Excerpts

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).

In comparison, the CFLI group showed significant improvement between pre- and post-test on two of the seven measures, narrative macrostructure and clausal density, with large effect sizes for both measures ( r = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, both p = 0.04), and a large and marginally significant gain for the ALL Listening Comprehension subtest ( r = 0.73, p = 0.10).

Minor injuries (Model 2) have also decreased by 25% in the peripheral districts of the city [although the coefficient is weakly significant ( p < 0.1)].

The same pattern emerged in sample 2, though the difference was only marginally significant at p < 0.10 for psychosomatic complaints (M ls – M lc = −0.41, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001 for irritation; M ls – M lc = −0.22, SE = 0.09, p = 0.066 for psychosomatic complaints; M ls – M lc = 0.29, SE = 0.08, p = 0.001 for self-rated health).

4 The results of Model 9 in Table 3 showed that the effect of organizational-level HPWS on employee experienced HPWS was marginally significant (Model 9, γ = 0.104, p < 0.1).

For units with low climate level and high strength the slope was negative and approached significance ( b = −0.37, p < 0.10).

Memory performance was only a marginally significant covariate, F (1, 40) = 3.34, p < 0.10, and there was still a significant effect of label condition even when memory performance was included first in a stepwise linear regression, F (2, 40) = 8.75, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.30.

In line with H5, we observe a marginally significant interaction effect of error risk taking and perceived organizational innovation climate (β = 0.16, p < 0.1, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.32]).

These effects were marginally significant for the lowest capacity condition (i.e., Clear) vs. the −12 dB condition (mean = 18.7) [ t (142) = 1.65, p = 0.10].

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).

However, the indirect effect of individualism on promoting hygiene and cleaning through affective attitude and feeling of risk was marginally significant ( p < 0.10) based on unadjusted estimates.

Simple slope analysis was conducted for Bus plunge as well because there was a weakly significant interaction between IAcc and moral choice ( B = 0.456, 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.

Similarly, significance was always stated at p < 0.05 (while p < 0.1 was considered as a statistical trend). 3.

In situations where the Chi-square difference for the overall test was significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10), the equality constraint was put on each individual path coefficient to find out the one(s) that vary across groups.

Marginally non-significant effects (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1) are reported, and p -values for post hoc tests conducted for between-subjects factors reflect results from Fisher’s LSD test.

Importantly, differences in subjective effort only approached significance ( p = 0.10; with the TI climate group reporting greater exertion), highlighting how critical it is to have multiple assessments that incorporate both objective and subjective measures.

For school-based involvement, however, mothers working non-standard hours had greater levels than those working standard hours ( b = 1.177), though the difference was marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

Although gender only had a mildly significant effect on individual mindset measures ( p < 0.1 level) it showed a significant main effect on the total mindset score, F (1, 108) = 13.22, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.11, indicating a moderate gender-based difference in overall mindset.

Sample size control and clustering variables showed marginal significance ( p ≈ 0.10), indicating that methodological rigor and sampling strategies have an effect on the observed results.

The intercept effect in 10-month-olds was significant for the superordinate-level [beta = 0.25, t (110) = 2.00, p < 0.05], while the intercept effect approached significance in 10-month-olds for the living/non-living level [beta = 0.23, t (110) = 1.88, p < 0.1].

Although, the above change was not statistically significant, but it was close to the level of significance ( p =0.101, Chi 2 =0.75).

Under DLnP, participants yielded numerically higher scores in the symbolic (mean: 1299; SD: 42) than in the monetary incentive group (mean: 1204; SD: 40); the difference revealed a statistical trend, F (1,160) = 2.70, p = 0.102.

The interaction term between stress and emotional eating was only marginally significant χ 2 (1) = 2.66, p = 0.102.

However, Model 2 and Model 3 in Table 8 show that both IST P (correct) and IST Accuracy approach providing additional explanation of variation in the avoidance of rational thinking errors and are close to being statistically significant ( p = 0.1027 and p = 0.1063, respectively).