Excerpts

Finally, concerning between-subjects effects, a tendency toward significance was found for the main effect Handedness: F (1, 24) = 4.1035, p = 0.054, indicating a significant difference between the left-handedness (M = −3.06, SE = 2.32) and right-handedness (M = −9.70, SE = 2.32). 3.2.5.

The fear of contagion by COVID-19 decreased as time passed since the start of the pandemic, and this difference was almost significant ( p = 0.054) when comparing the data between 2020 and 2021.

No significant main effect of alignment was found, F < 1, but the main effect of congruency was significant, F (1,127) = 54.14, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.30, MSE = 317, and the main effect of font was marginally significant, F (2,127) = 2.99, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.04, MSE = 55167, because, as shown in Figure 1B and demonstrated in post hoc HSD Tukey tests, participants were overall faster when words were presented in typical courier than in handwritten case ( p = 0.038; the other two comparisons, p s > 0.40).

It is worth noting that post-HABIT internalized shame score came very close to being statistically significant (post-HABIT Perceived Stigma Internalized Shame score is not a significant predictor of post-HABIT Perceived Stress, B = 0.1.072[−0.019, 2.163], t = 2.012, p = 0.054).

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 interaction between condition and gender was nearly significant ( F 2,105 = 3.00, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.05).

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.

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].

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

For extrinsic aspirations, the difference among different types of participants reached marginal significance ( Q B = 7.636, p = 0.054).

Also, her word translation skills revealed a slight trend toward significance in L1–L2 (Crawford’s t -test = -1.82, p = 0.054, z cc = -4.25) but no deficit in the L2–L1 direction (Crawford’s t -test = 0.50, p = 0.466, z cc = -1.38) ( Figure 2C ).

Affective empathy, our main empathy variable, as well as total empathy, were not associated with MR skills, but cognitive empathy approached significance ( r = 0.22 p = 0.054).

Intercepts for anxiety and depression approached significance ( p = 0.054 and p = 0.089, respectively), with mild asymmetry suggesting that smaller studies with null or unfavorable results may be under-represented, a pattern also noted in several recent music intervention meta-analyses.

The increase in interference effects in accuracy with the number of the SL G alleles was also significant or marginally significant in all four distracter conditions in run1 (threat: r = 0.195, p = 0.054; neutral: r = 0.170, p = 0.082; scrambled: r = 0.192, p = 0.057; null: r = 0.218, p = 0.036; all one-tailed correlations).

The results showed a marginally significant main effect of room geometry on perceived spaciousness, F (3, 102) = 2.629, p = 0.054, partial η 2 = 0.072, indicating a medium effect size.

There was no significant association between HI and other constructs, but only a marginally significant association ( p = 0.054) with trust.

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

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].

Worth mentioning is a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.054) between the SA-Low and SA-High groups in the recovery sample (S2), within the CR-Low group.

The time x attitude interaction was found to be marginally significant, F (2, 126) = 2.94, p = 0.054, partial η 2 = 0.05.

Dexterity was a marginally significant predictor, β = 0.221, p = 0.054, whereas graphomotor skill was not, β = −0.183, p = 0.110.

Second, the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intention approached significance ( p = 0.054), although it did not reach the conventional threshold of p < 0.05.

These numerical differences receive some support from an extra ANOVA of subjective arousal during the threshold in the high-pleasure conditions showing that the interaction between arousal and experiment almost reached significance: F (1,76) = 3.54 and p = 0.054.

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].

Looking at the effect of Language, Mann–Whitney tests were carried out on participants’ RCA scores in each type of display, revealing a significant effect of Language in the Polychrome condition, U = 42, Z = 4.26, p < 0.001; and a marginally significant effect in the Monochrome condition, U = 114, Z = 1.93, p = 0.054, with RCAs being produced more often in English than in Spanish in both types of display.