Further, performance in the cases where participants indicated rule knowledge as their basis was higher than in the cases where participants indicated that memory was their basis, and this difference approached significance (estimate = 0.39, SE = 0.21, p = 0.057).
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 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).
A 4 × 2 ANOVA conducted with Schedule and Stimulus as factors found only the main effect of Stimulus to be significant, F( 1,28) = 81.46, p < 0.001, although the effect of Schedule also approached significance, F (3,28) = 2.81, p = 0.057.
Bonferroni-adjusted simple effects showed no significant group differences for any individual emotion when covariates were held at their means (ERQ_Sup = 4.0522, ERQ_Cog = 4.8276, MoCA = 27.885), although anger retained a marginal trend (Δ = −0.309, p = 0.057).
The effect of vigilance in interaction with dyslexia was almost significant ( p = 0.057), showing a higher effect of vigilance in DD’s sense of competencies as compared to the control [b(DD) = 8.6; b(C) = 6.9].
The relationship between explanations and condition were marginally significant for 5-year-olds [χ 2 (2) = 5.73, p = 0.057]. “No idea” responses were comparable in both conditions, however, there were more 5-year-olds in the arbitrary condition who referred to wrong explanations than in causal condition and there were more children in causal condition that referred to the “correct explanation” than in the arbitrary condition.
Body Mass Index Analyzing changes in BMI for the 81% of participants who were able to provide a photo of their body weight showed a trend Group × Time interaction, F (1,44) = 3.81, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.080.
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.
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.
For belief in the paranormal, we found significant rationality × sample (β = .35, p = .003) and experientiality × sample interactions (β = −.24, p = .036), as well as a marginally significant CRT × sample interaction (β = .21, p = .057).
Results showed a marginally significant effect of depiction on the frequency of ToM-self, χ 2 (4) = 9.16, p = 0.057.
There was a marginally significant effect for Mandarin vocabulary as a predictor of the trilinguals' Mandarin RC performance: χ 2 (1) = 3.09, p = 0.079 and a marginal significance for Cantonese vocabulary as a predictor of the trilinguals' Cantonese RC performance: Cantonese χ 2 (1) = 3.62, p = 0.057), showing that, unsurprisingly, children's RC comprehension in a language improved as their vocabulary scores in the target language increased.
A significantly reduced Stroop interference was observed in the EXD group [ F (1,34) = 12.917, p = 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.275], whereas the CON group showed a marginally significant change [ F (1,34) = 3.898, p = 0.057, partial η 2 = 0.103; Table 3 and Figure 2A ].
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.
However, there was an almost significant stimulus type × group interaction ( p = 0.057) and a significant stimulus type × phase interaction ( p = 0.00003).
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].
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 ).
In addition, the interaction between group and valence was marginally significant, F (1, 57) = 3.769, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.062.
The two-way interaction between Spatial Cuing and SOA was marginally significant, F (2,48) = 3.043, p = 0.057.
Wife’s age at time of marriage, on the other hand, was a marginally significant, negative predictor of marriage duration (Wald’s χ 2 = 3.62, df = 1, p = 0.057).
However, when the expressed emotion was happiness, the difference between the two was marginally significant F (1,61) =3.72, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.05.
Also, the main effect of attentional focus was marginally significant, F (1, 44) = 3.80, p = 0.058.
However, we observed an increasing trend of average fixation rate from C2 to C3 ( Z = 1.88, p = 0.058).
The regression model was marginally significant, R 2 = 0.35, F (7, 36) = 2.25, p = 0.058; Table 5 shows the results.