Excerpts

In the two-way interaction model, the interaction of percent positivity with relationship quality was marginally significant, p = 0.07, as was the interaction of cosine and relationship quality, p = 0.054.

Similarly, the difference between the score of DMT students group and the score of art studies students group approached significance ( p = 0.07).

In repeated measures ANOVAs, S1 compatibility approached significance in RTs, F (2,42) = 3.01, MSe = 575.99, p < 0.07, but not in error proportions, F (2,42) = 0.79, MSe = 0.002, p > 0.7; while S2 compatibility had a significant effect on both RTs, F (2,42) = 42.82, MSe = 20235.00, p < 0.001, and errors, F (2,42) = 48.85, MSe = 0.21, p < 0.001.

Results showed that the effect size of PATHS at follow-up was 0.10, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

For men, the relationship between restricted SRE and couple satisfaction is not significant at low (b = −0.15, SE = 0.10, p = 0.13) and medium levels of perceived partner disclosure (b = 0.003, SE = 0.07, p = 0.96), but becomes barely significant and positive at high levels of perceived partner disclosure (b = 0.16, SE = 0.09, p = 0.07).

Simple effects analyses found that in pain condition, participants experienced marginally significant more self-uncomfortableness for high facial attractive actors ( M = 3.41, SE = 0.12) compared to those for low facial attractive actors ( M = 3.34, SE = 0.12, p = 0.07); in non-pain condition, no such difference was found ( p = 0.18).

Intellectual activities had a marginally significant ( p = 0.07) impact on AMT overall: Estimate = 0.084, [−0.007 to 0.17], but did not interact with time.

The SCZ and the HC group only differed at a statistical trend ( Md SCZ = 6, Md HC = 7; W = 551.1, p = 0.07, d C = 0.27).

Examining the univariate effects on each cognitive test separately, there was interestingly not a significant main effect of depression on any single cognitive test, although the HVLT delayed recall scores approached significance, p = 0.07.

However, there was a suggestive trend ( p < 0.07, two-tailed) for the control house ( M = 3.57, SD = 3.10) to contain more mirrors than the target house ( M = 1.00, SD = 1.41).

The regression analysis showed a significant main effect for spatial ability [β = −0.507, se(HC4) = 0.181, p = 0.007], no main effect of condition [β = 0.703, se(HC4) = 0.399, p = 0.10], and a marginally significant interaction effect between spatial ability and condition [β = 0.224, se(HC4) = 0.123, p = 0.07].

The main effect of reference was nearly significant in the subjects analysis, F 1(1, 64) = 3.38, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.05, but non-significant in the items analysis, F 2(1, 29) = 2.32, p = 0.14, and the interaction between reference and nouns was not significant, F 1(1, 64) = 0.65, p = 0.42, F 2(1, 29) = 1.09, p = 0.31.

Finally, t -tests found a significant difference between the two groups on the Change scale ( t = 2.73, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.14), and a marginally significant difference on the Success scale ( t = 1.89, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.02).

The second ANOVA, conducted in order to provide a more in-depth investigation into the interaction between the priming effect and emotional valences, did yield a marginally significant Prime Emotion × Target Emotion interaction [ F (2,56, 97.21) = 2.5, p < 0.07, η p^2 = 0.06].

The interactions between experiments and measure types were significant when comparing Experiment 1 with Experiment 2 ( B = −0.60, SE = 0.33, p = 0.07, R 2 = 0.10; marginally significant), and comparing Experiment 2 with Experiment 3 ( B = 0.69, SE = 0.33, p = 0.04, R 2 = 0.10).

Response latencies in Range 3 were faster than in Range 4, although this effect was marginally significant [ F (1,7) = 4.72, MSE = 0.02,4, p < 0.07].

humans approached significance ( p = 0.070), pointing to a tendency for participants in the condition making humans salient to score higher on preference for autonomy- relative to dependency-oriented help. 10 A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) examining differences in helping orientations for dependency- and autonomy-oriented help between conditions 11 ( Table 4 ) did not reveal a significant multivariate effect of condition.

In terms of the d-FRN's statistical analysis from the other-chosen stocks, a 2 (stock owner: self, other) × 10 (electrode: F3, F4, FC1, FC2, Fz, Cz, C3, C4, CP1, and CP2) ANOVA produced a marginally significant main effect of ownership, F (1, 21) = 3.65, p = 0.07, η 2 partial = 0.148.

Critically, however, the difference between these two similarity correlations only approached significance, z = 1.84, p = 0.07.

For example, parent use of praise per minute was related to parent spatial language per minute, r (31)=0.52, p <0.05, and the relation between parent praise and parent use of persistence-focused language per minute was approaching significance, r (31)=0.33, p =0.07.

However, the interaction effect between illusion type and the number of repeated auditory stimuli was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.52, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.12, which means that the one and two repeated stimuli conditions showed no significant difference for both fission and fusion illusions.

The rate of color overspecification was numerically higher in Experiment 2 ( MR = 21.72) than in Experiment 1 ( MR = 15.28), but this difference was only marginally significant, U = 220.00, z = 1.91, p = 0.07.

The same pattern held true when we repeated the partial correlation analyses with the sub-sample of aphasic individuals only, with comprehension and repetition alone showing marginally significant correlations of 0.33 ( p = 0.07) and 0.32 ( p = 0.08), respectively.

When the not significant Incompatibility × Internal motivation, B = -0.20, SE = 0.15, p = 0.191, was entered into the model, the Incompatibility × External motivation interaction remained marginally significant, B = -0.21, SE = 0.11, p = 0.070.

However, this effect only approached significance ( t = 1.83, p = 0.07).