Excerpts

There was however a marginally significant negative correlation between participants’ scores on the non-planning factor of the BIS-11 and accuracy on the causal attribution task, r = −0.229, n = 70, p = 0.057.

An ANOVA comparing N400 amplitude across between-language related pairs and unrelated prime-target pairs revealed a near-significant main effect of condition, F (1, 15) = 4.25, p = 0.057, η 2 p = 0.22.

Also as expected, among participants high on national identification, we found a marginally significant interaction between self-esteem and mortality salience, β = −0.21, t (166) = −1.91, p = 0.057, 95% CI [−0.43, 0.01].

However, there was a near-significant interaction between similarity and time of retrieval, F (1, 39) = 3.847, p = 0.057, η 2 p = 0.090, suggesting that although sensitivity was affected by the similarity of the pair-associates, this differed according to the time of retrieval.

The main effect of Position was marginally significant with the tendency of faster responses to lower targets than higher targets [ F (1,40) = 3.854, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.088].

Additionally, a marginally significant main effect of AI ( B = 0.097, SE = 0.050, t = 1.93, p = 0.057, semipartial r = 0.21) emerged.

These correlations were positive and significant for songs directed to males [ r (11) = 0.626, p = 0.039; Figure 4 ] and positive and nearly significant for songs directed to females [ r (11) = 0.589, p = 0.057; Figure 4 ].

Although the interaction between social media self-disclosure and gender in predicting cyberbullying victimization was only marginally significant ( β = −0.166, p = 0.057, 95% CI = [−0.336, 0.005]), post-hoc analysis found the simple slope was significant for females ( β = 0.180, t = 4.141, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.095, 0.266]) but not significant for males ( β = 0.015, t = 0.195, p = 0.846, 95% CI = [−0.133, 0.162]) ( Figure 3 ).

While in the negative-different condition the difference between the Mandarin and English speakers’ response speed only approached significance (estimate = 289, SE = 147, t = 1.96, p = 0.057), the Mandarin speakers were significantly slower in the negative same condition than the English speakers (estimate = 328, SE = 108, t = 3.03, p = 0.004).

There was no significant interaction between Congruency and Letter String Type, although this interaction approached significance, F (1, 23) = 2.632, MSE = 830.390, p = 0.057.

IPA in interaction with Time and Time 2 showed marginal significance with B = −1.13, t (58.2) = −1.94, p = 0.057 and B = 0.06, t (43.6) = 1.90, p = 0.098, respectively, indicating that higher IPA was related to a stronger linear decrease of SBP and a stronger quadratic response.

We also observed a marginally significant interaction of expression and group F (10,225) = 1.83, p = .057, η p 2 = 0.08.

However, there was an inverse, marginally significant correlation between comments and closed prompts ( r = 0.74, p = 0.057), indicating that teachers who made more comments asked fewer closed questions.

The linear regression for educational toys was marginally significant, F (1,159) = 3.67, p = 0.057, because again, the higher the AQ, the less likely the selection of an educational toy, see Figure 4B .

The interaction between Type and age Group was significant in the comparison between the younger and the older children in the case of False controls ( p = 0.002), while it only approached significance in the case of True controls ( p = 0.057), again suggesting a developmental trend in children’s ability to conform to the task and to detect the violations of conversational maxims, which improved with age.

In addition, controls showed a trend for ( r = 0.36, p = 0.057) and patients showed a significant ( r = 0.48, p = 0.03) correlation between N1 and N cl CSD differences.

The No-Constraint Mismatch condition (7b) waveform average amplitude is more negative than (7a) [ t -test nearly significant difference t′ (23) = 1.989, p = 0.057].

Moreover, we detected that the group main effect was marginally significant ( F 1,36 = 3.85, P = 0.057).

The main effect of group approached significance ( F (1, 65) = 3.75, p = 0.057), although a one-tailed test, which is appropriate for the prediction that accuracy is lower in the SCZ group, was significant ( t (65) = 1.94, p = 0.028).

Results from a one-tailed Pearson correlation test indicated a trend toward significance in the association between musical training and AWM task performance ( r = 0.191, p = 0.057).

The analysis showed a marginally significant main effect of Valence, F (1, 189) = 3.649, p = 0.057, ηp 2 = 0.019, suggesting that participants took less time answering to negative side effects ( M = 6.952, SD = 5.964; log( M ) = 1.621, log( SD ) = 0.825) than to the positive ones ( M = 8.249, SD = 9.089; log( M ) = 1.753, log( SD ) = 0.836).

For Immersion, the Kruskal-Wallis test approached significance, χ 2 (2) = 5.72, p = 0.057, ε 2 = 0.0339, but pairwise comparisons did not reveal significant differences between any groups. 4.

The two-way interaction between Spatial Cuing and SOA was marginally significant, F (2,48) = 3.043, p = 0.057.

Interaction between age group and stimulus culture was marginally significant ( F (2, 257) = 2.89, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.02).

The main effect of Target Type only approached significance [ F T (1,18) = 4.14, p = 0.057, η G 2 = 0.00024] whereas the effect of Retinal Size was not significant [ F R (1,18) = 0.51, p = 0.484] as well as the remaining interactions (all F ≤ 2.33; all p ≥ 0.144).