Excerpts

The significant predictors were age ( B = 0.051, SE = 0.016, p = 0.001), emotion management ( B = 0.470, SE = 0.147, p = 0.002) and, approaching significance, conscientiousness ( B = 0.034, SE = 0.017, p = 0.050).

On the other hand, feeling stress due to short-term work problems in the case of women is marginally significant ( p -value = 0.05) related to an increase in telomere length.

Levels of child distress reported for child 3 were lower at post-session than at pre-session at a level that was nearly significant ( T = −1.00, SD = 0.51, z = −1.96, p = 0.050); a similar pattern was not observed for child 4 ( T = −0.22, SD = 0.51, z = −0.44, p = 0.663).

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.

In addition, trust in people had a marginally significant effect on social empathy ( β = 0.100, p ≤ 0.05), and had a significant effect on subjective well-being ( β = 0.223, p < 0.001).

Turning to Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual, the Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual interaction, and the Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av interaction were both very close to significance Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual, F (1, 65) = 3.91, p > 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.057; Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av tests, F = 3.76, p>0.05, ηp 2 = 0.055 (critical F = 3.98).

We observed a significant effect of meaning modulation [ F 1(2, 167) = 12.23, p < 0.001; F 2(2, 327) = 24.97, p < 0.001], as well as a significant effect of set type in the by item analysis and marginally significant in the by subject analysis [ F 1(2, 167) = 2.95, p = 0.05; F 2(2, 327) = 9.46, p < 0.001].

However, despite no moderation effect, the temperamental characteristic of IBQ distress to limitations had a near-significant main effect in the 6 months (β = 0.28, p = 0.05), 9 months (β = 0.27, p = 0.06), and 12 months (β = 0.28, p = 0.05) models.

One-way ANOVA with cluster membership as the independent variable confirmed the existence of statistically significant differences between the three groups in all dependent variables ( p < 0.05) but one, which was nevertheless borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant contribution of interval type in the main effects model ( F (1, 233) = 31.34, p < 0.001); the interaction of language type and interval type significantly improved the model fit in a second-order interaction model comparison, F (1, 229) = 10.01, p = 0.002; and the third-order interaction model also showed a borderline significant improvement ( F (3, 226) = 2.70, p = 0.05).

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

Results First, as regards cannabis effects, our data showed a trend towards more severe positive symptoms (PANSS, p = 0.05) and better performance in manipulative abilities (matrix test-WAIS, p = 0.041) among cannabis users compared to non-users.

The results showed that friendship quality did not play a significant role in predicting loneliness for typically developing students, students with ASD and students with motor and/or sensory disabilities, although there was a marginally significant effect of friendship quality on loneliness (−0.21, p < 0.05) for the entire group of students with SEN (special education needs).

However, this difference is only nearly significant ( F = 3.752; p > 0.05) with a small effect size ( d = 0.10), whereas, as regards the relationship with teacher score, significant differences were found with primary school children that score better than secondary school children ( F = 7.647; p < 0.01) with small effect size ( d = 0.14).

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.

No other main effects or interactions approached significance ( p > 0.05).

Results indicated a strong trend for a significant effect of Proximity, F (2,50) = 3.09, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.11.

The Picture type main effect in the Task sequence neutral-affective was only marginally significant, F (2, 28) = 3.86, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.22, ε = 0.71 ( Figure 6 ).

In contrast, exposure to organizational vision had a marginally significant negative indirect effect through CWB ( β = −0.02, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.00] ).

Congruency was marginally significant on the P200 amplitude [ F (1, 15) = 4.56, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.233], where incongruent conditions showed an enhanced positivity (Figure 3A ).

Last, the interaction between Veterans’ physical health and social support predicting relationship satisfaction was marginally significant ( B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, z = 1.95, p = 0.05, 95% CI [0.00; 0.17]).

With improvements in the education level, the degree of parental care and encouragement and the EC ( F (994) = 8.05, p < 0.01), PT ( F (994) = 6.27, p < 0.01) and FS ( F (994) = 5.50, p < 0.01) empathy items showed an increasing trend, while the degree of parental control and PD ( F (994) = 2.98, p < 0.05) showed a decreasing trend.

There was a main effect of meter [ F (1,49) = 39.90, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.449], a marginally significant main effect of group [ F (4,49) = 2.56, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.173] and a meter by group interaction [ F (4,49) = 4.59, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.272].

Sample size was also a significant moderator ( Q M (1) = 3.63, R 2 = 17.69%, p = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant negative association between sample size and effect size—larger samples tended to report slightly smaller effects ( β = −0.0054, SE = 0.0028, p = 0.05).

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).