The planned comparison of confidence ratings for correct versus incorrect responses in the non-social task only approached significance [ t (9) = 2.11, p = 0.06] probably due to the reduced statistical power under this condition.
During anger episodes, Americans (90.5%) were more likely to report aggression than Belgians (48.6%), χ 2 (1) = 10.15, p < 0.001; in comparison, Belgians (48.6%) were tendentially more likely to report a tendency to distance themselves from the situation compared to Americans (23.8%), as indicated by a weak trend, χ 2 (1) = 3.45, p = 0.06.
The linear trend for this effect, however, was only marginally significant [ F (1, 95) = 3.83, p < 0.06].
The main effect of motion speed was marginally significant ( F 1,44 = 2.99, p = 0.06).
We observed marginally non-significant differences (between-sessions’ effects) in mean EES scores of all three weeks between the exercise sessions ( p = 0.06, p η 2 : 0.09), where the participants reported higher enjoyment in INT80 sessions compared with CE70 sessions ( p = 0.06), with no differences between INT80 vs.
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.
Also in contrast to the early P3, the SI-perpetrator × Trait-BIS interaction was only marginally significant for the late parietal P3 amplitude, F (4,88) = 2.32, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10.
Results and Discussion An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on word/non-word (W+ versus W-) and phonological similarity to Chinese (C+ versus C-) revealed a marginally significant effect of word ( M w+ = 5.74, SD = 1.60, and M w - = 5.15, SD = 1.91); F (1,35) = 3.70, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.10; a significant effect of phonological similarity ( M c+ = 6.28, SD = 1.53 and M c - = 4.61, SD = 1.64), F (1,35) = 59.32, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63; and a significant word by phonological similarity interaction, F (1,35) = 7.18, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.17.
Most findings were either clearly significant or non-significant, and there were few of the borderline and near-significant results that can result from underpowering, with the exception of the 0.3 correlation ( p = 0.06) between Arithmetic Scaled Score and Backward Digit Span, However, it is still possible that some potentially significant associations were not found due to the relatively small sample size and that this may partially explain the limited number of independent predictors found.
The effect on bias bordered on significance [ t (4) = 2.03, p = 0.06] suggesting that participants may have been more conservative in the training phase compared to the test phase (see Figure 3B ).
There was a trend toward significance for larger changes in the follow instructions task, (β = 0.10, p = 0.06), but not for arithmetic, (β = -0.02, p = 0.827).
Nevertheless, there is a marginally significant difference in Ln LF values of HTA subjects during different experimental phases [ F (2,47) = 3.01, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.22].
Midline analyses revealed a similar pattern of results: the main effect of Language approached significance [ F (1,13) = 4.13, p = 0.06] and was qualified by a Language × Anteriority interaction [ F (2,26) = 8.62, p = 0.01]: Welsh targets elicited more negative ERP amplitudes than English targets at CZ and CPZ sites ( p = 0.003, p < 0.05, respectively; PZ, p = 0.78).
However, amount of previous consumption was not statistically significant, although it showed a trend in which those who had previously consumed reported a higher intention to consume again [ β = 1.360, t (213.387) = 1.894, p = 0.060].
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].
Although the individual spline basis terms were only marginally significant ( p = 0.06 and p = 0.08, respectively), the overall improvement in model fit provides suggestive evidence of a non-linear association between workload and workplace well-being.
A chi-square test revealed a marginally significant association between hassle and behavioral orientation ( χ 2 = 5.63, df = 2, p = 0.06).
The direct effects of growth mindset on psychological well-being and school engagement in this group are marginally significant ( p = 0.060 and p = 0.054, respectively).
A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].
Although we found no age differences in parent-report of impersonation ( p = 0.42), we found marginally significant age differences in parent-report of ICs [ F (2,61) = 2.97, p = 0.06] with 9-year-olds having the lowest rate of parent-report (76%).
Autonomous talk There was a main effect of event valence on mothers’ autonomous talk, χ 2 (1, N = 141) = 14.01, p < 0.001, φ = 0.32, qualified by a marginally significant Culture × Valence interaction, χ 2 (2, N = 141) = 5.61, p = 0.06, φ = 0.20.
4 , 5 , 6 Importantly, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction between veracity, being forewarned, and time, b = –0.001, F (1,154.001) = 3.598, p = 0.060, and, also a marginally significant interaction between veracity and being forewarned, b = –0.165, F (1,153.534) = 3.461, p = 0.065 (see Figure 1 ).
In Experiment A, RTs for correct responses to events were numerically longer in the low-salient event ( M = 666 ms, SD = 139) than in the high-salient event condition ( M = 606, SD = 128) and this difference approached significance, t (19) = 2.00, p = 0.060, d z = 0.45.
There was a marginally significant indirect effect from birth mother emotion dysregulation to adoptive fathers’ overreactivity through prenatal distress (β = −0.01, SE = 0 .01, p = 0.06).
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].