Excerpts

There was a smaller but borderline significant difference for mildly trustworthy faces, with WS participants less likely than controls to approach mildly trustworthy faces (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42–0.98, p = 0.04).

The difference between the two conditions was marginally significant in the high-anchor condition, F (1,188) = 4.51, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.02 (95 CI: 01.00–0.08), but not in the low-anchor condition, F (1,188) = 0.68, p = 0.41.

For the first point, there was a moderately significant positive correlation between the use of global reading strategies and reading performance ( r = 0.710, p = 0.04).

The Morning Affect scale correlated significantly ( p < 0.001) and negatively with the Eveningness ( r = -0.59) and the Distinctness ( r = -0.38) scales; Eveningness and Distinctness were also positive and significantly correlated although at a borderline significance level and with a low correlation value ( r = 0.06, p = 0.041).

Late positive potential (LPP) The waveform analyses revealed highly significant modulations of the LPP as a function of contextual valence and group, F (2, 84) = 3.32, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0 . 073 (see Figure 5 ).

The differences between the third and the fourth vincentile as well as between the fourth and the fifth vincentile were only marginally significant (with a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of 0.0063), t (23) = −2.15, p = 0.042, d z = 0.44, and t (23) = 2.68, p = 0.013, d z = 0.55, respectively.

Finally (see Table 3 ), barely significant positive associations appeared between recognition percentages for weakly related stimuli and scores in the negative dimension ( p = 0.042), and between recognition percentages for unrelated stimuli and scores in the disorganized dimension ( p = 0.045).

In accordance with our hypothesis, we found nominally significant positive correlations of WIE Arithmetic performance with NPI total score (Spearman’s rho=0.208; p =0.043) and SMI self-aggrandizer scale (Spearman’s rho=0.231; p =0.027), but findings did not survive false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment for multiple comparisons (p FDR =0.189 and p FDR =0.243, respectively).

When controlling for the effect of Age, which showed a greater effect size, only the comparison between less than 1 year of professional experience and between 1 to 5 years was marginally significant ( p = 0.0438).

For intimacy quality, although relational length ( β = −0.023, SE = −0.01, p = 0.117) was not significant, female percentage ( β = −0.015, SE = 0.008, p = 0.0704) approached significance, and age ( β = −0.0133, SE = 0.006, p = 0.0439) had a significant association.

The first model was slightly significant and showed an explained variance of about 1% [ R 2 = 0.01, F (2, 343) = 3.13, p = 0.045].

The effect of gender on consumption intention was marginally significant ( β = −0.080, p = 0.045), suggesting that males exhibited a slightly higher propensity for sports consumption than females.

However, the comparison between General Education Bachelor's and Master's Degree showed a marginal trend ( p = 0.045, adjusted p = 0.272, r = 0.348), which may warrant further investigation in studies with larger sample sizes.

Specifically, considering the Bonferroni correction, the impact of identity profiles belonging on life satisfaction was only marginally significant, F (3, 102) = 2.78, p = 0.045.

Schubert ( 2007a ) reported systematic differences in locus due to preference, with loved music producing a close match between locus scores (small GAEL), a result that was replicated (Schubert, 2010 ), albeit with fairly marginal significance ( p = 0.045—see Supplementary Table 1 , row 15).

ANOVA analyses revealed that group differences in all three conditions of the Flanker task were significant or marginally significant: congruent condition, F (2,91) = 3.186, p = 0.046; neutral condition, F (2,91) = 3.035, p = 0.053; incongruent condition, F (2,91) = 2.571, p = 0.082.

Cross-loadings above the defined threshold emerged for the items “tardy arrival” and “cross-cultural communication barriers.” Considering the overall model fit for the four-factor solution, the chi-squared test was marginally significant [χ 2 (101) = 126.06, p = 0.046], the RMSEA = 0.064 [0.007, 0.078], and the TLI = 0.88.

We found no significant between-group differences on these categories using simple chi-squared tests for alcohol ( p = 0.973) but a borderline significant group difference for drug use ( p = 0.046).

Significant interaction effects between group and assessment time points approached significance ( F = 3.28, p = 0.046, η 2 p = 0.038).

The effects had the same direction but were smaller for the marginally significant indirect effect of obsessive passion through Bonding on Loneliness (H5c, β= −0.044, p = 0.046) and the not significant effect through Bridging (H5d, β= 0.030, p = 0.094).

The ANOVA for the pressure parameter showed a marginally significant effect of AGE [ F (1,79) = 4.09, p = 0.047], with greater pressure for the older children.

The model intercept, i.e., the initial value of dyadic coping of 112.60, showed an increasing trend in the subsequent three measurements [slope(S) = 0.228, p = 0.047], and there was a significant correlation between the intercept and the slope ( r = −0.488, p < 0.001), suggesting that there was a significant negative correlation between the initial state of dyadic coping in patients with malignant bone tumors and the speed of development, i.e., the higher the initial level of dyadic coping in patients with malignant bone tumors, the slower the rate of increase in the later stage ( Figure 3 ).

As there was a significant correlation in the larger sample (i.e., n =70), and the comparison of values of r showed borderline significance (i.e., p =0.047) it was decided that the two schools could be considered comparable in terms of the relationships between mathematics and the cognitive measures used in this study.

As seen in Table 2 , which presents the obtained model, the Gender × Prime type interaction was in the expected direction but only marginally significant. 4 Importantly, women’s math performance was higher in the attachment security condition than in the neutral condition, F (1,144) = 4.02, p = 0.047, η 2 p = 0.03, 90% CI [0.001, 0.084]. 5 In particular, M difference = 1.49, 95% CI [0.022, 2.967].

In these analyses we observed a marginally significant Condition x Trial n Correspondence x Experiment interaction, F 1,38 = 4.21, p = 0.047, η p 2 = 0.10.