Excerpts

The interaction between phonological awareness and lexicality was only marginally significant, β = 0.31, t = 1.70, p = 0.096; the trend was such that the effect of phonological awareness was slightly stronger for real words than it was for pseudowords.

The social reward sub-scale was approaching significance (Estimate = 0.03, t = 1.73, p = 0.096), and no other sub-scales were significant (all p -values > 0.46).

To do this, we built on Model 1 (described earlier) and added Learning ETG disclosure and Instrumental ETG disclosure, resulting in a marginally significant change in R 2 ,Δ R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.096.

The fixed effect of Modality showed a trend [ F (1, 1318) = 2.78, p = 0.096] whereby slower response times were seen in the Matched compared to Mismatched condition (739.6 and 716.6 ms; d = 0.033).

The three-way interaction effect (magnitude × vertical position × type of quantity) approached significance in the reaction times, F (1, 63) = 2.86, MSE = 1630.3, η 2 = 0.043 p = 0.096 but not in the error rates, F < 1.

Results suggested that the main effect of gender on prejudice was marginally significant, F (1,66) = 2.85, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.041, with female participants ( M = 2.91, SD = 0.63) holding more prejudice than male participants ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.81).

In the listen-only training condition, CI children's recognition accuracy of the original versions approached significance, t (8) = 1.888, p = 0.096.

Statistical analyses (see Table 2 for details) revealed a main effect of Condition ( F (1, 61.4) = 10.81, p = 0.002) and a marginal trend for Language ( F (1, 126.0) = 2.81, p = 0.096).

When gender was accounted for, amygdala reactivity was further modulated by age, such that older participants showed a trend towards lower amygdala reactivity (left hemisphere: b = −0.087, p = 0.096; right hemisphere: b = −0.090, p = 0.085).

The contrast Intermediate–Song showed a trend [ t (74) = −2.105, p = 0.096], while the contrast Speech–Intermediate remained non-significant: t (74) = −0.532, p = 0.855.

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

Women reached only a statistical trend (ß = 0.09, p = 0.096) in the association with life satisfaction.

On the other hand, the recognition of local features in angry faces showed marginally significant longer response time than that in happy faces [ F (1, 13) = 3.21, p = 0.097] (Figure 3B ).

First of all, for all three relative mediation models, relative total effects reached significance for variable D 1 (i.e., “Imagine that they were young” condition, 95% Bootstrap CI = [4.34, 15.42], p < 0.001) and marginal significance for variable D 2 (i.e., “Imagine that you were old” condition, 95% Bootstrap CI = [-0.82, 9.79], p = 0.097).

A T Student for paired samples on the average ratings of all definitions ( N = 20) was only marginally significant, t (19) = 1.746, SE = 13.515, p = 0.097.

The teams’ average FWHR remained a marginally significant predictor of total points negotiated ( b = 1.31, SE = 0.78, t [109] = 1.67, p = 0.097) and the teams’ maximum FWHR remained a significant predictor of total points ( b = 1.23, SE = 0.57, t [109] = 2.16, p = 0.033).

Such a facilitation effect of processing negative words on responses to the bottom spatial targets was also marginally significant [ F 1 (1,47) = 2.87, p = 0.097, ηp 2 = 0.06; F 2 (1,286) = 3.07, p = 0.081, ηp 2 = 0.01].

In the similarity comparison task, only emotion discrimination was impaired by inversion [ t (18) = 5.85, p < 0.001, IE Score Mean = 0.37, SD = 0.063], although there was a mild trend for an inversion deficit with gender discrimination [gender: t (18) = 1.75, p = 0.097, IE Score Mean = 0.13, SD = 0.091; cars: p = 0.44, IE Score Mean = –0.070, SD = 0.095].

Figure 3 shows the only change in risk-attitudes elicited by the GC is that women become more risk-averse during the first on-pandemic round, but the difference is only marginally significant ( p = 0.097).

The effect of repeated exposure on enjoyment barely approached significance [ F (2,98) = 2.39, p = 0.097, partial η 2 = 0.046].

For the third control variable, spatial ability, an ANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of emotional design [ F (2,222) = 2.35, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.02].

Simple slope analyses showed a marginally significant effect for couples in which the woman earns more than the man, b = −0.31, SE = 0.19, p = 0.097.

However, in self-user specific device condition, the Bonferroni multiple pairwise comparison showed that there was a marginally significant difference between congruent condition ( M = 0.79, SD = 0.19) and incongruent condition ( M = 0.85, SD = 0.20, p = 0.097) in self-specific devices condition.

The test for group differences yields a borderline significant result (χ 2 = 2.73, p = 0.0983), implying some heterogeneity in the association between social networks and well-being across age groups.

Regarding gender differences, the relationship between resilience and the percentage of males was marginally significant, Q model = 2.719, df = 1, p = 0.099.