Excerpts

Finally, in this relationship a three-way interaction effect was close to being significant (Model 3; b = 0.112, t (32) = 1.998, p = 0.0543 with a 95% CI of -0.002 to.226), thus indicating a slight significant moderated moderation of sailing role, by sex category.

There was a marginally significant interaction between Trial type and Simon score ( t = 1.92, p = 0.055), suggesting a trend that the higher Simon scores showed the greater mixing costs.

Regarding the frequency of traumatic actions, time had a marginally significant main effect [ F (2,28) = 3.215, p = 0.055, η 2 = 0.187].

Likewise, child’s gender was not significantly associated with the prosociality scores, albeit two gender difference approached significance (for Ball 18-months t = −1.93, df = 139, p = 0.055, M male = 0.44 (0.50) M female = 0.60 (0.49); for Pen 18-months t = 1.78, df = 139, p = 0.077, M male = 0.60 (0.49) M female = 0.45 (0.50); for all others measures, t s ranged from 0.014 to 1.36, all p > 0.178).

Apartment-Task Performance As illustrated in Figure 2 , there was a marginally significant difference between the three experimental conditions regarding the apartment-task performance, F (2, 142) = 2.96, p = 0.055, η 2 p = 0.04.

Additionally, while partialing out the effect of child age, there were negative correlations between the total CELF score of the child and the total number of adult utterances ( r [19] = −0.48, p = 0.031), total number of adult questions ( r [19] = −0.61, p = 0.004), number of adult closed questions ( r [19] = −0.57, p = 0.008), and marginal significance for number of adult open questions ( r [19] = −0.44, p = 0.055).

There was a marginally significant decrease in the use of Tastebreakers after the return to campus, F (1,268) = 3.71, p = 0.055, η 2 = 0.014 and a significant increase in the use of On Repeat, F (1,268) = 5.09, p = 0.025, η 2 = 0.019.

This association persisted as a marginally significant trend for long-term effects ( r s = 0.745, p = 0.055, q = 0.059).

A computation of Tukey HSD (Tukey Honest Significant Differences, R function: TukeyHSD()) for performing multiple pairwise-comparison between the means of developmental groups found a significant difference in tokens ( p < 0.001) and types ( p < 0.001) between the Prelexical and the Advanced-Lexical group, a marginally significant difference in tokens ( p = 0.055) but not in types ( p = 0.48) between the Prelexical and the Early-Lexical group, and no significant difference in tokens ( p = 0.13) but in types ( p < 0.05) between Early-Lexical and Advanced-Lexical group.

This interaction was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 350 ) = 3.70, p < 0.055, [ η p 2 ] = 0.010.

Only a marginally significant group main effect was observed for the BSI of RT, F (1,28) = 4.0, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.13, 1-β = 0.42, BF 10 = 2.43, revealing a higher trend of BSI for the training group than for the control group.

Flow did not mediate the relationship between grit and any of the outcomes ( p > 0.05) and is marginally significant for the relationship between flow metacognition and burnout [ b = −0.12, SE = 0.06, p = 0.055, 95% CI (−0.22, −0.02), β = −0.09].

However, the effect was borderline significant even after applying the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure ( p = 0.055), which suggests that scene stability may influence occurrence of cyber sickness and that the issue is worthy of further investigation.

This list of significant and nonsignificant effects failed, however, to include the nearly significant interaction between conception risk and man’s availability: F (1, 314) = 3.71, p = 0.055.

The overall regression model was marginally significant only, R 2 = 0.11, F (3, 62) = 2.70, MSE = 382.48, p = 0.055.

Results The results showed that under all the culture priming conditions, the novelty of the story-writing task reached marginal significance [ F (3, 76) = 2.656, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.410], and the novelty score of the story-writing task in the United States was significantly higher than that in the control group ( p = 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the other groups.

Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression significantly differed (except marginally nonsignificant for the calm-excited measure; p = 0.055; η p 2 = 0 . 24 ) from the neutral condition on all the dependent measures (all η p 2 > 0.80).

Simple slope analysis revealed that in the high social norms group, the effect of egoistic motivation on participation behavior was marginally significant (simple slope = 0.404, SE = 0.211, t = 1.918, p = 0.055), whereas in the low social norms group, the effect was not significant (simple slope = 0.206, SE = 0.149, t = 1.380, p = 0.168).

When symbolic responses from the two Single conditions were summed and compared to these responses from the two Multiple conditions, a paired t -test revealed a borderline significant difference, t (15) = 2.1, p = 0.055, d = 0.42 (Multiple > Single).

Importantly, we found a significant interaction between FI, AA levels, and Condition for monetary offers ( B = 7.45, p < 0.01, Table 6 ), a marginally significant main effect of AA on food offers ( B = 2.89, p = 0.055), and a close to significant interaction between AA and Condition ( B = -3.13, p = 0.068) for food offers.

Indeed, we did see that concurrent load increased partner-duplications at generation, consistent with its demonstrated effect on working memory ( Quinn and Ralston, 1986 ; Smyth and Pendleton, 1989 ; Lawrence et al., 2001 ; Can et al., 2017 ), and decreased correct recall of partner actions [this simple effect was marginally significant, F (2,34) = 3.17, MSe = 2.33, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.157].

For native Chinese speakers, the main effect of clause type on accuracy was marginally significant [ F 1(1, 37) = 3.91, MSE = 0.001, p = 0.055, partial eta squared (η 2 ) = 0.10; F 2(1, 14) = 0.96, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.34, η 2 = 0.08].

This was true for the larger individual dataset also, t (93) = 2.38, p = 0.019, η 2 = 0.057, while the trend in the other dataset fell short of significance, t (39) = 1.98, p = 0.055, η 2 = 0.091, though the effect size was larger.

We conducted a two way (time × 3, putt distance × 4) ANOVA on this data which showed the main effect of time to be approaching significance [ F (2,10) = 3.94, p = 0.055, r = 0.53] but the interaction effect was non-significant [ F (6,30) = 1.14, p = 0.36, r = 0.19].

For NH listeners in the vocoded condition, there were significant main effects for fricative spectrum ( p < 0.001) and formant transitions ( p < 0.05), and a marginally significant effect of vowel ( p = 0.055), all in the expected directions.