Excerpts

In all, 1,608 specifications comprised more than a single study, yielding 1,363 (85%) nominally significant ( p < 0.05) negative and 9 (<1%) significant positive summary effects.

No-handicap approached significance ( p = 0.05).

While differences in Pause Duration ( t = −2.20, p = 0.029), Completeness (U = 2046, p = 0.030) and Spatial layout (U = 1904, p = 0.010) in Chinese character writing were nominally significant at the p < 0.05 level, they did not survive the multiple-testing correction. 3.3.

The amnesic patients were at least 2 SD lower than the healthy comparison participants’ mean (1846: 2.10 SD, 2363: 3.10 SD, 2563: 3.30 SD), a difference that was marginally significant [ z (4)=1.96, p =.05].

Again, no other predictor reached conventional levels of significance although warmth was a marginally significant negative predictor, B = −0.62, SE = 0.32, Exp(B) = 0.54, p = 0.05.

Additionally, the self-ratings of olfactory function showed a marginally significant correlation with the ratings of association-subscale (ρ 199 = 0.14, P = 0.05).

We observed a significant effect of meaning modulation [ F 1(2, 167) = 12.23, p < 0.001; F 2(2, 327) = 24.97, p < 0.001], as well as a significant effect of set type in the by item analysis and marginally significant in the by subject analysis [ F 1(2, 167) = 2.95, p = 0.05; F 2(2, 327) = 9.46, p < 0.001].

There was a marginally significant PoA × VOT interaction in medial aspects of the left AC, but only when the extent threshold was reduced to an uncorrected cluster size of p < 0.05, while keeping the peak threshold at p < 0.001.

This result remained significant when restricted to the 14 children who used HoW as the unfamiliar book (85.7% chose familiar, 2-tailed p = 0.01) and was marginally significant when restricted to the 27 children who used HP-UK as the unfamiliar book (70.4%, 2-tailed p = 0.05).

Subsequent paired-samples t -tests indicated that there was a significant increase in premature responding over sessions for Hole B [ t (9) = 3.0, p = 0.01] and a marginally significant increase for Hole C [ t (9) = 2.3, p = 0.05].

However, gender stereotype endorsement (GSE; Model 2) was found to differentially predict the trait-state discrepancy based on gender as stated in Hypothesis 3: This discrepancy was positively predicted by GSE for girls (γ 120 = 0.21, p < 0.001), whereas for boys the effect of GSE was negative and marginally significant (γ 120 = −0.09, p = 0.05).

There was a main effect of meter [ F (1,49) = 39.90, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.449], a marginally significant main effect of group [ F (4,49) = 2.56, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.173] and a meter by group interaction [ F (4,49) = 4.59, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.272].

For measures of latency noise, correlations between RT and TOJ tasks and between TOJ and 2xSJ tasks were marginally significant (one-tailed bootstrap p < 0.05).

Results Opposite sex A marginally statistically significant interaction effect between the romantic prime and viewer's sex on attitude toward the male model ad was observed [ t = 1.65, p = 0.05 (one-tailed)].

The difference between GE and PE was almost significant ( p = 0.05).

A two-way (feedback × base interval) repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a marginally significant main effect of the base interval [ F (1,15) = 4.53, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.231], and a significant main effect of feedback [ F (1,15) = 5.80, p = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.279].

There was also a marginally significant emotion × laterality × group interaction effect on the occipital LPP2 amplitudes [ F (2,72) = 3.08, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.08].

A marginally significant effect on tonal target was also found [ F (1, 83) = 3,964, p < 0.05].

Turning to Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual, the Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual interaction, and the Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av interaction were both very close to significance Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual, F (1, 65) = 3.91, p > 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.057; Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av tests, F = 3.76, p>0.05, ηp 2 = 0.055 (critical F = 3.98).

There was a marginally significant difference in T2 PTSD symptoms ( t [164] = 1.97, p = 0.05), with those participating at both times reporting lower symptom levels ( M = 32.64, SD = 16.93) compared to those who only participated at T2 ( M = 39.16, SD = 19.48).

However, the path from body surveillance to body dissatisfaction failed to attain significance ( p < 0.05).

This model also included the effect of BD on GSC, whose coefficient was close to the level of significance ( β = −0.28, p = 0.05).

This model included the effect of PA on BD, which demonstrated a standardized coefficient very close to significance, but without reaching it ( β = −0.10, p = 0.05).

Similarly, the bivariate correlation between Snail’s walk and the calculation speed ability appears to be slightly significant ( r = −0.24; P < 0.05); eliminating age, the correlation appears strongly significant ( r = −0.31; P < 0.01).

There was a main effect of motion type ( F1 (2,60) = 11.27, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 27.3, observed power = 0.99; F2 (2,32) = 9.75, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 37.9, observed power = 0.972), and a marginally significant effect of verb type in the participants analysis ( F1 (1,30) = 4.16, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 12.2, observed power = 0.506), and in the items analysis ( F2 (1, 16) = 4.14, p = 0.059, η p 2 = 20.5, observed power = 0.481).