Excerpts

1 A two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA on onset-offset match shows a marginally significant effect of contrast [ F (1, 3) = 9.83, p = 0.052], but no significant effect of match type [onset vs. offset, F (1, 3) = 0.02, p = 0.89] and no significant interaction [ F (1, 3) = 3.92, p = 0.14].

When exploring the subsample with data on cognitive performance ( n = 10 control group, n = 9 video game training group, Table 3 ) we found a significant posttest group difference in performance on TMT performance when controlling for habitual video game playing, pretest TMT performance and accounting for sex, with the video game group showing faster performance compared with the control group [ F (1, 19) = 5.06, p = 0.030, η p 2 = 0.103, the covariate of pretest performance, p = 0.034, was significant and sex was close to significance, p = 0.052].

A similar pattern emerged as in the total score: efficacy showed a significant positive effect ( B = 0.022, β = 0.298, p = 0.038; sr 2 = 0.085), and resilience approached significance ( p = 0.052; sr 2 = 0.075).

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.

Model 2, the block with the interactions, also approached significance: Δ F (4, 109) = 2.43, p = 0.052, Δ R 2 = 0.07.

final, within-subjects factor) ANOVA conducted on the last probe trial of long delay conditioning training revealed a Stimulus × Segment interaction, F (1,28) = 70.63, MSE = 15.20, p < 0.0001, and a marginally significant main effect of stimulus, F (1,28) = 4.13, MSE = 13.30, p = 0.052.

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).

Sentence stress differences in stressed prefixes had only a marginally significant effect (“w+s+” vs. “w+s−,” W = 14,189.5, p = 0.052, mean values: 0.889 vs. 0.864).

The interaction of CONDITION * TIME remained significant, F (3, 704) = 6.32, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.03, but the interaction of TIME * BIDR-SDE was only marginally significant, F (1, 704) = 3.79, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.01.

While more passive use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, gender remained a marginally significant positive predictor (β std = 0.10, p = 0.052) indicating that females reported being more skilled nonverbal decoders than males.

The cross-species comparison between apes and humans on the distribution of the tendency to avoid mixes containing the least preferred ingredient approached significance–χ 2 = 3.764, p = 0.052.

In addition, the beauty of body shape was related to low body fatness and perceived similarity, and high perceived body health was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Only the indirect effects of identity entrepreneurship by team members via social identity continuity on job satisfaction and loneliness were now marginally significant ( p = 0.052 for the indirect effect on loneliness; p = 0.065 for the indirect effect on job satisfaction).

Regarding Final Pitch Span, the main effect of Length was dominant [ F (1, 701.70) = 34.70, p < 0.001], whereas the effect of Group reached only marginal significance ( p = 0.052).

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.

For DBP ( Figure 3D ), the time-point effect approached significance ( p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.769), however pairwise comparisons demonstrated no differences between any time-point (all p > 0.05).

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.

Even so, the ANOVA showed a nearly significant main effect of group, F (2, 23) = 3.369, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.227.

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

neurogenetics BDNF memory recall recognition A two-way interaction between BDNF and COMT genotype on recall scores was approaching significance [ F (1,96) = 3.864, p = 0.052].

Cognitive Reflection was a borderline significant predictor of decision biases beyond intelligence 7 ( b = −0.11, p = 0.052, change in R 2 = 0.004).

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on the slopes of the RTs as a function of the binary logarithm of the response set size revealed a main effect of response set ( F 1,16 = 9.17, p = 0.008), a marginally significant effect of ET ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.052), and a marginally significant effect of condition ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.051).

The analysis comparing typically collectivistic cultures with individualistic cultures approached significance ( p = 0.052) for ability mindset, such that participants from typically collectivistic cultures displayed lower fixed mindsets, in line with previous literature (Church et al., 2012 ; Tang et al., 2016 ).

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).

3.2.2 Results 3.2.2.1 Manipulation check A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the power manipulation on participants’ subjective feeling of power was partially significant ( F (1, 598) = 3.80, p = 0.052, ηp 2 = 0.006).