Excerpts

All correlations were highly significant ( p < 0.01; see Table 4 ).

The conditional effect of status on post-game T level was highly significant for participants high (plus 1 SD) on anxious attachment ( F = 7.61; p < 0.01; B = 159.67) while it was not significant for those with low (minus 1 SD) anxious attachment ( F = 3.18; n.s.; B = 80.15).

Data analysis and results Data analysis Reliability and validity All of the factor loadings were highly significant ( p < 0.01) to their respective latent constructs; the composite reliabilities of all of the constructs were > 0.80; and all of the average variance extracted estimates were > 0.60 (Table 1 ; Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ).

This value indicates that the degree of interaction between the two variables is not high, but there is a significant correlation between them (In this paper, * indicates that the correlation between the two variables is significant, that is, p < 0.05; ** indicates that the correlation is highly significant, that is, p < 0.01).

Among the three groups, the M-G scored the highest, the CC-G scored the lowest, and the difference in most items was extremely significant ( p < 0.01) except IS, Hos, and PI ( p < 0.05).

For vitality (χ 2 (4) = 11.33, p = 0.02, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04), there was a decreasing trend over time for Finnish employees (slope M = −0.48, SE = 0.18, p < 0.01), whereas the average change in vitality over time was non-significant for Japanese employees (slope M = 0.55, SE = 0.42, p = 0.19).

Commitment indicated positive and highly significant relationship with employee resilience ( r = 0.515, p < 0.01).

As shown in Figure 3 , the analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of trustworthiness, F (2,86) = 4.82, p = 0.01, η p 2 = 0.10, BF 10 = 27.008.

The main effect of word type was significant by participants but failed to reach significance by items [ F 1(1, 39) = 8.29, p < 0.01; F 2(1, 35) = 2.35, p < 0.13].

The significant relationships between the focal behavior and the conditioned behaviors ( p < 0.05) are characterized by vector lengths >1.96, while highly significant relationships ( p < 0.01) are distinguished by vector lengths >2.58. 3.

Table 6 shows the regression results where the F values in all the models are highly significant ( p < 0.01).

Post hoc comparisons using t-tests with Bonferroni correction indicated highly significant differences (sports group and socially engaged group, t (243) = −2.89, p = 0.01, d = −0.37; sports group and nature protection organization, t (237) = −7.33, p < 0.001, d = −0.96; socially engaged group and nature protection organization, t (216) = −4.22, p < 0.001, d = −0.58).

Results The differences between the four conditions were highly significant [ F (3,45) = 9.48, p < 0.01] by a repeated measures, one-way ANOVA applied to the scores of the 16 participants.

The difference in the use of auxiliaries between the two groups of learners was highly significant (t = 3.576; p < 0.01), as well as in the use of clausal complements ( t = 2.591, p < 0.05), parataxis ( t = 2.672, p < 0.05), and the indirect object ( t = 2.355, p < 0.05).

However, these main effects should not be interpreted given the highly significant interaction effect of country and event valence ( Ψ ^ = −125.72, p < 0.01).

The results of the correlation analysis revealed that there were highly positive correlations between training years, family background, technical learning engagement, and self-efficacy, all of which reached an extremely significant level ( p < 0.01).

This correlation was highly significant for angry faces ( p < 0.01), and stronger in response to male faces compared to female faces but was not significant for neutral or happy faces.

In both surveys the differences between the answers to the corresponding items Q1 and Q4 were highly significant (one-sided paired t -tests, both P -values < 0.01).

The analyses between the variables studied yielded highly significant correlation coefficients ( p < 0.01).

For NSHT, we used the terms “significant effect” for p < 0.05, “highly significant effect” for p < 0.01, and “very highly significant effect” for p < 0.001.

Results Explicit task In the RTs we replicated a significant interaction between “Valence” and “Arousal,” which was marginally significant in the analysis by item [ F 1(1, 18) = 9.87, p < 0.01, r = 0.59; F 2(1, 154) = 2.98, p = 0.086, r = 0.14; Appendix B , a in Supplementary Material].

The analyses between the studied variables yielded highly significant correlation coefficients ( p < 0.01).

Significance was set at an alpha level of P < 0.05 and a highly significant level of P < 0.01, with the Holm correction, applied for the post-hoc test.

The mean percentage total score for children in the comparison group was 59.7% and for the children with ASD was 35.8%, a difference that was highly significant, F (1,40) = 12.28, p < 0.01.

In the overall sample, both boys and girls show statistically highly significant differences ( p < 0.01) in the majority of motor performance items.