Excerpts

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].

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant change in emotional school engagement from T1 to T2, F (1, 58) = 2.28, p = 0.126, but the interaction between children's liking of their new group and time approached significance, F (1, 58) = 2.92, p = 0.093.

Filial piety stress (FPS) exhibited a marginally significant negative association with PD (H1d: β = −0.123, p = 0.093).

We found a significant, albeit weak, negative correlation between positive affect and happy judgments to female ( r = -0.370, p = 0.000) faces, with a marginal trend in the same direction for male faces ( r = -0.151, p = 0.093).

engaging emotions and emotion suppression [ B = 0.33, t (265.72) = 1.99, p = 0.047, 95% CI (−0.005, 0.66)] 3 , and this relationship was marginally significant for Japanese partners [ B = 0.20, t (257.22) = 1.685, p = 0.093, 95% CI (−0.033, 0.42)], but not significant for Belgian partners [ B = −0.13, t (262.56) = −1.15, p = 0.25, 95% CI (−0.37, 0.10)] 4 , 5 .

The main effect of feature sequence was marginally significant; F (1, 15) = 3.21, p = 0.0931, η 2 p = 0.18, whereas none of the interactions were significant ( p s > 0.183).

There was a marginally significant increase in attentional bias to angry faces in the up- compared to no-regulation group, t (36) = 1.72, p = 0.094 ( Figure 1 ).

There were marginally significant differences in sitting and bending forward, F (2,157) = 2.41, p = 0.094, η p 2 = 0.03.

An independent-samples t -test revealed that the difference between the two groups were marginally significant [ t (21) = 1.75, p = 0.094, Cohen’s d = -0.73; M Unfamiliar-Switch = 43.12%, SD Unfamiliar-Switch = 25.95%, M Nonsense-Switch = 24.81%, SD Nonsense-Switch = 24.19%).

The interaction of Group × Type of Landmark approached significance, F (2,42) = 2.508, p = 0.094, η P 2 = 0.107, indicating that the difference between groups was marginally more likely to be at choice point landmarks than not.

The interaction between perceived continuous teacher support and AI learning self-efficacy was marginally non-significant ( B = −0.10, p = 0.094), and the index of moderated mediation for the serial indirect effect included zero (Index = −0.010, 95% Boot CI [−0.025, 0.001]).

However, only a tendency toward significance was found for this regression model [Full model: F (6, 60) = 1.91; adjusted R 2 = 0.077; p = 0.094].

Furthermore, the three-way interaction of Group × Correctness × Condition was marginally significant [ F (1,30) = 2.97, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.09].

For moderate physical activity , the interaction of Perceived Change and Time approached significance, F (3, 378) = 2.14, p = 0.095.

The random effect likelihood ratio test for the pair random intercept was marginally significant ( p = 0.095), with ICC of 0.471.

Regarding the effects of reactive aggression, we also detected a marginally significant group, emotion, and electrode interaction effect [ F (8,352) = 1.99, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.04].

Also in accordance with Lavie and de Fockert, the magnitude of the interference was larger with marginal significance ( p = 0.095) in the degraded 100 ms condition than in the non-degraded 150 ms condition.

This group difference for detail-based viewing in the relational condition remained marginally significant after adjusting for age and gender, F (1, 34) = 2.96, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.080. 3.2.2.2.1.

Finally the Stimulation site * Humanness interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,19) = 3.09; p = 0.095), with a poorer accuracy for categorization of natural voice sounds in the larynx-stimulated group.

The effect of Number of pairs was marginally significant, F (2, 138) = 2.38, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.03, (two pairs, M = 0.40; SD = 0.26; three, M = 0.47; SD = 0.21; four, M = 0.37; SD = 0.20), and the Distance * Number of pairs interaction effect was not significant, F (2, 138) = 0.006.

The beta coefficient on the standardized individualism measure indeed increases from 0.32 in Table 3 (Model 4) to 0.60 and approaches statistical significance ( p = 0.095) when Vietnam is excluded (full results available upon request).

This same effect was nearly statistically significant for the condition where ΔLTR was 4.21 (OR = 1.35, p = 0.095).

In Experiment 2b (description), participants also rated the robust players as more responsible for the goal than those that took non-robust shots, yet this effect was only marginally significant, F (1,19) = 3.06, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.127.

The correlations were indeed significant for the written language measures ( p ’s < 0.05), with the vocabulary measure approaching significance, r = 0.374, p = 0.095.

The association between the donation history and intention to donate again was marginally significant ( p = 0.096).