Excerpts

Regarding basic psychological knowledge, the ANOVA approached significance for the multiple-choice questions [ F (4, 80) = 2.3, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10].

In addition, students with one or both parents who were high school graduates were reclassified earlier than students whose parents were not high school graduates, reaching marginal significance ( p = 0.06).

Additionally, mobility showed a trend with poorer performance in Science, such that mobile students scored on average 10.2 points lower ( SE = 5.42, p = 0.06) and were likely to reach proficiency in Science only 89% as often ( OR = 0.89, CI = [0.80–1.01], p = 0.07) as stable students.

A marginally significant main effect of Presentation [ F (1,29) = 3.77, p = 0.06] but no significant effects of Group or Group × Presentation emerged for RMSSD.

The main effect of Block was marginally significant [ F (2.864,112) = 2.602, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.085], whereas no interaction between Session and Block was identified [ F (4,112) = 0.654, p = 0.625, partial η 2 = 0.023].

A 2 (Group) × 2 (Run) × 3 (Condition) mixed ANOVA for errors with repeated measures for Run and Condition revealed no significant differences between Groups, F (1, 29) = 1.17, p = 0.29, η 2 = 0.04, no significant effect for Run, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η 2 = 0.07, no significant effect for the Run × Group interaction, F (1, 29) < 1, a significant trend for the Condition × Group effect, F (2, 58) = 3.04, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, and a significant Run × Condition × Group interaction, F (2, 58) = 5.20, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.15.

It should be noted that subjects showed a trend toward selecting the larger number for the 1 vs. 2 condition ( p = 0.06; Figure 2 ).

Results for the Non-Risks items are marginally significant ( p = 0.06), showing a tendency to decrease self-risk behaviors: the mean score and standard deviation at pre-test were T0: M = 50.03, SD = 11.48, while at post-test T1: M = 44.35, SD = 10.99.

The linear trend for this effect, however, was only marginally significant [ F (1, 95) = 3.83, p < 0.06].

A 2 (gender) × 3 (experimental conditions) ANOVA on the perceived importance of the socially related SDGs indicated a significant main effect of experimental conditions, F (2,293) = 4.72, p = 0.01, η p 2 = 0.08, a significant main effect of gender, F (1,293) = 23.95, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.08, and a marginally significant interactive effect of gender and experimental conditions, F (2,293) = 2.82, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.02.

Higher maternal education had a marginally significant association with lower AOSI scores [ t (37) = −1.97, p = 0.06].

The predictability effects were significant at FCZ, CZ, CPZ, and PZ ( p s < 0.0001), but only marginally significant at Fz ( p = 0.06).

Post hoc analysis of the interaction using the Johnson-Neyman technique, as shown in Figure 1 , revealed no significant relation between T1 EF and T2 PPVT for TH children ( t = 0.99, p = 0.33), but a marginally significant negative relation for DHH children ( t = –1.91, p = 0.06), such that lower (better) T1 EF scores were significantly related with higher (better) T2 PPVT scores.

Follow-up tests for each level of Order, separately, indicated that there was no Task effect associated with Order 1 [ F (4, 10.88) = 1.86, p = 0.19] nor for Order 2 [ F (4, 10.27) = 2.36, p = 0.12], but there was a nearly significant Task effect for Order 3 [ F (4, 14.39) = 2.87, p = 0.06].

Close to a marginally significant level of group differences were found in general intellectual ability [ F (3,125) = 2.58, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.06].

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of relatedness, F 1 (1, 52) = 3.67, MSE = 1518, p = 0.06; F 2 (1, 11) = 3.48, MSE = 625.11, p = 0.09, showing that response latencies were faster in the related condition than in the unrelated condition.

Post hoc paired-sample t -tests reported significant difference between Static and Moving conditions at the presentation duration of 1200 ms [ t (11) = −4.586, p = 0.002], though it failed to reach significance under 800 ms [ t (11) = 0.561, p > 0.999], and with marginally significant difference under 1000 ms [ t (11) = −2.717, p = 0.060] presentation duration (all Bonferroni-corrected).

The effect was also marginally significant for the GMs detailed score ( p = 0.06).

The AgCC group revealed a borderline significant correlation between ToM and the SDQ Peer Problems subscale [ r (17) = −0.45, p = 0.06], and the Prosocial subscale marginally correlated with ToM [ r (17) = 0.46, p = 0.06], complex mental state recognition [ r (18) = 0.42, p = 0.08], and inhibitory control [ r (15) = 0.48, p = 0.06].

Using Pillai’s trace, the multivariate statistics revealed a main effect of WTC on cognitive functioning, F (3,31) = 3.32, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.24, as well as a marginally significant interaction between WTC and leisure time activity, F (3,31) = 2.79, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.21, but no main effect of leisure-time activity, F (3,31) = 1.48, p = 0.24, η 2 = 0.13, and voluntariness in WTC, F (3,31) = 2.03, p = 0.13, η 2 = 0.16.

The path of perceived teacher support positively predicting self-efficacy through performance-approach goals and positive emotions is borderline significant ( p = 0.06).

Agreeableness showed marginally significant results (b = 2.39, p = 0.06).

The main effect of motion speed was marginally significant ( F 1,44 = 2.99, p = 0.06).

Moreover, the interaction between Language and kind of Verb almost reached significance as well, F (1, 72) = 3.68, MSe = 3490.70, p < 0.06.

While the trends indicated that all aspects of self-esteem followed the same general pattern (i.e., synchronous > asynchronous), only the appearance subscale approached significance, t (64) = 2.4, p = 0.06, d = 0.6, 95% CI of mean difference: 0.4, 4.7, suggesting that this aspect may have been driving the overall self-esteem effect more so than the performance, t (64) = 1.4, p = 0.51, 95% CI of mean difference: -0.5, 3.0, or social subscales, t (64) = 1.3, p = 0.60, 95% CI of mean difference: -0.8, 3.7.