Excerpts

As can be seen in the new model, all relationships hypothesized were significant (path LOC → NACH and NACH → CA were significant at p = 0.001; LOC → CA and LOC → RT at p = 0.05; NACH → RT was marginally significant at p = 0.1).

There was a significant direct effect from global trait EI to major satisfaction (β = 0.181, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant direct effect from global trait EI to procrastination (β = –0.117, p < 0.10).

The results demonstrated that LSSB had a significant effect on insiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.44, p < 0.01) and that LSSB had a marginally significant effect on outsiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.18, p < 0.10).

The overall CSE was only marginally significant (previous × current trial congruency interaction: F [1, 9] = 3.3, p = 0.10), with numerically smaller conflict scores following incongruent (mean = 80 ms) than congruent trials (mean = 60 ms) (see Figure 3 A).

= 1.239), and the difference is statistically marginally significant ( t (158) = 1.749, p < 0.10).

In line with H5, we observe a marginally significant interaction effect of error risk taking and perceived organizational innovation climate (β = 0.16, p < 0.1, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.32]).

Although marginally significant ( p < 0.10), the effect is directional only and should be interpreted cautiously ( Pritschet et al., 2016 ).

Furthermore, when examining the relationship with the Type I criterion separately for absent responses and present responses ( Sherman et al., 2018 ), a positive relationship emerges between mean confidence for absent responses and c ( r = 0.25, p < 0.05), along with a strong trend toward a negative association between mean confidence for present responses and c ( r = −0.15, p = 0.10), thereby replicating Sherman et al.’s findings.

Marginally significant interactions ( p < 0.1) were explored with pairwise comparisons for the frontal and parietal electrode sites separately, with Bonferroni correction to correct for multiple comparisons.

When expressed in the number of words, the effect of L anguage on prosodic phrase length is marginally significant [ χ 2 (1) = 2.88, p < 0.1], with phrases in English longer by 0.43 word on average (± 0.13 standard errors).

There were significant correlations for most of the decision scores for Studies 1 and 2 ( Table 5 ), except that UC2 scores were significantly correlated only with UC scores in Study 1, and Study 1 HC scores were not significantly correlated with any Study 2 scores, though LC2, MC2, and HC2 scores approached significance ( p < 0.1).

For reasons of clarity, all significant ( p < 0.05) and marginally significant ( p < 0.10) effects are reported in the results section, non-significant effects are mostly omitted.

Further, significant Pixels (β = 0.63, p < 0.001), AR (β = 0.67, p < 0.001) and Complexity (β = −0.47, p < 0.01) effects were found on reaction time for the forward condition at the superordinate level, while marginally significant effects were found for Slant (β = −0.29, p < 0.1) and DC (β = 0.35, p < 0.1).

As a result, the threshold for anger in Cases B and C showed a trend for being higher than in the control group ( t = 1.46, p < 0.10; Table 1 ).

Importantly, differences in subjective effort only approached significance ( p = 0.10; with the TI climate group reporting greater exertion), highlighting how critical it is to have multiple assessments that incorporate both objective and subjective measures.

However, of the 48 analyzed outcome variables, only eight are statistically significant ( p < 0.05) and three are close to significance (0.05 < p < 0.10).

Furthermore, the Session by Age group by Switching demand interaction F (1,168) = 4.49, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.03, p = 0.04, as well as the Session by Age group by Maintenance demand interaction F (1,168) = 3.63, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.02, p = 0.06 were at least marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

A few of these correlations were either marginally statistically significant ( p < 0.10) or not statistically significant (see Table 6 ).

In comparison, the CFLI group showed significant improvement between pre- and post-test on two of the seven measures, narrative macrostructure and clausal density, with large effect sizes for both measures ( r = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, both p = 0.04), and a large and marginally significant gain for the ALL Listening Comprehension subtest ( r = 0.73, p = 0.10).

When analyzing L2-French speakers, the main effect of Connective was not significant, F (1, 27.83) < 1, ns , yet there was a close-to-significant Connective by Relation interaction effect, F (1, 1037.64) = 2.72, p = 0.10.

Regarding RQ2, the results showed that personal network size decreased the amount of time spent on social media in the next time period at a marginally significant level ( b = −0.26, p < 0.1).

There was a marginally significant difference between the light and base verb trials in the time window between 2,100 and 2,500 ms after verb offset (summed t statistic for cluster = 9.64, p < 0.1), indicating that during most of the tracking time, the eye-movements for light verb constructions did not differ from eye-movements for base verb constructions.

Specifically, physical access and usage both demonstrated marginally significant, negative direct effects on depressive symptoms (for physical access: β = −0.052, p < 0.1; for usage: β = −0.032, p < 0.1) ( Table 10 ).

The same pattern emerged in sample 2, though the difference was only marginally significant at p < 0.10 for psychosomatic complaints (M ls – M lc = −0.41, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001 for irritation; M ls – M lc = −0.22, SE = 0.09, p = 0.066 for psychosomatic complaints; M ls – M lc = 0.29, SE = 0.08, p = 0.001 for self-rated health).

On the between-level, EE is positively related to trait EL, but not to (aggregated) state EL (only having a marginally significant relationship, p < 0.10).