached significance, F (1, 58) = 2.92, p = 0.093.