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).
Additionally, there were significant two-way interactions between valence and context ( F (2,456) = 103.24, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.312), approximately significant two-way interactions between word class and context ( F (1,228) = 3.73, p = 0.055, η 2 = 0.016), and significant two-way interactions between valence and word class ( F (2,246) = 45.65, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.167).
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).
Repeat Measurement Analysis of Variance of 2 (Gender: Male, Female) × 2 (Social Distance: Itimacy, Strangeness) × 2 (Symmetry of Punishments: Symmetric Punishment, Asymmetric Punishment) Performed for Defection Rate The results of repeated measures ANOVA showed that the main effect of gender was nearly significant, with F (1,77) = 3.784, P = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.047, and observed power = 0.384, indicating that the non-cooperation rate of men (0.374) was slightly lower than that of women (0.424).
Also, two marginally significant interactions of anxiety × skill level [ F (1,34) = 3.93, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.10] and anxiety × occlusion time [ F (1,34) = 3.83, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.10] were observed.
With regard to eating behavior, the results showed that those who responded reported almost significant ( U = 96.5, p = 0.055) higher levels of goal achievement than those who did not respond.
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.
With respect to target identification rates for the 7–13 condition, the correlation between b and the ELS for the practiced positions showed an increasing trend that peaked at the 3-Day condition, r (11) = 0.54, p = 0.055.
A follow-up t -test indicated that non-clustered learners showed a marginal trend toward better memory than clustered learners for the first 30 LP trials ( t (60) = 1.96, p = 0.055, Cohen’s d = 0.51, CL effect size = 64%; clustered: M = 0.57, 95% CI [0.51, 0.62]; non-clustered: M = 0.65, 95% CI [0.58, 0.72]).
The group difference on the measure of word decoding approached significance ( U = 50.0, p = 0.055).
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.
In terms of social influences, the meta-analysis indicates that the association between social influences and pandemic fatigue is marginally significant ( p = 0.055).
The direct comparisons of the gender-specific correlation coefficients via Fisher- Z -tests showed that the relationship of teasing and depression was significantly higher in women than in men ( p = 0.025), and there was a trend towards significance for anxiety ( p = 0.055).
The control group also reached significance in the English-to-Chinese direction ( d = 0.64), but only marginally significant in the Chinese-to-English direction ( p = 0.055).
A marginally significant parameter suggested that reports of more calmness were associated with activity increases ( b = 1.031, p = 0.055).
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].
The Behavior Type x RLS interaction approached significance, F (2,86) = 3.01, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.07 (being further qualified by Majority of Behavior, F (2,86) = 4.41, p = 0.015, η p 2 = 0.09), thus confirming the above-described pattern.
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.
Similarly, feeling alienated maintained a marginally significant prediction of voting in the presence of self-transcendence, b = −0.206, SE = 0.108, z (1044) = −1.917, p = 0.055, and indirect effect analysis indicated that alienation was a mediator, b = 0.064, SE = 0.034, [0.002, 0.134].
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.
We found a marginally significant task type × electrode × group interaction effect, F (3, 117) = 2.62, p = 0.055, η 2 = 0.06.
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).
This association persisted as a marginally significant trend for long-term effects ( r s = 0.745, p = 0.055, q = 0.059).
This interaction was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 350 ) = 3.70, p < 0.055, [ η p 2 ] = 0.010.
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].