Small and marginally significant associations were found between PTQ and backward inhibition ( r = −0.18, p = 0.10) and switch cost ( r = 0.21, p = 0.07).
Excerpts
Specifically, physical access and usage both demonstrated marginally significant, negative direct effects on depressive symptoms (for physical access: β = −0.052, p < 0.1; for usage: β = −0.032, p < 0.1) ( Table 10 ).
The effect of physicality on user cognitive trust only reaches marginal significance ( p <0.10) when considering the moderating role of users' familiarity with IVIS.
However, after personal resources were entered into the equation, the direct effect of leadership psychological characteristics was marginally significant ( B = − 0.10, p < 0.1 ) and the effect of personal resources was significant ( B = −0.11, p < 0.05 ).
To determine the significance of effects, we adhered to traditional significance levels of p <0.05 and also note marginal significance at p <0.10.
There was a marginally significant effect on the attention/impulsivity subscale of the Assessor Report ( b =0.07, S.E. =0.04, p< 0.10).
We report below eye-tracking measures presenting statistically significant fixed effects of typicality, pronoun , and typicality*pronoun ( p < 0.05), and corresponding significant or marginally significant ( p < 0.1) results of contrast analyses, separated for measure.
Students majoring in engineering/physics were also found to have lower perceptions of caring but the effect was only marginally significant (β = −0.103, p < 0.10).
R-square increase by 3.2% due to interaction term is marginally significant, F (2, 133) = 2.31, p = 0.10.
We also tested by means of Welch two-sample t -tests whether male and female participants obtained significantly different scores on each scale: marginally significant differences due to participants sex emerged for ASI Hostile [men scored an average of 2.15 vs. an average of 1.65 for women, t (29.35) = 1.73, p < 0.1], whereas for the remaining scales no differences due to participants’ sex emerged [all t s < 1].
In Model 1, hypotheses M 1 H1 and M 1 H2 were rejected, indicating that spectator satisfaction and trust have no significant direct effects on loyalty; M 1 H3, M 1 H4, M 1 H5, and M 1 H6 were supported, indicating that spectator satisfaction significantly predicts trust and team identification, team identification significantly predicts loyalty, and trust has a weak but meaningful direct effect on team identification (marginally significant at p < 0.10).
For low RetirPlan, an unexpected increase in RetirIntent was also observed, although it was only marginally significant [ F (1,203) = 2.72, p = 0.10].
Furthermore, the Session by Age group by Switching demand interaction F (1,168) = 4.49, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.03, p = 0.04, as well as the Session by Age group by Maintenance demand interaction F (1,168) = 3.63, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.02, p = 0.06 were at least marginally significant ( p < 0.10).
Estimates for Specifications 2 and 3 reduced similarly and were both marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in Model 2.
For employees with low construal level, the positive relationship between EO REO and voice behavior is marginally significant when challenge stressor is high ( Slope = 0.205, S.E. = 0.126, p < 0.1 ) and the positive relationship between EO REO and voice behavior is not significant when challenge stressor is low ( Slope = 0.109, S.E. = 0.128, p > 0.1 ).
Participants in the high-worry group selected the increasing option less often than expected by chance, although the difference was only marginally significant, t (27) = −1.95, p < 0.10.
There was a significant direct effect from global trait EI to major satisfaction (β = 0.181, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant direct effect from global trait EI to procrastination (β = –0.117, p < 0.10).
Although this change fell short of significance ( p = 0.10 using a conservative one-tailed t -test, d = 0.41 β = 0.237), the finding does justify further scrutiny.
approached significancep < 0.1
Proportions of correct background color recall approached significance in the other conditions (all p < 0.1).
The three-way interaction of AI complexity, intangibility, and reliability was found to reach marginal significance [Pillai’s trace=0.074, F (24, 1,359)=1.43, p <0.10, with an effect size of ηp 2 =0.025], implying that approximately 2.5% of the variance of the dependent variable is associated with the interaction of the three factors.
a trend toward significancep < 0.10
Unfortunately, there was no significant reduction found in willingness or capacity, although there was a trend toward significance for slight image creation and image protection ( p < 0.10).
There was a marginally significant difference between the light and base verb trials in the time window between 2,100 and 2,500 ms after verb offset (summed t statistic for cluster = 9.64, p < 0.1), indicating that during most of the tracking time, the eye-movements for light verb constructions did not differ from eye-movements for base verb constructions.
close to significancep < 0.10
However, of the 48 analyzed outcome variables, only eight are statistically significant ( p < 0.05) and three are close to significance (0.05 < p < 0.10).
Additionally, the main effect of emotion and the interaction between presentation condition and visual field were marginally significant [ F (1,22) = 3.47, p < 0.1; F (1,22) = 3.21, p < 0.1].
As in this model, the coefficients of nPow to using contacts were only marginally significant (i.e., at p < 0.10), we also examined a model (model 3) restricting these two coefficients to zero.