The same analysis indicated that the small-self-restriction group tended to show lower levels of SLC than the moderate-self-restriction group, but the difference was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.08 after the correction).
The differences for PPI-R-SF Fearless Dominance were in the same direction but fell short of significance [ t (3175) = 1.74, p = 0.08, d = 0.12] (subsidiary analyses excluding Eastern Europeans and focused on Western Europeans only yielded very similar results for all psychopathy variables).
The marginally significant interaction between body part and emotion F (2, 68) = 2.62, p = 0.080 however, suggests that the main effect of emotion is driven by the facial expression.
The main effect of stimulation was marginally significant [ F (1, 28) = 3.36, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.11].
The analysis of children’s performance in the object group when performing the acting-out task revealed only a statistical trend toward a main effect of relation, F (1,14) = 3.6, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.20.
Choice horizon was a significant positive predictor of pupil size at bin −6 ( β = 51.32, p = 0.016) and bin −1 ( β = 21.80, p = 0.039), with a marginally significant effect at bin 0 ( β = 18.25, p = 0.08).
The post-hoc linear contrast was significant, F (1, 121) = 116.48, p < 0.001; however, the correlation between mean biphone probability and community size was marginally significant, p = 0.08.
However, preservation ICs were more important than violation ICs in T2 and T3 in good readers ( p s < 0.0001), and only in T3 in poor readers ( p < 0.0003; marginally significant in T2, p < 0.08).
(2012) further reported that the correlation between the number of years of musical training received and auditory working memory ability was “marginally significant” ( r = 0.38, p = 0.08), strongly implying that musical training was causally responsible for the measured between-group difference.
The Morphology × Grade interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,1944) = 2.98, p = 0.08), indicating a significant effect of morphology in both groups, which was larger for 3rd graders whose error rates decreased from 17.4% to 8.9% passing from the R − S − to the R + S + conditions (difference = 8.5%, p < 0.0001); 5th graders’ errors decreased from 9.4% to 1.7% for R − S − and R + S + , respectively (difference = 7.7%, p < 0.0001).
sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).
Importantly, this main effect of parental role was qualified by a marginally significant interaction with parental role salience manipulation, F (1,95) = 3.04, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.031.
The by-participant analysis showed a trend toward a main effect of Response Modality [ F 1(1, 38) = 3.39, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.08] and a significant interaction of Response Modality and Start Task [ F 1(1, 38) = 4.68, p = 0.04, partial η 2 = 0.11].
The correlation between cognitive ability and interview performance fell short of significance, r = 0.17, p = 0.08.
A significant main effect of Body Action Type, F (2,54) = 3.72; p = 0.03; η 2 = 0.12, and a marginal trend for the factor Language Group, F (1,27) = 3.12; p = 0.08; η 2 = 0.10, were found.
The interaction was marginally significant, b = −0.24, t (221) = −1.75, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.01, and simple slope analyses revealed that, although there was no significant link for high SES students, b = 0.10, t < 1, for low SES students, the more they endorsed BSM, the more they believed in a meritocratic and just society, b = 0.34, t (221) = 4.21, p < 0.001.
Differences in SOAs in training session 1 between the patient and control group just failed to reach significance [ t (23) = 2.2; p = 0.08, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons].
In Model 3a, openness ( β = 0.14, z = 2.22, p < 0.001) was significantly positively associated with abolitionism, whereas in Model 4a, the relationship was only marginally significant ( β = 0.12, z = 1.74, p > 0.08).
The last row in Table 5 shows that the three second-order polynomial terms are marginally significant ( F = 2.29, p = 0.08).
Results showed that across 200 trials, both males and females learned the task; females did not perform significantly differently than men in terms of choosing advantageous cards, although the trend approached significance, p = 0.08, with males selecting 69% advantageous cards with females selecting 62% advantageous cards, which is similar to results on the normal IGT.
The correlation between loneliness and meaningfulness of a typical interaction last week approached significance [ r = −0.26, t (46) = −1.81, p = 0.08], and a significant correlation emerged when examining loneliness and meaningfulness of the most recent interaction [ r = −0.35, t (52) = −2.67, p = 0.01].
A marginally significant distractor interference ( p = 0.081) was also found in the high-load condition (HLND).
Irritability showed a trend toward worsening in manifest carriers (β = −0.39, p = 0.081), with pre-manifest individuals exhibiting a modest but significant increase at follow-up (group*visit β = 0.39, p = 0.047).
There was a marginally significant effect of age on RT difference scores (LRT: χ 2 = 3.05, df = 1, P = 0.081; Table 4 ), revealing a trend for response-slowing being greater amongst younger animals.
The interaction between valence and load showed a marginal trend, F (1, 24) = 3.32, p = 0.081, η2 p = 0.12.