Excerpts

Filial piety stress (FPS) exhibited a marginally significant negative association with PD (H1d: β = −0.123, p = 0.093).

As the effect of picture type on RR was quite significant, further pairwise t -tests for RR ( Figure 7 ) showed that the heart rate was slower when viewing negative pictures in the PAS and SAN conditions ( p = 0.093 and p = 0.001, respectively, Bonferroni corrected).

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.

engaging emotions and emotion suppression [ B = 0.33, t (265.72) = 1.99, p = 0.047, 95% CI (−0.005, 0.66)] 3 , and this relationship was marginally significant for Japanese partners [ B = 0.20, t (257.22) = 1.685, p = 0.093, 95% CI (−0.033, 0.42)], but not significant for Belgian partners [ B = −0.13, t (262.56) = −1.15, p = 0.25, 95% CI (−0.37, 0.10)] 4 , 5 .

We found a significant, albeit weak, negative correlation between positive affect and happy judgments to female ( r = -0.370, p = 0.000) faces, with a marginal trend in the same direction for male faces ( r = -0.151, p = 0.093).

The main effect of feature sequence was marginally significant; F (1, 15) = 3.21, p = 0.0931, η 2 p = 0.18, whereas none of the interactions were significant ( p s > 0.183).

There was a marginally significant increase in attentional bias to angry faces in the up- compared to no-regulation group, t (36) = 1.72, p = 0.094 ( Figure 1 ).

However, only a tendency toward significance was found for this regression model [Full model: F (6, 60) = 1.91; adjusted R 2 = 0.077; p = 0.094].

An independent-samples t -test revealed that the difference between the two groups were marginally significant [ t (21) = 1.75, p = 0.094, Cohen’s d = -0.73; M Unfamiliar-Switch = 43.12%, SD Unfamiliar-Switch = 25.95%, M Nonsense-Switch = 24.81%, SD Nonsense-Switch = 24.19%).

The interaction between perceived continuous teacher support and AI learning self-efficacy was marginally non-significant ( B = −0.10, p = 0.094), and the index of moderated mediation for the serial indirect effect included zero (Index = −0.010, 95% Boot CI [−0.025, 0.001]).

There were marginally significant differences in sitting and bending forward, F (2,157) = 2.41, p = 0.094, η p 2 = 0.03.

The interaction of Group × Type of Landmark approached significance, F (2,42) = 2.508, p = 0.094, η P 2 = 0.107, indicating that the difference between groups was marginally more likely to be at choice point landmarks than not.

In Experiment 2b (description), participants also rated the robust players as more responsible for the goal than those that took non-robust shots, yet this effect was only marginally significant, F (1,19) = 3.06, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.127.

This same effect was nearly statistically significant for the condition where ΔLTR was 4.21 (OR = 1.35, p = 0.095).

The effect of Number of pairs was marginally significant, F (2, 138) = 2.38, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.03, (two pairs, M = 0.40; SD = 0.26; three, M = 0.47; SD = 0.21; four, M = 0.37; SD = 0.20), and the Distance * Number of pairs interaction effect was not significant, F (2, 138) = 0.006.

This group difference for detail-based viewing in the relational condition remained marginally significant after adjusting for age and gender, F (1, 34) = 2.96, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.080. 3.2.2.2.1.

The random effect likelihood ratio test for the pair random intercept was marginally significant ( p = 0.095), with ICC of 0.471.

The beta coefficient on the standardized individualism measure indeed increases from 0.32 in Table 3 (Model 4) to 0.60 and approaches statistical significance ( p = 0.095) when Vietnam is excluded (full results available upon request).

For moderate physical activity , the interaction of Perceived Change and Time approached significance, F (3, 378) = 2.14, p = 0.095.

Regarding the effects of reactive aggression, we also detected a marginally significant group, emotion, and electrode interaction effect [ F (8,352) = 1.99, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.04].

Also in accordance with Lavie and de Fockert, the magnitude of the interference was larger with marginal significance ( p = 0.095) in the degraded 100 ms condition than in the non-degraded 150 ms condition.

Furthermore, the three-way interaction of Group × Correctness × Condition was marginally significant [ F (1,30) = 2.97, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.09].

Finally the Stimulation site * Humanness interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,19) = 3.09; p = 0.095), with a poorer accuracy for categorization of natural voice sounds in the larynx-stimulated group.

The correlations were indeed significant for the written language measures ( p ’s < 0.05), with the vocabulary measure approaching significance, r = 0.374, p = 0.095.

The three-way interaction effect (magnitude × vertical position × type of quantity) approached significance in the reaction times, F (1, 63) = 2.86, MSE = 1630.3, η 2 = 0.043 p = 0.096 but not in the error rates, F < 1.