Excerpts

In fact, we observed marginally significant ( p = 0.06, Student's t -test for case 1 ) and significant ( p = 0.009) preference bias in gaze for the last half second and for the half second after the decision timing, respectively.

Gender was a significant moderator of the actor effect ( p < 0.05), while the interaction between gender and partner effect approached significance ( p = 0.06).

Compared with the neutral PA, PA with emotional feedback led to higher intrinsic motivation (marginally significant) [ F (1, 107) = 3.72, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.034].

For the Stroop task, bilingual variables almost reached statistical significance (Estimated bilingualism β = 0.145, p = 0.06; L2 Proficiency β = 0.135, p = 0.07), although indicative of a bilingual disadvantage.

A χ 2 -homogeneity test revealed just a marginally significant difference between the interleaved and the blocked group at T1 with a small effect size, χ 2 (5, N = 2288) = 10.55, p = 0.06, C corr = 0.10.

The ANCOVA revealed no significant group difference for the 0–20 number line estimation errors [ F (1, 37) = 2.77; p = 0.11; partial eta 2 = 0.05], but did reveal a significant difference for the overall estimation error score [ F (1, 37) = 4.36, p = 0.044; partial eta 2 = 0.11], and a borderline significant difference for estimation errors in the 0–100 number line task, [ F (1, 37) = 3.77, p = 0.06; partial eta 2 = 0.092].

A chi-square test revealed that the four groups exhibited no significant differences in terms of sex (χ 2 = 1.95, p = 0.58) or grade taught (χ 2 = 1.88, p = 0.60) and only marginally significant differences in terms of whether they were head teachers (χ 2 = 7.58, p = 0.06).

The difference between the two measurements was marginally significant with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, Z = − 1.87, p = 0.06.

Behavioral Results Accuracy The repeated ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant congruency effect ( F = 3.64, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that the participants responded more accurately in the congruent trials ( M = 0.988, SD = 0.003) than in the incongruent trials ( M = 0.985, SD = 0.003).

ANOVA also revealed marginally significant interaction between self-referential type and caudality [ F (8,136) = 2.78, p = 0.06].

Finally, a positive trend could be observed between math anxiety scores and the IES difference ( r = 0.24; p = 0.06).

The simple main effect of test time showed that the cognitive training group significantly improved on executive control, F (1,66) = 28.57, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.30, the active control group showed a trend of improvement, F (1,66) = 3.61, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.05, and the waitlist group did not show any improvement ( p = 0.84).

Perceived stressfulness, however, was related to greater negative affect ( r = 0.74, p < 0.001) and, although not quite statistically significant, elevated cortisol AUCi ( r = 0.30, p = 0.06).

The model with word fluency and age tended toward significance ( p = 0.06), whereas the addition of the text fluency variables showed a significant change in explained variance for the model.

More interestingly, the Proposed solution x Group interaction was marginally significant [ F (1.32) = 3.69, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0 . 10 ].

However, more women in cluster 2 endorsed significant distress [χ 2 (2) = 23.67, p < 0.001], and nearly significant impact on functioning [χ 2 (2) = 5.51, p = 0.060, data not shown].

This difference was close to significance for right-displaced lines ( p = 0.06), with RH with a L-ESD tended to show a larger rightward deviation that the one observed in RH with a R-ESD.

which ), caused by lower performance on which than on who questions [ F (1,32) = 10.89, p = 0.002], and a marginally significant effect of group, caused by the HI children performing below the hearing children [ F (1,32) = 3.79, p = 0.06].

The interaction between DisplaySize and Congruency was marginally significant, F (1, 19) = 4.04, MS e = 360, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.18.

There was a significant interaction between sentence-effect compatibility and action-effect relation [ F (1, 38) = 8.04, MSE = 38.89, p = 0.007] and a marginally significant interaction between sentence-effect compatibility and SOA [ F (4, 152) = 2.67, MSE = 50.92, p = 0.06].

While the Consonant-Vowel contrast on the intercept term was not significant (β = 0.05, SE = 0.19, p = 0.81), its interaction with time was marginally significant (linear time parameter: β = 0.38, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06; cubic time parameter: β = −0.40, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06).

These slopes showed a clear trend toward being significantly different between them ( Z = 1.48, p = 0.06).

WS participants also considered avoiding trustworthy faces more than control participants, though the difference in MD was of borderline significance (0.45 vs. 0.29, p = 0.06).

A marginally significant difference was also found in ratings on the Traditional dimension between part time workers and full time workers [ t (323) = -1.89, p = 0.06], which supports the theory that younger workers are less inclined to perceive tradition as favorable in an organization.

In L2 learners, follow-up analyses revealed that the effect of grammaticality was only marginally significant in the singular attractor condition ( p = 0.060, d = 0.62), but this effect was absent in the plural attractor condition ( p = 0.840, d = 0.05).