Excerpts

However, a positive association between CPM and placebo effects [ r (15) = 0.545, p = 0.02] is present in nonathletes, and a negative trend is observed in athletes [ r s(14) = −0.497, p = 0.052; see Figure 6B ].

As shown in Table 7 , differences in gender and education level on INF and CSE did not reach significance; differences in overseas experience on INF were also non-significant ( t = −1.28, p = 0.202), but showed a trend toward significance on CSE ( t = −1.95, p = 0.052).

The Negative responders’ scores fall on average at 1.5 SD above the LQ mean, and the inter-group difference is significant for both comprehension ( t 21 = 2.37, p = 0.027) and word production ( t 21 = 5.85, p < 0.001), and almost significant for sentence production ( t 21 = 2.06, p = 0.052).

Here, the PDSS effect approached significance ( β = −0.035, p = 0.052), and both age ( β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and sex ( β = 1.03, p < 0.001) remained significant predictors.

Simple effects analyses indicated the effect was significant for happy primes, F (1, 83) = 10.19, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.11, and marginally significant for sad primes, F (1, 18) = 3.87, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.05.

The predicted indirect path including equality/need-based justice was marginally significant ( b = -0.29, z = -1.94, p = 0.052) while the indirect path including equity-based justice was not significant ( b = -0.01, z = -0.39, p = 0.69).

Nevertheless, due to smaller sample sizes and consequently lower statistical power, some of the main effects were only marginally significant when analyzing each of samples separately (i.e., p -values for differences in the intellectual strengths were p = 0.052 and 0.086 in the mixed sample and in the nurses sample, respectively).

This analysis indicated an almost significant difference of error rates between word categories [down: 1.06%, neutral: 1.06%, up: 1.94%; F (2, 52) = 3.14, p = 0.052].

The results demonstrate a negative parameter estimate, B = -0.172, SE = 0.088, which was significant at 0.10 and approached significance at.05, t = -1.945, p = 0.052.

The regression coefficient of extraversion was still significant ( p = 0.012), and that of spatial ability was almost significant ( p = 0.052), while the other regression coefficients were not significant ( p > 0.10).

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on the slopes of the RTs as a function of the binary logarithm of the response set size revealed a main effect of response set ( F 1,16 = 9.17, p = 0.008), a marginally significant effect of ET ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.052), and a marginally significant effect of condition ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.051).

In this case, only item 32 showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.12, p = 0.052) with the wish to speak with a psychologist about these issues, indicating that the higher the frequency of thinking about developing cancer, the higher the need to speak with a psychologist (see Table S2.33PSY5a in the Supplementary Material for more details).

There was also a significant retention interval x misinformation interaction, Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 9.74, p = 0.002, and a picture emotion x retention interval x misinformation interaction that approached significance (see Figure 3 ), Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 5.92, p = 0.052.

On the other hand, AV did not statistically significantly relate to well-being ( β = −0.216; SE = 0.338; t = −0.638; p = 0.524), nor did AX, although it approached significance ( β = −0.435; SE = 0.222; t = −1.957; p = 0.052).

1 A two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA on onset-offset match shows a marginally significant effect of contrast [ F (1, 3) = 9.83, p = 0.052], but no significant effect of match type [onset vs. offset, F (1, 3) = 0.02, p = 0.89] and no significant interaction [ F (1, 3) = 3.92, p = 0.14].

A similar pattern emerged as in the total score: efficacy showed a significant positive effect ( B = 0.022, β = 0.298, p = 0.038; sr 2 = 0.085), and resilience approached significance ( p = 0.052; sr 2 = 0.075).

When we adjusted cognitive control scores for performance on the inhibitory control task by entering SSRT as a covariate, the main effect for group remained, although exhibited a smaller effect size and marginal significance [ F (1,49) = 3.96, p = 0.052, η 2 = 0.07].

Mean PR score on the first Post-Release test was 62.7 and the mean score on the second administration of the Post-Release test was 61.2, producing a moderately strong correlation ( r = 0.53) that approached significance ( p = 0.052).

Only the indirect effects of identity entrepreneurship by team members via social identity continuity on job satisfaction and loneliness were now marginally significant ( p = 0.052 for the indirect effect on loneliness; p = 0.065 for the indirect effect on job satisfaction).

Results showed a marginally significant effect of Experiments [ F (2,57) = 3.123, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.099].

( 2009 ) showed a borderline significant increase in signal for the SOdifficult than the SI condition [ t (17) = 2.1, p = 0.052].

More specifically, an increase in scores of individualism decreased the effect of anxiety on passive-submissive coping style: interaction was marginally significant, F (1,820) = 3.76, β = –0.10, t (848) = –1.94, p = 0.052.

However, since the predicted finding for the recombined combination came close to significance ( p = 0.052) we are reluctant to completely rule out the possibility that the findings reported here also reflect associative memory according to a more stringent definition.

In support, we observed a borderline significant interaction effect between face type and inversion, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.059.

Model 2, the block with the interactions, also approached significance: Δ F (4, 109) = 2.43, p = 0.052, Δ R 2 = 0.07.