Excerpts

Results indicated a strong trend for a significant effect of Proximity, F (2,50) = 3.09, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.11.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant contribution of interval type in the main effects model ( F (1, 233) = 31.34, p < 0.001); the interaction of language type and interval type significantly improved the model fit in a second-order interaction model comparison, F (1, 229) = 10.01, p = 0.002; and the third-order interaction model also showed a borderline significant improvement ( F (3, 226) = 2.70, p = 0.05).

Second, the effect of nonverbal MA (math-related negativity) approached significance, F (1, 39) = 3.94, p = 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.09.

The analysis further revealed an only marginally significant interaction between sequence length and task, F (2,96) = 3.08; p = 0.05; η G 2 < 0.01, indicating that effect of the sequence length may have been slightly more pronounced for verbal recall ( M 5 = 0.804; SD 5 = 0.111; M 6 = 0.753; SD 6 = 0.120; M 7 = 0.689; SD 7 = 0.121) than for tonal recall ( M 5 = 0.750; SD 5 = 0.164; M 6 = 0.682; SD 6 = 0.159; M 7 = 0.658; SD 7 = 0.165).

Exercise duration was almost significantly associated with gender ( p = 0.050), indicating that men exercised more than women.

Moreover, the predictor calmness between-subject was significantly associated with non-exercise activity, and the predictor valence between-subject approached significance ( p = 0.050 and p = 0.053, respectively; refer to Table 1 ).

The positive correlation between SR and right nucleus accumbens volume was borderline significant [Spearman’s rho (39) = –0.31, p = 0.05].

The difference between leftward and no-sound conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

Both identification with the community and interpersonal contact were uniquely positively related to willingness to participate ( Table 2 ; Step 3c), yet interpersonal contact became only marginally significant ( p = 0.050) 6 .

The regression analysis demonstrated that work time control had a highly significant and positive correlation with job engagement ( b = 3.95, SE = 1.70, p < 0.05) and innovation ( b = 4.67, SE = 0.96, p < 0.01).

For total empathy, the main effect of group was not significant ( F = 0.87, p = 0.39), the main effect of gender was marginally significant ( F = 3.80, p = 0.05), and the group × age interaction was not significant ( F = 0.69, p = 0.42).

In the FM domain, child age (β = 0.52; p = 0.001) was a significant predictor while parent’s anxiety ratings were approaching significance (β = −0.34; p = 0.050).

As the sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics were weakly correlated [i.e., coefficients of Pearson's correlation were lower than 0.5 and highly significant ( p < 0.05); see Supplementary material for full results], they were included as controls variables in our econometric analysis.

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).

In addition, these regions are marginally more predictive earlier in learning relative to later in learning, with left pars orbitalis (or inferior frontal gyrus) showing a marginally significant ( p < 0.05) decrease in predictive accuracy at M 300.

(2) The degree of political involvement in social networking is negatively related to PWB (H2 does not hold); its effect value was 0.21 ( t = 1.91, p < 0.05), i.e., the more often people participate in political discussions and share relevant information in social networking platforms, the less positive feeling about their life, socialization, and satisfaction or well-being; however, this effect was weakly significant ( p < 0.05).

A trend towards significance emerged ( t =2.2, p =0.05).

The type of distractor task also approached significance, Q (1) = 3.83, p = 0.0503, but further inspection of the data shows that this effect is entirely driven by a single study that used a word-search puzzle.

Results The latency to reach the feeder decreased over sessions ( Figure 1C ; χ 2 (5) = 53.52, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.31), the main effect of each condition on latency fell just short of significance [χ 2 (2) = 5.98, p = 0.0503, η p 2 = 0.05], and a significant Condition × Session interaction was found [χ 2 (10) = 26.56, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.18].

A One-Way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of the three conditions in the total disruption duration [ F (2, 28) = 3.33, p = 0.0504, p rep = 0.92, η 2 p = 0.19].

In the analyses of error rate, only the main effect of Cue Type approached significance ( F 1 , 50 = 3.99; p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.07), indicating that participants made slightly more errors on the arrow (4%) than on the gaze condition (3.3%).

The interaction of time × basepower showed a trend ( F 3,75 = 2.703, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.098), while the factor group ( F 1, 25 = 0.931, p = 0.344, η 2 = 0.036) and the interaction time × mismatch did not reach significance ( F 3,75 = 1.478, p = 0.227, η 2 = 0.056).

We also found a marginally significant effect on dogs' choices by the −213AG polymorphism [ χ ( 2 ) 2 = 5.948; p = 0.051].

As for the balanced trials, group effect was marginally significant, F (1,38) = 4.07, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.09 and math anxiety did not interact with number of digits ( p = 0.75).

There was a marginally significant effect of “time period” on general stress scores: F (1.87,216.49) = 3.10, p = 0.051.