Excerpts

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].

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).

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).

We failed to replicate sensory attenuation for the self in either Chinese or British sample, though a trend toward significance was found among Chinese ( p = 0.07).

The older adults showed a significant effect for Target Gender (χ 2 = 4.34, df: 1, p < 0.05), and this effect was marginally significant for the fifth-graders (χ 2 = 3.37, df: 1, p = 0.07).

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.

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

Finally, a three-way validity × believability × stimulation condition was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 33 ) = 3 . 58 , p = 0 . 07 , η p 2 = 0 . 10 .

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).

The results of the one-sided two-sample T -tests are presented as following: the control group, the participants who were simply asked for a donation, donated more than the first treatment group who were offered the tote bag as a thank-you gift ( p = 0.048, mean.c = 28.76, Sd-c = 25.65, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74); the difference become insignificant when compared to the second treatment group for whom the statement is given ( p = 0.205, mean.c = 28.76, Sd.c = 25.65, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42); however, the difference between the control groups is only weakly significant ( p = 0.070, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42).

The student’s independent-samples t -test, by assessing the changes (i.e., post-task–pre-task) on each dimension and on the total scale of the SOFI, showed that they were of statistical significance between groups when looking at sleepiness [ t (19) = 2.10; p = 0.05; η 2 = 0.188] as well as of marginal significance in total fatigue [ t (19) = 1.89; p = 0.07; η 2 = 0.159].

The effect of HLG approached significance [ F (1,19) = 3.90, p = 0.07], where the visual acuity under HLGY was better than under HLGN.

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.

There was also a trivial main effect of the variable quintile, F (4, 156) = 270.59, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.87 (ε = 0.26), and the variable quintile also interacted significantly with congruence, F (4, 156) = 6.97, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.15 (ε = 0.51), with prime type, F (4, 156) = 5.80, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.13 (ε = 0.45), and in a marginally significant three-way interaction with congruence and prime type, F (4, 156) = 3.02, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.07 (ε = 0.38).

Moreover, fatalistic determinism is negatively correlated with the internal locus of control in the FAD-J, but not significant in the FAD+ (the difference is so-called marginally significant, Z = 1.831, p = 0.07).

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.

Regarding the predictor Grade, the probability of successful answer was greater for the 5th graders (mean = 0.67, SD = 0.22) as compared to the 2nd graders (mean = 0.52, SD = 0.25), but this difference was only marginally significant (β = 0.62; SE = 0.57; Wald’s z = 1.81; p = 0.07).

The PR-only group showed greater performance at a trend level of significance compared with the TAU group (LM I: mean difference = 7.23, p = 0.070; LM II: mean difference = 6.86, p = 0.098).

The interaction between trial type and age group was marginally significant, F (1,20) = 3.58, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.15.

Total reading time analyses for the ADJ region yielded the same pattern but the effect was only marginally significant ( t = -1.85, p = 0.07).

As we expected, the main effect of nonverbal restraint on the perceived-leadership-worthiness score was marginally significant ( b = 0.25, SE = 0.13, p = 0.07).

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.

Moreover, a clear trend was observed for the variables of the Player Performing the Serve (χ 2 = 11.42; p = 0.07) and of the Serve Outcome (χ 2 = 16.8; p = 0.07).

Reductions in the correlation between left SFG and right LOC in Patient 2 ( p < 0.05), and right ( p < 0.01) and left (marginally significant: p = 0.07) SMG, and right LOC (marginally significant: p = 0.07) in Patient 3, and were also found.

On the basis of the planned expectation that the blurred-footage training group would improve their performance following training, we conducted a one-tailed t -test to test the significance of the change, with the effect falling just short of significance ( p = 0.07, β = 0.288), though with a moderate measure of effect size ( d = 0.47).