Excerpts

In fact, the SiCE was apparent only for pairs containing 1 [ F (1, 115) = 34.06, MSE = 166,254, η 2 p = 0.23], with no evidence of linear modulation (Figure 1C ), and was minimal and marginally significant for pairs without 1 [ F (1, 117) = 3.85, MSE = 32,329, η 2 p = 0.03] (Figure 1D ).

The nearly significant interaction effect was a result of a significant difference in Warmth-Cold D -scores between the groups “women” and “men” ( M diff = 15, p = 0.03), and only between these two groups.

While the main effect of distractor frequency on sensitivity estimates was marginally significant [ F (1,185) = 5.3, p = 0.03], the main effect of distractor intensity and the intensity × frequency interaction failed to achieve statistical significance ( p values >0.05).

Furthermore, the difference between mean amplitudes for alternate uses ( M = −1.96, SE = 0.25) and common uses was marginally significant ( p = 0.03, d = 0.40).

For the emotionally moving experience (Table 1B ), a main effect of the recording condition was significant and a two-way interaction was approaching significance, F (1, 150) = 4.75, p = 0.03, η 2 p = 0.03 (recording condition), F (2, 150) = 2.46, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.03 (two-way interaction).

Similarities and Differences in Inner Speech Spearman correlations between generalized endorsements of inner speech and random sampling incident reports were significant for Condensed ( r = 0.69, df = 49, p < 0.001) and Other People ( r = 0.46, df = 49, p < 0.001), but only approached significance for Dialogic, given the use of an adjusted alpha value ( r = 0.30, df = 49, p = 0.031).

Specifically, after Holm–Bonferroni correction, there was only a marginally significant positive correlation between trial 2 and trial 3 JOL gamma scores, r (36) = 0.34, p = 0.034, and a significant positive correlation between trial 2 and trial 3 RCJ gamma scores, r (36) = 0.47, p = 0.003 (others: p s from −0.003 to 0.23, p s > 0.17).

A positive, weakly significant relationship was observed between the ACEs total score and only the self-accepting score ( r = 0.132; p = 0.036) among the sub-dimensions of the AAMS.

The individual climber’s COF (average across all 14 holds of the weighted average COF per hold) correlated significantly with the climbing experience (in years) through a positive trend ( R 2 = 0.2000, i.e., 20% of the COF were explained from the climbing experience; p = 0.0362; α = 0.1).

For the shifting function, the main effects of group and student type were significant ( p < 0.05); the time main effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.038, η 2 = 0.058); and all interaction effects were non-significant ( p > 0.05).

A marginally significant difference was observed across grade levels for professional identity ( F = 2.81, p = 0.039), with fourth-year students scoring slightly higher, consistent with accumulated practicum experience.

Concerning the hypothesized moderations (H2), ethnic deprivation did not significantly interact with honesty-humility (modesty) ( b = 0.00, p = 0.600), but there was a marginally significant interaction for religious discrimination and honesty-humility (modesty) ( b = −0.01, p = 0.039).

The results revealed that for young senders, relationship had a marginally significant effect on literality, χ 1 2 = 4.48, p = 0.04; this was true in old senders, χ 1 2 = 17.15, p < 0.001.

Cognitive empathy Four-way interaction A marginally significant four-way interaction emerged; that is, participant culture × participant sex × stimulus ethnicity × stimulus sex [ F (1, 2,873.98) = 4.24, p = 0.040].

A second model was tested based only upon the almost significant item 5 “felt at home in nature” as the independent variable, which explained less variance, R 2 = 13.1, p = 0.04, but in this model, “felt at home in nature” was a significant predictor ( t = 2.2, p = 0.04).

The results showed that with radical awareness being considered, the effect of Radical Presence became non-significant, p = 0.14, and the effect of Visual Complexity became marginally significant, p = 0.04, η 2 = 0.13.

With equal variances confirmed and using a t -test, there was a significant trend for females experiencing more goose bump occurrences ( M = 1.3, SD = 1.4) than males ( M = 0.3, SD = 0.5) t (14) = -2.21, p = 0.04, d = 1.0.

For the first point, there was a moderately significant positive correlation between the use of global reading strategies and reading performance ( r = 0.710, p = 0.04).

The interaction between Side, Stimuli, and Order was borderline significant [ F (1,23) = 4.97, p = 0.04, η 2 p = 0.18], reflecting the fact that differences in looking time across side and stimuli were higher when the last training trial and the first test trial were different.

350–400-ms Time Window ANOVA revealed a marginally significant three-way interaction effect between stimulus type, visual field and hemisphere [F (4,120) = 2.61, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.08].

The effect of environment was marginally significant [ F (2,22) = 2.9, p = 0.040] and as pairwise comparison showed, the accuracy in 3DNI and 3DI environments was slightly less than in 2DNI ( p = 0.08).

Further, positive student-teacher relationships approached significance ( B = −0.12, β = −0.10, p = 0.04).

Of these 164 high-ability students, 95 (57.9%) were male and 69 (42.1%) female, which was a slightly significant difference in percentage (χ2 = 4.12, p = 0.04).

Differences between 10 dB SNR and quiet conditions were marginally significant ( p = 0.04).

However, after partialling out participants' age, only two correlation coefficients remained at least marginally significant: the relationship between L2 proficiency and τ in the congruent trials, r = −0.17, p = 0.04, and the relationship between L2 proficiency and τ in overall RT, r = −0.15, p = 0.07.