Excerpts

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

The effect of permissive parenting style was marginally significant ( β = 0.12, t = 1.96, p = 0.051).

The interaction between defeat/entrapment and FTT-Pos predicted 3-month SIQ at a marginally significant level after controlling for depressive symptoms ( β = 0.17, p = 0.051).

As predicted, memory judgments on items that were primed with happy faces were characterized by a significantly more liberal response bias in familiarity-based decisions; this was the case when the independence correction was applied [ t (36) = 1.746, p < 0.05 (one-tailed)], and a significant trend emerged when uncorrected [ t (36) = 1.671, p < 0.0515 (one-tailed)].

Post hoc cluster tests within each task revealed a matching, nearly significant cluster of increased activity in the IPS during two-numeral compared to one-numeral trials in the addition task from 131 to 209 ms, p = 0.0516 (10,000) and found no significant differences within the list task at any point (all clusters p > 0.70; 10,000 permutations).

The main effect of exposure duration was practically significant [ F (1, 17) = 4.38, p = 0.0516]; performance was better with the longer than shorter exposure duration.

Analyses for midline electrodes revealed a marginally significant effect of Position [ F (1, 17) = 4.37, p = 0.05183] and an interaction of Position × Electrode [ F (3, 51) = 5.46, p < 0.05].

The Negative responders’ scores fall on average at 1.5 SD above the LQ mean, and the inter-group difference is significant for both comprehension ( t 21 = 2.37, p = 0.027) and word production ( t 21 = 5.85, p < 0.001), and almost significant for sentence production ( t 21 = 2.06, p = 0.052).

Results also showed that the indirect effect of ToM on social preference through externalizing behavior was very close to statistical significance ( z = 1.94, p = 0.052).

Simple effects analyses indicated the effect was significant for happy primes, F (1, 83) = 10.19, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.11, and marginally significant for sad primes, F (1, 18) = 3.87, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.05.

In support, we observed a borderline significant interaction effect between face type and inversion, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.059.

A 2 (set size) × 2 (exposure time) × 3 (type of test face) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the main effect of the exposure time was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.945, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.064.

The direct effect of effort expectancy approached significance (β = 0.126, p = 0.052), suggesting a potential direct promoting effect, although the statistical evidence for this path is weaker than that for other significant paths.

The number of Shared Pleasure moments at 6 months was significantly associated with composite motors scores (estimate = 2.4; SE = 0.9; p = 0.007) and marginally significant with relation to cognitive scores (estimate = 1.9; SE = 1.0; p = 0.052) at 18 months.

The interaction effect (paternal parenting similarity × temperament similarity) on Time 2 positive sibling relationship quality was significant (β = 0.109 and p = 0.031) for older siblings (Model 3, AIC = 327.836, BIC = 661.230, and SSABIC = 306.822) and marginally significant for younger siblings (β = 0.056, p = 0.052; Model 4, AIC = 686.440, BIC = 1019.834, and SSABIC = 665.426).

As expected: (a) DIF and DDF (but not EOT) were positively correlated with SPS– traits; and (b) stronger expression of SPS– (but not SPS+) traits was correlated with the tendencies to worry about sensations of pain or discomfort (low NW) and to try to distract oneself from such sensations (low ND), although the latter effect was only marginally significant ( p = 0.052) after Benjamini-Hochberg correction.

Duration of the first fixation was the only one where the differences related to brand preference were only marginally significant and provided no conclusive information as indicated by the Bayes factor value close to 1, t (36) = 2.01, p = 0.052, d = 0.33, BF 10 = 1.07.

The groups showed a marginally significant difference in offspring age ( F [2,151] = 3.01, p = 0.052).

When we adjusted cognitive control scores for performance on the inhibitory control task by entering SSRT as a covariate, the main effect for group remained, although exhibited a smaller effect size and marginal significance [ F (1,49) = 3.96, p = 0.052, η 2 = 0.07].

There was also a significant retention interval x misinformation interaction, Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 9.74, p = 0.002, and a picture emotion x retention interval x misinformation interaction that approached significance (see Figure 3 ), Wald χ 2 (1, N = 46) = 5.92, p = 0.052.

In this case, only item 32 showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.12, p = 0.052) with the wish to speak with a psychologist about these issues, indicating that the higher the frequency of thinking about developing cancer, the higher the need to speak with a psychologist (see Table S2.33PSY5a in the Supplementary Material for more details).

More specifically, an increase in scores of individualism decreased the effect of anxiety on passive-submissive coping style: interaction was marginally significant, F (1,820) = 3.76, β = –0.10, t (848) = –1.94, p = 0.052.

The main effect of frontality reached marginal significance, F (4, 120) = 3.737, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.111, while the main effect of laterality F (2, 60) = 0.180, p = 0.833, η p 2 = 0 . 006 did not.

Vocabulary was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.052), but contributed an additional 5.6% unique variance to reading comprehension after controlling for real word morphological awareness and pseudoword morphological awareness.

In Figure 2 , it appears as though real word morphological awareness and pseudoword morphological awareness are not significant predictors of reading comprehension (β = -0.161, p = 0.846; β = 0.750, p = 0.284, respectively) and that vocabulary is a marginally significant predictor of reading comprehension (β = 0.451, p = 0.052).