Results revealed highly significant differences across cultural groups for all three variables ( p < 0.001), confirming that cultural background not only influences students' sports participation behaviors but also meaningfully shapes their perceptions of basketball culture and their psychological adjustment processes.
Excerpts
There was a highly significant interaction between race of observer and race of face, F 9 , 270 = 5.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15 ( Figure 2 ).
Results showed a highly significant main effect of viewing condition for laughs, F (2,34) = 12.93, p < 0.001 with a generalized eta squared, ges = 0.25.
As we can see from both Figure 1 and Table 3 , our model shows a highly significant and strong negative effect of Immigration procedural fairness on Lack of human dignity , β = -0.66, p ≤ 0.001, 95% BCa CI [-0.74, -0.53], with close to moderate coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.43), large effect size (f 2 = 0.77) and large predictive relevance (Q 2 = 0.21).
Test-retest reliabilities were highly significant across AOM timepoints for the risk perception index ( r = 0.814, p < 0.001).
Combining samples A and B yielded a highly significant main effect [disgust: M = 2.63, SD = 0.45; neutral: ( M = 2.46, SD = 0.39), t (50) = 3.75, p < 0.001, d = 0.53 ( Figure 3A )].
The most substantial change was observed in the emotion regulation domain, with all items showing highly significant improvement ( p < 0.001), reflecting the AR intervention’s emphasis on emotional engagement and interactive responsiveness.
approached significancep = 0.001
Additionally, a two-way interaction between ownership and valence (stock outcome) approached significance, F (1, 21) = 13.68, p = 0.001, η 2 partial = 0.394, suggesting that the gain–loss effect was inconsistent between the two different owners (self, other).
Exploratory factor analysis The Sample 1 ( n = 3001) was considered to be appropriate for factor analysis, because the KMO value was 0.96 (close to 1) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was also highly significant (χ 2 = 23744.39, df = 91, and p < 0.001).
Looking at the p -values of the regression features of our BL-sur-cos model, we observe that both cosine similarity and surprisal are statistically highly significant at p < 0.001 (for a complete analysis of regression features significance scores see Appendix 1 ).
MANCOVA revealed a highly significant group difference ( F 4/61 = 34.03; p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.69).
The relationship between Prin1 and MSTT remains highly significant ( p < 0.001) after Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons.
simulation) was highly significant ( p < 0.001) with a moderate effect (Cohen's d = 0.53).
Moderating effect of indecisiveness on rumination and depressive symptoms Utilizing a robust Wald test, the overall model fit was highly significant, R 2 = 0.54, χ 2 (9) = 268.46, p < 0.001.
Sharing Behavior in Non-costly Situations Under non-costly conditions, a multiple ANOVA showed a highly significant main effect of self-relevance, F (2,146) = 30.96, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.30; post hoc multiple comparison revealed that the sharing scores of friends’ recipients were significantly higher than those of acquaintances recipients and strangers and that the sharing scores of acquaintances recipients were significantly higher than those of strangers, p < 0.05.
A highly significant interaction Mask x Inversion [ F (1, 29) = 24.92, MSE = 0.020, p < 0.001] revealed that the inversion effect was larger in the unmasked [ t (29) = 15.28, p < 0.001] than in the masked [ t (29) = 10.26, p < 0.001] condition, a result that is in accordance with the holistic prediction.
However, the interaction effect turned out to be highly significant [ F (1,15) = 18.74, p = 0.001, η_p^2 = 0.55].
After entering both mediators (personal norm and perceived health risks) into the model, the intervention predicted perceived health risks significantly ( B = 0.20, p = 0.04, CI [0.014; 0.384]), which in turn predicted participants’ willingness to offer expired but still edible food highly significant ( B = −0.09, p < 0.001, CI [−0.119; −0.067]).
A one-way ANOVA performed on the mean emotion identification times with repeated measures of emotion type ( anger, disgust, fear , happiness , sadness and neutral ) revealed a highly significant effect of emotion [ F (5, 190) = 113.68; p < 0.001].
An ANOVA of the threshold values with age group as a between-subjects factor and keyword position and priming condition as within-subject factors demonstrated that there were highly significant effects due to age ( F 1,30 = 151.076, p < 0.001) and priming condition ( F 1,30 = 45.193, p < 0.001).
Regarding the inter-context correlations, the relationship between positive contact in school and out-of-school contexts was large and highly significant ( r = 0.494, p < 0.001).
The factor loading of each measurement item was highly significant ( p < 0.001), ranging from 0.670 to 0.845, which indicates the unidimensionality of the measures.
The interaction term was highly significant (Δ R 2 = 0.05, p < 0.001).
Indeed, separate age group analyses confirmed that the phrasal planning effect was highly significant for both young (40 ms, 4.6% benefit, p < 0.001) and older (41 ms, 4.0% benefit, p < 0.001) adults.
For model 3 predicting the behavioral factor II as a response, which was mainly comprised of the proportion of time tail wagging, licking the trainer’s hand or face, and the frequency of lips licking, we found a clearly significant full-null model comparison (c2 = 27.44, df = 6, p < 0.001).