Excerpts

Furthermore, a marginally significant difference was found in the by-item analysis [ F 2(1, 35) = 3.55, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.092].

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

Secondly, it is interesting to note that the overall mean WMC score for participants in Experiment 2 was higher ( k = 3.28) than the mean score found in Experiment 1 ( k = 3.09), with this difference being marginally significant [ t (82) = 1.85, p = 0.068, d = 0.40].

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.

The effect of rPTA-squared on alpha activity during the probe also proved to be significant and although the correlation between the alpha activity during the probe and the response times only approached significance ( p = 0.068), we believe that the changes in alpha power during the probe period arise from changes in the speed of information processing ( Klimesch, 2005 ) and not WM processing as such.

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].

Furthermore, despite the fact that the favorite songs were accompanied by a black screen, they showed a trend for being more engaging than the multimodal music videos ( p = 0.068).

Technophobia also had a marginally significant effect on fatigue, F (1, 73) = 3.440, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.045.

The differences between the control up condition and the unaltered condition were also marginally significant ( 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.

Linear mixed models showed a significant interaction between the canonical layout and the set size (β = 18.306, t = 12.682, p < 0.001), whereas the interaction between the symmetrical layout and the set size was only marginally significant (β = -2.991, t = -1.827, p = 0.068).

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 Wilcoxon test showed a marginally significant difference in AP before and after AR ( Table 5 ), Z = −1.83, p = 0.068, while there was no difference in SM or SE before and after AR, p > 0.05.

The group effect only tended toward significance, F (2, 42) = 2.87, p = 0.068, η 2 p = 0.120.

Simple slope tests showed that optimism positively predicted well-being for Euro-Canadians ( b = 0.40, t = 4.35, p < 0.001), but the effect was weaker and only marginally significant for Chinese ( b = 0.17, t = 1.83, p = 0.068).

A post hoc multiple comparison test showed that in the magnitude Stroop congruent condition, there was a marginally significant interaction between the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects, with F (1, 31) = 3.58, p = 0.068, and η p 2 = 0.10, showing that the effect size of the SNARC effect in the Simon congruent condition (41 ± 8 ms) tended to be larger than that in the Simon incongruent condition (25 ± 7 ms); however, in the magnitude Stroop incongruent condition, there was no interaction between the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects, with F (1, 31) = 0.71, p = 0.407, and η p 2 = 0.02 ( Figures 4A , B ; Table 3 ).

Covariates Since females showed a trend toward higher pain ratings (on painful pictures) than males [ T (102) = 1.846, p = 0.068], we included gender as covariate in all our analyses.

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.

Moreover, the influence of paranoia on predicting opponent’s fear was marginally significant ( Supplementary Table S5 ; odds ratio=1.23, 95% CI [0.98, 1.54], p =0.069).

As expected, we found a marginally significant effect of SVO in Model 1, b = 0.083, t (123) = 1.831, p = 0.069.

However, the product of the two path coefficients was only marginally significant ( ab = 0.013, z = 1.81, p = 0.069).

Noteworthy, this coefficient appeared as negative and marginally significant among boys, with a standardized beta value of β = −0.104, p = 0.069 (unstandardized b = −0.146, p = 0.078). 4.

Type III tests of fixed effects reported significant main effects of SI type ( F (1, 53.474) = 5.22, p = 0.026) and Group ( F (1, 23.916) = 14.079, p < 0.001) with a marginally significant interaction between the two factors ( F (1, 55.579) = 3.439, p = 0.069).

existential threat intergroup conflict political attitudes Israel Science Foundation 10.13039/501100003977 427/13 United States - Israel Binational Science Foundation 10.13039/100006221 2007230 The analyses indicated that Israeli in-group identification was associated with lower support of compromise [ b = -0.37, SE = 0.08, t = 4.49, p < 0.001, 95% CI for b (-0.53, -0.21)], greater perceptions of the Palestinians as homogenous [marginally significant; b = 0.15, SE = 0.08, t = 1.83, p = 0.069, 95% CI for b (-0.04, 0.27)], and less trust of the Palestinians [ b = -0.20, SE = 0.10, t = -2.02, p = 0.043, 95% CI for b (-0.40, -0.01)].

Interestingly, further analysis revealed that British participants perceived their past selves as being further away than their future selves at a marginally significant level, F (1, 80) = 3.41, p = 0.069, Cohen’s d = 0.407.