Excerpts

0.39) was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Minor injuries (Model 2) have also decreased by 25% in the peripheral districts of the city [although the coefficient is weakly significant ( p < 0.1)].

We removed the effect of age from the model if it not at least marginally significant (i.e., p > 0.1).

Only significant effects and certain effects approaching significance ( p < 0.100) that include the congruity factor are reported.

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.

The difference in the percentage of infants per condition who habituated within 14 events also approaches marginal significance (2X2 Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.10; 95% CI on the difference [-1, 36]).

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

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).

As can be seen in the figure, children showed significant shape responding for the clay, M = 0.64, t (74) = 5.16, p < 0.0001, and wood sets, M = 0.68, t (73) = 5.90, p < 0.0001, and marginally significant shape responding for the sand, M = 0.56, t (73) = 1.89, p < 0.10, and Styrofoam sets, M = 0.55, t (74) = 1.76, p < 0.10.

The findings indicated that the interaction term between student motivation and teacher instruction on process features was marginally significant and negative (γ = −1.27, p < 0.1), indicating that the relationship between student motivational beliefs and their writing achievement was moderated by the frequency of teacher instruction on process features.

However, correlations of ethos ratings with national character stereotypes were significant and substantial (0.46–0.61) for three of the cultures, and showed a trend ( r = 0.32, p < 0.10) for Russia.

This was not the case with the American sample, which showed a trend in the correlation for the HTKS efficiency measure ( p < 0.1) although the magnitude of the correlation was similar to that of the Brazilian sample.

Simultaneously, openness to experience demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship with job-seeking behavior (β = 0.08, p < 0.10), consistent with this personality trait’s association with exploration and novelty-seeking.

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).

The correlations between the digit span and the HTKS and HTKS efficiency score were non-significant for US children, but the correlation between the digit span and the HTKS efficiency score approached significance ( r = −0.25, p < 0.10) and was similar in magnitude to the correlation in the Brazilian sample.

However, the strength of this association was reduced and only marginally significant ( p < 0.10) when preference for the equity principle, gender, and academic unit were added to the equation.

Leader narcissism showed a marginally significant negative relation with entrepreneurial team performance (β = −0.241, p < 0.10).

Furthermore, all three predictors were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in predicting the mixing cost, so that younger age, earlier L2 acquisition, and a more balanced use of both languages in everyday life was associated with a smaller mixing cost.

The amount of time the participants had spent watching Family Guy before was also marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

The three-way interaction of AI complexity, intangibility, and reliability was found to reach marginal significance [Pillai’s trace=0.074, F (24, 1,359)=1.43, p <0.10, with an effect size of ηp 2 =0.025], implying that approximately 2.5% of the variance of the dependent variable is associated with the interaction of the three factors.

In Column (2), however, the treatment group exhibits a marginally significant negative effect on conversion during the price promotion period (β = −0.00004, p < 0.1).

Although, the above change was not statistically significant, but it was close to the level of significance ( p =0.101, Chi 2 =0.75).

Under DLnP, participants yielded numerically higher scores in the symbolic (mean: 1299; SD: 42) than in the monetary incentive group (mean: 1204; SD: 40); the difference revealed a statistical trend, F (1,160) = 2.70, p = 0.102.

The interaction term between stress and emotional eating was only marginally significant χ 2 (1) = 2.66, p = 0.102.

However, Model 2 and Model 3 in Table 8 show that both IST P (correct) and IST Accuracy approach providing additional explanation of variation in the avoidance of rational thinking errors and are close to being statistically significant ( p = 0.1027 and p = 0.1063, respectively).