However, since the predicted finding for the recombined combination came close to significance ( p = 0.052) we are reluctant to completely rule out the possibility that the findings reported here also reflect associative memory according to a more stringent definition.
Nevertheless, due to smaller sample sizes and consequently lower statistical power, some of the main effects were only marginally significant when analyzing each of samples separately (i.e., p -values for differences in the intellectual strengths were p = 0.052 and 0.086 in the mixed sample and in the nurses sample, respectively).
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 ).
There was a main effect of age on self-efficacy nearing significance, F (1, 59) = 3.93, p = 0.052.
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.
Step 2 led to a marginally significant increase in the variance explained, ΔF (1, 72) = 3.90, p = 0.052.
For the vivid imagery visualizer style dimension, the 4-factorial ANOVA showed significant main effects, with F (1, 1030) = 12.56, p < 0.01, for grapheme-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 14.36, p < 0.01, for sound-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 7.47, p < 0.01, and for lexical-gustatory synaesthesia, and a marginally significant effect for sequence-space synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 3.79, 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).
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).
Here, the PDSS effect approached significance ( β = −0.035, p = 0.052), and both age ( β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and sex ( β = 1.03, p < 0.001) remained significant predictors.
However, after the correction, this relation remained only marginally significant ( 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.
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].
As shown in Table 7 , differences in gender and education level on INF and CSE did not reach significance; differences in overseas experience on INF were also non-significant ( t = −1.28, p = 0.202), but showed a trend toward significance on CSE ( t = −1.95, p = 0.052).
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).
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.
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).
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.
Under the sentence conditions, an rANOVA with these two factors on the accuracy showed significant main effects of scrambling and topicalization [scrambling, F (1,16) = 12, p = 0.0036; topicalization, F (1,16) = 9.5, p = 0.0072], and an interaction between these factors was marginally significant [ F (1,16) = 4.4, p = 0.052].
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).
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).
Although the total effect of PA on aggression was marginally significant ( B = 0.0643, p = 0.0526), the indirect effect through state anger was statistically significant (BootLLCI = 0.0015, BootULCI = 0.0325).
Footnotes 1 https://jasp-stats.org 2 When entering a gender variable into the analyses, there was only a marginally significant main effect of gender indicating that males performed better than females at the test phase, F (1,59) = 3.89, p = 0.053; η p 2 = 0.06 ; no other significant main effects or interactions with gender were observed, either in the learning phase or in the test phase (minimum p = 0.204). 3 The stress manipulation that we used was identical to the study of Quaedflieg et al.
In contrast, studies with 4 to <7 sessions showed a smaller, borderline significant effect (SMD = −0.43, 95% CI: −0.86 to 0.01, p = 0.053) and higher heterogeneity ( I 2 = 76.4%).