Excerpts

Model 5 in Table 2 shows the marginally significant interaction between search persistence and prosocial motivation (β = −0.20, t = −1.99, p < 0.05), thus supporting Hypothesis 4 .

Both identification with the community and interpersonal contact were uniquely positively related to willingness to participate ( Table 2 ; Step 3c), yet interpersonal contact became only marginally significant ( p = 0.050) 6 .

In addition, authoritarian leadership negatively predicted organizational citizenship behavior (β = −0.26, p < 0.001) and positively predicted task performance with a borderline significance (β = 0.09, p = 0.05), supporting H2 to some extent.

Planned comparisons, which were directly encoded in the model, indicated faster response times for the humor compared to the control group, b = −22.0, SE = 8.86, t (95.0) = 2.49, p < 0.05, while the comparison of valid and invalid trials was only marginally significant, b = −3.72, SE = 1.89, t (94.3) = −1.97, p = 0.05.There was a tendency to respond faster to invalid trials.

(e) OS shows marginal significance ( p < 0.05) in the 5% quantile and strong significance ( p < 0.001) in the 25% and 50% quantiles.

Aerobic exercise (1 study) showed marginal significance (SMD = −0.43, 95% CI [−0.85, 0.00], p = 0.05).

The regression analysis demonstrated that work time control had a highly significant and positive correlation with job engagement ( b = 3.95, SE = 1.70, p < 0.05) and innovation ( b = 4.67, SE = 0.96, p < 0.01).

No-handicap approached significance ( p = 0.05).

The stability effects of both variables were all highly significant ( p < 0.05), with the exception of the stability effects among females leading from the juniors’ academic self-efficacy to the seniors’ academic self-efficacy ( p = 0.072).

In the TOGETHER condition, there was a significant correlation of TB effect with S1 ( ρ = 0.49, p = 0.03), and a close-to-significant correlation of TB effect with S2 ( ρ = 0.46, p = 0.05).

The difference between GE and PE was almost significant ( p = 0.05).

Exercise duration was almost significantly associated with gender ( p = 0.050), indicating that men exercised more than women.

There was no interaction with age group for the difference between time bin 1 and time bin 2 for fixations on the alternative image ( ED = −0.01, z = −0.70, p > 0.05), but there was a marginally significant interaction for fixations on the target image ( ED = −0.04, z = −1.92, p = 0.05).

A significant trend was only seen at 8 years of age (χ 2 = 5.892, p = 0.05), and there were no significant differences between the three apparatus at 10 years of age (χ 2 = 2.722, p = NS).

More specifically, in the moderating role of rural–urban factors, the effect sizes of two influencing factors—education level (Qb = 9.837, p < 0.01) and higher education participation (Qb = 6.753, p < 0.01)—were all significantly different, whereas the difference in the effect size of lifelong learning engagement was weakly significant (Qb = 4.341, p < 0.05).

It must be noted, however, that the latter effect is not quite significant ( p = 0.05) and so it must be interpreted with caution.

The difference in amplitude between positive and negative feedback approached significance, t (79) = −1.96, p = 0.05.

The significant relation between children’s social mirroring skills at 12 months and DSR at 4 years of age r partial (36) = 0.32, p = 0.048, remained significant when controlling for gender, while the relation between MSR at 24 months and DSR at 4 years of age remained marginally significant when controlling for gender; r partial (46) = 0.23, p = 0.05, as did the relation between the SF smile effect and social mirroring at 12 months, r partial (44) = 0.22, p = 0.07.

Here, a main effect for politeness, F (1,297) = 5.65, p = 0.02, η p 2 = 0.02 [and a marginally significant effect for compassion, F (1,297) = 4.03, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.01] emerged, suggesting that politeness was related to greater allocations across all conditions (see Supplementary Tables S3 – S5 in the Supplementary Material).

The difference in emotional involvement was at the threshold of significance after FDR correction [ t (26) = 2.08, p = 0.05, 95% CI (0.01, 2.08)].

Breaking the interaction down, there was a marginally significant effect for inhibition control ability in A-2 condition, χ 2 = 3.74, df = 1, p = 0.05, suggesting better inhibition control ability indicates faster response in the A-2 condition.

A marginally significant effect on tonal target was also found [ F (1, 83) = 3,964, p < 0.05].

In the no-contact condition, the simple main effect of the state of the phone was marginally significant, F (1.49,35.87) = 3.71, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.011, and the dots distance was significant, F (1.22,29.31) = 5.39, p = 0.02, η 2 = 0.024.

There was a main effect of motion type ( F1 (2,60) = 11.27, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 27.3, observed power = 0.99; F2 (2,32) = 9.75, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 37.9, observed power = 0.972), and a marginally significant effect of verb type in the participants analysis ( F1 (1,30) = 4.16, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 12.2, observed power = 0.506), and in the items analysis ( F2 (1, 16) = 4.14, p = 0.059, η p 2 = 20.5, observed power = 0.481).

Gender also had a marginally significant interaction with the within subjects factor F (1, 99) = 3.64 ( p = 0.05) η 2 = 0.04, observed power was 0.47 and this interaction effect is presented in Figure 4 .