Excerpts

We also compared memory accuracy within the same arousal condition, and found that there was a marginally significant difference in d-prime for objects in the cued location compared to the uncued location in the CS+ trials ( p = 0.076).

Unexpectedly, and contrary to H3 that feeling rejected would explain the positive effect of angry reactions on conformity, we found marginally significant evidence that the likelihood of conformity was reduced to the degree that participants had felt rejected, OR = 0.78, Wald’s z = -1.77, p = 0.077.

While most other physical health conditions, including digestive complaints, diabetes, chronic headaches, and sleep difficulties did not significantly predict body satisfaction, skin rash presented a marginally significant positive association ( p = 0.077).

Response Time analysis shows that high-PRVS participants respond more quickly, though this effect just fails to reach significance [low-PRVS = 691.5, high-PRVS = 620.3, F (1, 26) = 3.390, p = 0.077, η 2 p = 0.115].

A one-way ANOVA on the mean proportion of gaze points to the target object relative to the non-target object on the first question of the first trial revealed a marginally significant difference between conditions, F (2, 42) = 2.73 p = 0.077 (see Figure 4 ).

The categorization of 4-year-old children was already approaching significance for above chance assignments in Round 1 ( p = 0.077, n = 16) and Round 2 ( p = 0.210, n = 16), but not significantly.

The fourth (bottom right) position also attracted (marginally significant) longer fixations ( p = 0.077), while the second and third positions were less fixated on.

Drum breaks performed at 120 BPM showed higher ratings than those at 150 BPM (marginally significant, p = 0.077).

Of critical interest were paths ab (i.e., the indirect effects of daydreaming on social adaptation via loneliness), which were significant for daydreams that made participants feel more connected (β = 0.12, SE = 0.06, p = 0.047, 95% CI[0.02, 0.22]) and positive (β = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p = 0.033, 95% CI[0.03, 0.24]), marginally significant for daydreams that made participants feel less lonely (β = –0.13, SE = 0.07, p = 0.077, 95% CI[–0.24, –0.01]), and were more positive in content (β = 0.16, SE = 0.07, p = 0.013, 95% CI[0.06, 0.27]), and less fanciful (β = –0.19, SE = 0.09, p = 0.024, 95% CI[–0.35, –0.05]).

The correlation between leaders’ rational thinking and follower-rated intellectual stimulation was not significant in Study 1 [ r (160) = 0.06, p = 0.421] but was approaching significance in Study 2 [ r (74) = 0.207, p = 0.077].

darkness anxiety facial expression face memory The main effect of lighting condition was marginally significant, F (1, 41) = 3.29, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.001.

Results Linear mixed-effects models revealed significant time-by-group interaction effects for executive function components: inhibitory control ( p = 0.020, ICC = 0.057) and working memory ( p = 0.002, ICC = 0.054), with cognitive flexibility showing a trend toward significance ( p = 0.077, ICC = 0.000).

There was an effect of Familiarity that narrowly missed significance ( F 1,27 = 3.39, p = 0.077), and a significant interaction of Familiarity with Quadrant ( F 3,81 = 2.74, p = 0.05).

We repeated the analysis without controlling for whether the asker chose answer A as the best answer, and received similar but only marginally significant results: the estimated hazard ratio of the guilt-relief score was exp(B) = 0.90 ( B = -0.11, SE = 0.06, p = 0.077).

3.2.3 Cognitive flexibility Linear mixed-effects model analysis showed a time × group interaction effect that approached significance for cognitive flexibility [ F (2, 601.0) = 2.575, p = 0.077, ICC = 0.000], indicating a trend toward differential change patterns between groups across time points (see Figure 6 ).

Specifically, we found a marginally significant cubic trend ( F (1,1 4 ) = 3.6, p = 0.077) at SOA = 133 ms and a significantly linear trend at the long SOA = 466 ms ( F (1,1 4 ) = 13.2, p < 0.01).

Univariate ANCOVAs indicated a significant effect for scenario 1, F (1, 95) = 9.11, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.088, and scenario 3, F (1, 95) = 5.04, p = 0.027, η p 2 = 0.050, and a marginally significant effect for scenario 2, F (1, 95) = 3.20, p = 0.077, η p 2 = 0.033.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Error data There was a marginally significant interaction of Congruency N × Congruency N-1 , F (1,27) = 3.375, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.111, reflecting a typical conflict adaptation effect.

Indeed, analyses with shorter time windows revealed that the interaction of RC-Type * Electrodes * WM approached significance between 750 and 900 ms in the medial analysis [ F (2, 34) = 3.125, p = 0.077, η 2 = 0.148], and reached significance between 850 and 900 ms [ F (2, 34) = 4.711, p = 0.022, η 2 = 0.207].

A repeated measures ANOVA on RTs showed a significant load effect [ F (1,17) = 97.64, MS e = 3791.33, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.85], a significant reward effect [ F (2,34) = 13.13, MS e = 639.96, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.44], and a marginally significant interaction between them [ F (2,32) = 2.77, MS e = 662.64, p = 0.077, η p 2 = 0.14].

When the circle tool was not available, the between-subject effect was marginally significant, though still positive, b = 1.42, 95% CI [−0.15, 3.00], z = 1.77, p = 0.077.

For the second graders, the regression model in the first step was marginally significant, F (3, 48) = 2.43, p = 0.077.

Additionally, they showed higher PA scores, with a difference of 0.5 points between the median scores, approaching significance ( p = 0.078).

The main effect of AI thematic relevance was marginally significant, F (1, 373) = 3.13, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.008, indicating a trend for implicit AI topics to elicit greater dissonance than explicit topics, although the effect size was small.

The comparison of the second wanting and liking ratings showed a main effect with tendency toward significance of “evaluated aspects” [ F (1, 16) = 3.55; p = 0.078] but neither a significant main effect of “sex” [ F (1, 16) = 0.02; p = 0.881], nor a significant interaction between these two factors [ F (1, 16) = 0.22; p = 0.648].