Excerpts

The difference in false alarms was significant, t (48) = 3.158, p < 0.01, while the difference in misses approached but did not reach significance, t (48) = 1.844, p = 0.07.

For high-frequency words, there was a marginal significance NS effect ( p = 0.07), while for low-frequency words, large neighborhood words had a significantly high accuracy rate than small neighborhood words ( p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1A .

The association was attenuated at the median quantile ( τ = 0.50: B = 1.22, bootstrap standard error = 0.40, p < 0.01) and only marginally significant at the 75th percentile ( τ = 0.75: B = 0.68, bootstrap standard error = 0.37, p = 0.07).

By adding Group and Group * Period interaction, the model improved with marginal significance ( p = 0.07).

The analysis of variance revealed a marginally significant difference between the scale values of valence pre and post-training sessions [ F (1, 11) = 3.99; p = 0.07; η 2 = 0.27].

For the duration of CE and the self/environment dimension, the effect of stage was only marginally significant ([ F (3) = 2.8, p = 0.07] and [ F (3) = 2.7, p = 0.08] respectively).

The results indicate a marginally significant effect of happiness when bargaining power is low, OR = 2.06, p = 0.07, 95% CI (0.94, 4.49), such that happy participants are 2.06 times more likely to make a request (probability of requesting increases to 40.61% when happiness increases by one unit).

On the other hand, in the related condition, the group effect was close to significance in the participant analysis, t 1 (58) = 1.84, p = 0.07, and it was significant in the item analysis, t 2 (40) = 2.87, p = 0.007.

The three-way interaction of Required Response × Gender × Gender Stereotype fell short of significance, F (1, 45) = 3.48, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.07 (see Figure 4 ).

There was no significant relationship between context effects and scores on consonant, vowel or sentence recognition (the correlation between vowel recognition and gender context effect approached significance; t = 2.32, adjusted p = 0.07).

The moderating role of mental health literacy on the relationship between psychological vulnerability and adolescent anxiety was left marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Condition, [ F (2, 112) = 5.951, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.10] a marginally significant main effect of Gaze Trial, [ F (3, 168) = 2.35, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.04].

We found a marginally significant simple effect of Group, such that ASD participants had lower CC [ B = -0.898; SE = 0.501; Wald Chi-Square = 2.12; p = 0.07; Exp(B) = 0.41]; a simple effect of Repetitive [ B = 0; SE = 0.001; Wald Chi-Square = 3.99; p = 0.046; Exp(B) = 1.00], such that participants who moved faster during the Repetitive motion task, attained more CC in the Following round of the MG.

This effect was marginally significant [M warmth appeal = 5.97, SD = 0.72, M absence of warmth appeal = 5.63, SD = 0.97, t (168) = 1.66, p = 0.07].

The ANCOVA showed a tendency toward significance for antecedents of burnout at posttest2 [ F (1,101) = 3.22, p = 0.07; ω 2 = 0.02, I.C. 95% (0.00, 0.09)], and statistically significant effects for antecedents of burnout at follow-up [ F (1,101) = 4.17, p = 0.04; ω 2 = 0.03, I.C. 95% (0.00, 0.10)]. 4.

The following univariate ANOVAs indicated that following a sad mood induction, participants who received emotionally engaging instructions exhibited a marginally significant greater decline in general mood [ F (1, 26) = 3.70, p = 0.07] and a greater incline in sad rating [ F (1, 26) = 6.24, p < 0.05] than participants who received emotionally disengaging instructions, compared to baseline mood ratings.

However, we also obtained a marginally significant interaction effect between these two factors, F (2, 308) = 2.66, p = 0.07, η = 0.02.

Further, there was a marginally significant difference in local detail ratio [ F (2,16) = 3.09, p = 0.07].

Post-hoc analyses showed that Japanese books had significantly more challenge events than Indonesian books ( M Japanese = 4.75, SD = 2.49; M Indonesian = 2.6, SD = 1.76, p = 0.035) and that American books had a greater number of challenge events than Indonesian books, although the difference was only marginally significant ( M American = 4.5, SD = 3.46, p = 0.07).

Conversational-1st order resulted in a significant difference in the two speech styles; for learning efficiency, t (23) = 3.60, p = 0.002; immediate memory, t (23) = 2.49, p = 0.021; and marginally significant for delayed memory, t (23) = 1.90, p = 0.07.

Animals exhibited a statistical trend consistent with a gradual decline of exploratory activity during the first three training days ( F = 3.31, P = 0.07, one-way repeated measures ANOVA), and a comparison in total exploration time between the first and third training sessions reached statistical significance ( P < 0.05, t = 2.81, df = 6, paired samples t -test).

The comparison of (O1 + O2 + O3 + EQ) for Experiment 3 does not reach statistical significance, although a trend towards significance is apparent ( P = 0.07, t = 2.05, df = 8) that was not seen for the O1 + O2 + O3 parameter ( P > 0.1, t = 1.41, df = 8).

However, we found only a marginally significant ( p = 0.07) interaction in the regression model for the RAT.

Follow-up t -tests showed that the magnitude of the Validity effect was similar for Groups 1 and 2 (54 and 56 ms, respectively; t < 1), and that the effect was smaller for Group 3 (44 ms) than for Group 2 [ t (238) = 2.44, p < 0.02] and, although marginally significant, than for Group 1 [ t (238) = 1.84, p < 0.07].

For Caucasians, the main effect of condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.07), the main effect of SOA was significant ( p < 0.01), and the interaction was not significant.