Excerpts

The Semantic relation × Sensory-motor relation interaction was also marginally significant [ F (1, 22) = 3.41, p = 0.078], but given its theoretical relevance we also explored the corresponding simple effects.

In the aggrieved cases, the association between conditional threats and approach fell short of significance in the current sample ( p = 0.078), whilst there was an effect size of 0.247.

There was a marginally significant interaction of grammaticality and WM proficiency ( Estimate = 0.036, SE = 0.02, df = 20.2, t = 1.854, p = 0.078), suggesting that higher Spanish reading proficiency may improve ability to correctly accept the grammatical sentences.

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].

group emotion had a marginally significant multivariate effect, F (3,119) = 2.33, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.055, although none of its univariate effects was significant.

Kendall’s Tau correlations indicated marginally significant negative correlations between spatial pattern awareness level (Appendix B , question 3) and visuo-spatial NAD learning, τ(20) = -0.315, p = 0.078.

A simple-effect analysis revealed that: (1) when no noise was present, the AULCSF was largest in TE, followed by GE and BE (all, p < 0.05); (2) when low noise was present, the AULCSF was also largest in TE, followed by GE and in BE (all, p < 0.05); (3) when high noise was present, only the difference in the AULCSF between TE and BE reached marginal significance ( p = 0.078).

The results indicated that there was no significant main effect of net-speak experience or word type ( F 1,57 = 0.065, p = 0.799; F 1,57 = 2.652, p = 0.109), but there was a nearly significant interaction between the two variables ( F 1,53 = 3.231, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.054) ( Figure 5 ).

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.

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

The between-group difference in PR was significant for startle probe 2 [ t (24) = 2.51, p = 0.019], while the difference in PR was marginally significant for startle probe 1 [ t (24) = 1.84, p = 0.078].

Explicit attitudes had a significant positive correlation with implicit attitudes ( r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and chocolate evaluation ( r = 0.21, p = 0.040), and a marginally significant positive correlation with chocolate consumption ( r = 0.18, p = 0.078).

Duration During the appearance of the 80–160 ms ERF component, the left Frontal cluster showed a trend for Hemisphere × Duration interaction: [ F (1,9) = 3.96; p = 0.078; η 2 = 0.31], due to a duration effect localized in the left hemisphere [ F (1,9) = 22.06; p = 0.001; η 2 = 0.71] with larger negativities for the short condition [ t (9) = -4.7; p < 0.001; d = 1.48].

A marginally significant correlation also emerged between children’s above chance performance with differently colored cups in 90° and 180° rotations, ρ( n = 24) = 0.37, p = 0.078.

The IEs for F tended to be larger than the IEs for H, but with just marginal significance for young adults ( p = 0.079) and failing statistical significance ( p = 0.323) for middle-age adults.

Second, we expected this difference to be larger in male than female observers and therefore we compared the difference between threatening minus neutral male body expressions between male and female observers which yielded a marginally significant difference ( t (24) = 1.454, p = 0.079, one-tailed).

In the first time window (400-600 ms), only a four-way interaction between condition, grammaticality, hemisphere, and anteriority was close-to-significant (F (2, 46) = 3.2, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.12) in the lateral analysis.

Differences Between Vignettes According to the results of the four-way ANOVA reported above, the three-way interaction between vignette, dimension of mind, and target of attribution was marginally significant [ F (2,224) = 2.56, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022].

The association between environmental attitudes and behavior was marginally significant, F (1, 138) = 3.13, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022, meaning that there was a trend for participants with higher levels of environmental attitudes to select environment-friendly options when printing (Cohen’s d = 0.30).

The model was marginally significant, χ 2 = 5.07, df = 2, p = 0.079.

Second, the main effect of condition was marginally significant [ F (2,76) = 2.632, p = 0.079, post hoc power 0.509] ( Figure 6B ).

This analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between target size and feedback factor, F (9, 189) = 1.8, p = 0.079, η 2 p = 0.077 (additionally to a significant main effect of target size, see above).

For team performance, the interaction effect was only marginally significant ( β = −0.165, SE = 0.09, t = −1.78, p = 0.079, d = 0.16, p adj = 0.081), providing partial support for Hypothesis 3b, which claims stronger negative effects in human–AI teams.

There was a marginally significant culture by somatic words interaction, B = 0.17, β = 0.19, SE = 0.10, t = 1.77, p = 0.079, a significant culture by relational concerns interaction, B = -0.31, β = -0.20, SE = 0.14, t = -2.22, p = 0.028, and a significant culture by interaction partner interaction, B = 0.65, β = 0.38, SE = 0.20, t = 3.22, p = 0.002.

An interaction between group and test was marginally significant [ F (2,52) = 2.66, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.09].