Excerpts

Gender-stratified analyses showed that the non-linear test was borderline significant in the male group (non-linear P = 0.067) and reached a significant level in the female group (non-linear P = 0.018).

There was also a marginally significant effect of career preference on perceived social support, F (2, 192) = 2.75, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.03 (see Figure 4 ).

A trend toward significance was also seen for activity at mismatched latitudes (−0.139, z = −1.834, p = 0.067) and could suggest a potential, slight decrease in activity at mismatched latitudes compared to activity displayed at matched latitudes.

No significant differences were found between these groups on these variables, although with regard to discrepancy the test approached significance ( p = 0.067), suggesting a stronger discrepancy in the participants who were excluded.

The interaction between Speaker and Adapter ambiguity approached significance, F (1,15) = 3.19, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.207, because the proportion of “b” responses averaged across Vb and Vd adapters was somewhat higher for “self,” than for “other” (the difference was 0.14 for ambiguous adapters, and 0.05 for unambiguous ones).

The results of the analysis of the effect of empathy on the ratings of aggressors showed significant two-way interactions between face gender and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .4) = 4.34, p < 0.05] and between face gender and affective empathy [ F ( 1 , 4970 .5) = 7.22, p < 0.01], a significant three-way interaction between cognitive empathy, face gender, and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .4) = 10.97, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant three-way interaction between affective empathy, face gender, and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .5) = 3.35, p = 0.067].

The interaction between individual power and electrode reached marginal significance, F (1, 38) = 3.545, p = 0.067, η 2 = 0.085.

In this model, clarity change for the full subsample remained non-significant, p = 0.240, however participants without mental illness demonstrated an increase in clarity that was marginally significant at p = 0.067.

As can be seen in Figure 2 , a majority of children (18) showed improvements in their SIPC scores from pre- to post-intervention, although the effect was only marginally significant [ t (30) = -1.903, p = 0.067, effect size r : 0.333, Cohen’s d : -0.706].

In this sense, there were statistically significant differences in men between those who practiced PA according to the ACSM and those who did not ( F 1,1244 = 10.688, p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.049), and a tendency toward significance in women ( F 1,1244 = 3.364, p = 0.067, η 2 = 0.043).

A marginal trend emerged regarding the effect of time, F (1, 51) = 3.51, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.064.

The main effects of moral scenario, F (1, 39) = 285.86, p < 0.001, η 2 g = 0.71, and temperature, F (1, 39) = 5.33, p = 0.026, η 2 g = 0.08, were significant, and the interaction between temperature and scenario was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 3.54, p = 0.067, η 2 g = 0.03.

For CB, the Integrated and Partial 1 group displayed a stronger drop in Correct Behavior with the former being significantly different to the Parallel ( p = 0.047) and Partial 2 ( p = 0.009) group, while the latter was approaching significance to the Parallel ( p = 0.067) and showing clearly significant difference to the Partial 2 ( p = 0.015) group.

However, the effect of the manipulation on students' entrepreneurial intent (INT) after controlling for students' gender and entrepreneurial role models, was marginally non-significant [ F (1, 75) = 3.445, p = 0.067].

Furthermore, we observed a trend toward significance in the variable Listening Condition, F (1,34) = 3.58, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.10, owing to higher sensitivity in the passive compared with active condition.

Among rural students, learning motivation was significantly higher in the experimental group (M = 5.35) than in the control group (M = 4.23; t = 4.06, p < 0.001), whereas among urban students the corresponding difference was smaller and reached only marginal significance (M = 5.07 vs. 4.53; t = 1.85, p = 0.067).

Repeated measures ANOVAs on the early time window yielded a near-significant interaction between condition × region × hemisphere on lateral electrode sites, F (4,14) = 2.95, p = 0.067, ηp2 = 0.15.

66 ± 14%, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant difference in the single task (86 ± 10 vs. 90 ± 9%, p = 0.068; Figure 2D ).

However, we found a marginally significant interaction between gender of participant and experimental condition on aesthetic appreciation, F = 3.35, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.004.

However, one difference between the groups approached significance: people in the mood-responsive group had marginally higher scores on the IRI Fantasy scale than those in the remaining group [20.7 vs. 17.7; F (1, 31) = 3.60, p = 0.068].

The trend toward significance for the positive coefficient for daylight (0.017, z = 1.828, p = 0.068) indicates a potential, slight increase in activity with an increase in amount of daylight.

Looking at the Condition * Religiosity interactions, we observed a marginally significant interaction in the USA sample (Religiosity * Secular: p = 0.068; Religiosity * Control: p = 0.052), but this interaction did not replicate in the other sites (ps > 0.3; Table 4 , Models B).

The observed variance of BY trials was also larger in the Temple study, trending toward significance [ F (103,92) = 3.36, p = 0.068].

The near-significant effect of published articles on future published articles (0.103, p = 0.068, 95% CI [−0.035, 0.239]) indicates a potential association.

A similar marginally significant two-way interaction emerged when comparing the control video with the porn baseline , B = 74.60, t (23427) = 1.824, p = 0.068, 95% CI: −5.569, 154.772.