Excerpts

We found a marginally significant European Identity × Political Tendency ( b = −0.08, p = 0.091) on the Scarce Jobs argument but not a National Identity × Political Tendency interaction ( b = 0.03, p = 0.692).

The interaction effect between decision-maker role and tDCS group was marginally significant ( F (2, 72) = 2.48, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.07).

Analyzing the intercept data, the main effects of configuration and epoch were not reliable, but the two-way interaction of configuration × epoch was marginally significant [ F (6,108) = 1.881, p = 0.091, η 2 = 0.095].

A marginally significant multiple regression equation was obtained [ F (2, 18) = 2.74, p = 0.091, R = 0.43]; the effect of communication was significant [ t = 2.12, p = 0.048, partial regression coefficient (β hereinafter) = 20.69, standardized β = 0.63], and that of attention switching was also significant ( t = −2.21, p = 0.040, β = −21.98, standardized β = −0.65).

As shown in Figure 2 , the first simple slope computed for centralization of decision making at one standard deviation below the mean is positive and marginally significant (1.631, p = 0.091).

This pattern was marginally significant, F (1,57) = 2.96, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.025, suggesting that Japanese speakers may apply the visual-based strategy to the similarity judgment better than English speakers.

Although the subsequent univariate tests indicated a small marginally significant difference among artistic careers in extrinsic motives and the intrinsic to extrinsic ratio the Bonferroni post hoc showed no differences among them (lowest p = 0.091) (for details, see Figure 8 ).

For BN, changes in thoughts associated with ‘ dietary restraint ’ were marginally significant, indicating a slight increase from pre- ( M = 11.15, SE = 9.32) to post-binge ( M = 14.86, SE = 13.38; W = 99.5, p = 0.091, Cohen’s d = -0.055), whereas no significant change emerged for individuals with BED (pre: M = 12.0, SE = 9.76, post: M = 11.07, SE = 9.80; W = 39.5, p = 0.354, Cohen’s d = 0.20).

In the restricted cubic spline regression, the intercept term for age reached significance ( p = 0.014), and its linear term approached significance ( p = 0.091).

Within the healthy-weigh group, there was a marginally significant difference [ F (1,114) = 2.933, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.038].

This effect was marginally significant for the 2500 Hz tone ( Z = −1.69, p = 0.091).

Property victimization was marginally significant ( p = 0.091), suggesting a potential influence.

The main effect of group was marginally significant ( F (1, 48) = 3.042, p = 0.091).

Further analysis revealed a marginally significant difference between L1 and L2 switch costs under the fearful condition ( p = 0.092), with L2 switch costs being marginally smaller than L1 switch costs, indicating a slight asymmetry between L1 and L2 switch costs under fearful emotion.

Facilitation Short RSI = 47 ms), although this does not quite reach significance ( p = 0.092); (2) Like the present study Egner et al.

Comparing the scale scores within each condition, we find that the difference between moral and causal code misalignment scores was significant in the causal code condition, Δ = 1.93, t (38) = 12.338, p < 0.001, but only marginally significant in the moral code condition, Δ = 0.28, t (55) = −1.715, p = 0.092.

The analysis revealed significant main effects of both gender (Wilks’ Λ = 0.85, F [4, 4271] = 187.92, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.150) and grade (Wilks’ Λ = 0.96, F [12, 11300.29] = 11.630, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.011, Roy’s GCR = 0.032, F [4, 4273] = 34.51, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.031), with the gender x grade interaction found to be marginally significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.99, F [12, 11300.29] = 1.57, p = 0.092, Roy’s GCR = 0.003, F (4, 4273) = 3.199, p = 0.012, partial η 2 = 0.003).

Likewise, no significant differences between boys and girls appeared on temperament scales at any age, apart from a statistical trend towards boys scoring higher on Surgency at 9 months [ F (1,119) = 2.891, p = 0.092].

The Impact of Bilingualism on the Relationship Between Cognitive Reserve Proxies and Cognitive Performance We registered a significant three-way interaction between L2 proficiency, trial type, and CR proxies (β = 45.276; p < 0.001), while it only approached significance for L2 years (β = 7.483; p = 0.092), consistently with the previous analysis showing a stronger contribution by L2 proficiency.

For Category A, the interaction of the within-individual factor Classification with the covariate Negative Affect was marginally significant, F (3,44) = 2.29, p = 0.092, η p 2 = 0.135, but not for Category B, F (3,46) = 2.06, p = 0.120, η p 2 = 0.123.

Omnibus ANOVA indicated that there is significant Anterior-posterior * Group interaction (Interaction effect: F (5.63, 95.73) = 4.5, p < 0.001) and marginally significant interaction between Group, Deviant, and Anterior-Posterior dimension (Interaction effect: F (21.41, 364.04) = 1.5, p = 0.092).

Furthermore, face type × group interactions were significant for representational ( p = 0.047) and evoked responses ( p < 0.001) but marginally significant for liking ( p = 0.092), partially supporting hypothesis 2.

Applying the same univariate analysis for IRI-PT showed a trend for a main effect of discipline, F (2,132) = 2.44, p = 0.092.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between congruency and consciousness, F (1,38) = 3.0, p = 0.092, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating a slightly larger congruency effect in the conscious group ( M : 5.3%), compared to the unconscious group ( M : 3.0%).

The within-subject effect for condition was only marginally significant, however, for the ratings taken directly after the musical stimulation [ F (3, 120) = 2.190, p = 0.093].