Excerpts

Additionally, we found a marginally significant interaction of cue validity and previous cue visibility, F (1, 25) = 3.13, p = 0.089.

Planned follow-up within-subjects contrasts indicated an approach towards significance for HF, F (1,15) = 3.305, p = 0.089, from the beginning to the middle of the relaxation protocol.

There was a marginally significant interaction between consistency and priming in reaction times [ F (1, 30) = 3.09, p = 0.089], but most importantly, the three way interaction between group, consistency and priming was also significant [ F (1, 30) = 4.18, p = 0.050].

In the first case, the perceived success of the student movement moderates the effect of reported current participation of the students (quasi experimental condition) over their intentions of participating in both normative and non-normative actions, although in the former the effect is only marginally significant, F (2,375) = 2.44, p = 0.089, η p 2 = 0.014 and F (2,375) = 3.29, p = 0.038, η p 2 = 0.018, respectively.

Two other variables narrowly missed significance: those who were less religious (β = −0.15, t = −1.70, p = 0.09) and those who were less Open-to-Experience (β = −0.16, t = 1.78, p = 0.07) endorsed the idea of commercial conspiracies.

36 ] while incongruent trials showed only marginally significant reduction [ F ( 1 , 26 ) = 3 . 04 p < 0 . 09 , η 2 = 0 . 10 ; see Table 3 and Supplementary Table S2 ].

The interaction between English proficiency and rereading was nearly significant (F (1, 101) = 2.77, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.03).

Also, WE at T2 was positively associated with both SS at T1 ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01) and resilience at T1 ( r = 0.38, p < 0.001), with SS at T1 also being positively associated with log DHEA(S) at T2, although this association was marginally significant ( r = 0.16, p = 0.09).

Although this effect was just slightly smaller than that of lexical animacy, it was only marginally significant, β = 0.48, SE = 0.28, p = 0.09.

The results indicate that the 9-month-olds showed a marginally significant change when the goal-related accuracy rate was compared to the identity-related accuracy rate, Z = −1.69, p = 0.09, but no significant change when it was compared to location-related accuracy rate: Z = −0.04, p = 0.97.

The result for the mother communication × grade (age) × gender interaction variable was marginally significant ( B = 0.086, SE = 0.051, t = 1.69, p = 0.090, 95% CI = [−0.014, 0.185]).

7 A follow-up analysis revealed the purchase x attitude x argument quality interaction was marginally significant b = 0.08 SE = 0.05, t (226) = 10.72, p = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.17].

The overall difference in lever pressing between groups was marginally significant, F (1, 22) = 3.05, p = 0.09, η G 2 = 0.08.

However, perceived physical risk had a marginally significant negative direct influence on carsharing usage intention ( b 2 = −0.09, p = 0.09) thereby lending support to H5.

This interaction was significant from 250 to 350 ms ( F = 3.5, p < 0.05) and marginally significant from 350 to 450 ms ( F = 2.9, p < 0.09).

The same ANOVA also yielded marginally significant effects of continuum type [ F (1, 9) = 3.90, MSE = 897, p < 0.09] and a vowel duration × continuum type interaction [ F (5, 45) = 2.24, MSE = 2070, p < 0.07].

Donation to environmental charity There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (3, 860) = 2.17, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.01.

In both language groups, the younger children tended to be less accurate than the older children, although this difference approached significance for the monolingual children, t (60) = −1.75, p = 0.09 (95%CI of this difference [−0.21, 0.01]) and was significant for the bilingual children, t (60) = −3.71, p < 0.0001 (95%CI of this difference [−0.40, −0.12]).

There was a near-significant difference for the younger groups, t (64) = 1.72, p = 0.09 (95%CI of this difference [−0.02, 0.26]), but not the older groups, t (56) = 0.78, p = 0.44 (95%CI of this difference [−0.14, 0.06]).

Children showed a similar trend, although the coefficient for delta CV (β = −0.15) was only marginally significant ( p = 0.09).

The interaction between out-group mating threat and perceived infectability showed a statistical trend among men (β = 0.35, t (28) = 1.73, p = 0.09, R 2 = 0.11, adjusted R 2 = 0.01) but was not significant among women (β = −0.0, t (76) = −0.42, p = 0.67, R 2 = 0.02, adjusted R 2 = −0.02).

The difference in depression scores between the two groups was marginally significant [ t (71) = 1.72, p = 0.09], with greater depression scores exhibited in the HP group than in the LP group ( Table 1 ).

Further exploratory decomposition revealed a significant time by condition interaction in the 10-min duration group [ F (1,13) = 13.56, p = 0.003, η 2 = 0.51] and an interaction approaching significance in the 30-min duration group [ F (1,16) = 3.19, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.17].

Marginally significant differences were found in comparison between the early and baseline periods ( t = −1.68, p = 0.09; β′ = −0.06, 95%, CI [−0.13, 0.01]).

When all participants were included, regardless of having seen the nudge, the effect of condition was marginally significant, F (2,254) = 2.43, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.02.