Excerpts

For Conscientiousness, the direct effect on attitudes toward climate change was found to be marginally significant, b = 0.088, SE = 0.045, z = 1.939, p = 0.053, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.00096 to 0.1770.

The interaction between meridian and time condition was marginally significant, F (4, 76) = 2.447, p = 0.053 ( Figure 6 ).

Repeated-measures ANOVA on the LPP component produced a significant main effect of electrode distribution [ F (2,41) = 8.593, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.1701], stimulus [ F (1,42) = 89.104, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.680] and a marginally significant main effect of competitive intensity [ F (2,42) = 3.155, p = 0.053, η 2 = 0.131] (see Tables 2 , 3 ).

For upright houses, the Similarity × Age interaction was significant, F (4,118) = 9.0, p = 0.0001, but the simple effect of similarity was only marginally significant for older children ( p = 0.053, no linear trend) and not significant for adults or younger children.

However, although approaching significance, there was no significant effect of PBF on percent VO 2 max at crossover point during the SGET ( P = 0.053).

The results found all associations between variables were similar, except the relationship between sensory attention and self-kindness became positive and significant ( r = 0.142, p = 0.031), whilst the relationship became slightly non-significant between non-judgement awareness and isolation ( r = −0.128, p = 0.053) and overidentification ( r = −0.125, p = 0.057).

Since the age differences between the groups at T1 were borderline significant in the MWU ( p = 0.053) an additional MLM with age as covariate for the primary outcome MoCA and the TAP Alertness, was calculated.

For RT, the results showed that the main effect of familiarity between the familiar condition and the novel condition [ F (1,34) = 17.30, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37] was significant, and the main effect of appropriateness between the appropriate condition and the inappropriate condition was marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 4.02, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.11].

well-aligned also approached significance ( post hoc p = 0.0535).

Another round of independent t -tests revealed that 498 natural science majors exhibited a marginally significant difference from 109 social science majors on PosFlow (NS Mean = 30.81, SD = 5.59; SS Mean = 29.66, SD = 5.86; df = 605, t = 1.927, p = 0.054, r 2 = 0.061, Cohen’s d = 0.157) with a medium effect size, while there was a significant difference on NegFlow (NS Mean = 15.35, SD = 3.62; SS Mean = 13.61, SD = 3.49; df = 605, t = –4.568, p < 0.001, r 2 = 0.033, Cohen’s d = 0.371) with a medium effect size (see Table 3 ).

Second-year 3D-MR and second-year BSL grades were also strongly correlated, but the effect was marginally insignificant ( r 2 = 0.39, t = 2.21, p = 0.054; Figure 5B ).

Furthermore, the successful scores increased with age for the FK, although only a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.054) was found between the age groups.

An independent samples t -test indicated that this small difference was marginally statistically significant, t (36) = 1.65, p = 0.054, r = 0.26.

The correlation at 30° and 60° on the CI side showed a strong trend ( p =0.054 and p =0.058, respectively).

In the domain of knowledge transfer, the pedagogical agent showed a marginally significant main effect [ F (1, 108) = 3.809, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.034], whereas the main effect of emotional feedback was not significant [ F (1, 108) = 1.519, p = 0.220, η 2 = 0.014].

In Model 2, MSPSS approached significance ( β = −0.09, SE = 0.04, t = −1.93, p = 0.054), and the interaction between AES and MSPSS was significant ( β = 0.01, SE = 0.008, t = 2.06, p < 0.05), indicating a moderating effect of AES on the relationship between support and adjustment.

The path from environmental sensitivity to pro-environmental behavior was marginally significant (β = 0.211, p = 0.054).

Results Behavioral Results The ANOVA results showed significant main effects of the stimulus congruency [ F (1,15) = 24.774, p = 0.000 < 0.05], stimulus orientation (medial/lateral) [ F (1,15) = 9.47, p = 0.005 < 0.05], and body part [ F (1,15) = 5.746, p = 0.03 < 0.05], a significant stimulus congruency by body part interaction [ F (1, 15) = 13.24, p = 0.003 < 0.05] and a marginally significant stimulus orientation by body part interaction effect on RT [ F (1,15) = 4.351, p = 0.054].

As can be seen in Table 2 , across both groups there was a marginally significant relationship between age and the initial perception of risk, E(q 1 ), r (43) = −0.290, p = 0.054, such that older individuals had higher initial perceptions of risk.

A mixed ANOVA with Group, Trial type and Block as factors revealed a marginally significant main effect of group [ F (1,10) = 4.78, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.32], and significant main effects of trial type [ F (1,10) = 39.37, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.80], and block [ F (17,170) = 19.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.66].

For the younger subjects, the linear fit was borderline significant [ F (1,2) = 17.17; p = 0.054; R 2 = 0.896] and the logarithmic fit was significant [ F (1,2) = 58.83; p = 0.017; R 2 = 0.967].

As can be expected following the results above, following the intervention in English significantly larger gains are observed in English ( M = 0.27) than in Hebrew ( M = 0.05) for target words that were taught in English, t (21) = 5.93, p < 0.001, and following the intervention in Hebrew larger gains are observed in Hebrew ( M = 0.11) than in English ( M = 0.02) for target words that were taught in Hebrew, and the difference was nearly significant, t (21) = 2.04, p = 0.054.

The difference between the object specificity in the current experiment and previous experiments was nearly significant [ t (108) = 1.946, p = 0.054].

We found a significant main effect for condition [ F (2, 18) = 20.1, p = 0.0001, ή 2 = 0.7], a marginally significant effect for Type [ F (1, 19) = 4.226, p = 0.054, ή 2 = 0.18] and a significant interaction of Type and Condition [ F (2, 18) = 14.624, p < 0.0001, ή 2 = 0.6].

Individual differences in the recognition of band pass filtered speech predicted significant unique variance in more of the outcome measures: phonology (7%, β = 0.27, t = 2.2, p < 0.05), RAN (10%, β = -0.34, t = 2.9, p = 0.005), reading (14%, β = 0.39, t = 3.2, p = 0.002), spelling (16%, β = 0.42, t = 3.5, p = 0.001) and approached significance for vocabulary development (4%, β = 0.22, t = 2.0, p = 0.054).