Excerpts

When self-control was replaced by impulsivity, a marginally significant tendency was found for an interaction between alcohol associations and trait impulsivity in the expected direction ( beta = 0.15, p = 0.056), lending partial support for the alternative moderator hypothesis.

GPA was found to have a nearly significant influence on PAL (Estimate = −17.280, SE = 8.413, t = −2.054, p -value = 0.056). 3.8 Mean weekday and weekend steps The analysis of mean weekday steps revealed a significant effect of learning environment type (Online: Estimate = 750.630, SE = 374.150, t = 2.006, p -value = 0.050), but the intercept was not significant (estimate = 5065.490, SE = 3550.890, t = 1.427, p -value = 0.172).

Only the correlation between item memory for phonological similar items and non-word reading was marginally significant, r = -0.254, p = 0.056, N = 57, and even this association should be interpreted with a degree of caution given the fact that Table 2 contains 24 separate correlations.

The main effect of reason for group membership was only marginally significant, F (2, 281) = 2.91, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.01.

From the results of RTs, it was found that the main effect of group was marginally significant ( F (1, 77) = 3.779, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.047), with the RT of the LSA (54.03 ± 503.97) being significantly shorter than that of the HSA group (256.57 ± 439.37); the main effect of the congruency type was significant ( F (1, 77) = 61.604, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.444), and the RTs to congruent stimuli (110.56 ± 460.38) were significantly shorter than those to incongruent stimuli (200.04 ± 482.96).

Interestingly, the interaction between voice category and gender approached significance [ F (4.4,727.8) = 2.2, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.004] and would have suggested that the resistance of TRANS listeners occurred more toward actors on the extremities of the human range such as basses and sopranos than toward categories in the middle.

Analysis of the random effects structure revealed that the Subject ID random intercept was marginally significant (Wald Z = 1.91, p = 0.056), accounting for 14% of the total variance (ICC = 0.14).

The main effect of emotional valence approached significance [ β = 0.107, t = 1.913, p = 0.056, 95% CI = (−0.003, 0.217)], suggesting a marginal tendency for reaction times to differ between positive and negative words.

Connect and winning scenarios approached significance ( p = 0.0567).

A two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) on age group (3) as a between-participants factor × stimulus condition (2) as a within-participants factor revealed a significant main effect of condition [ F (1, 2) = 0.505, p = 0.0385] and marginally significant interactions between the two factors [ F (2, 53) = 3.154, p = 0.0568].

The No-Constraint Mismatch condition (7b) waveform average amplitude is more negative than (7a) [ t -test nearly significant difference t′ (23) = 1.989, p = 0.057].

Physical aggression was predicted by higher observer and provocation sensitivity (marginally significant results for lower victim and perpetrator sensitivity, p = 0.057 and 0.063, respectively) in men and by higher observer, rejection, and provocation as well as by lower perpetrator and moral disgust sensitivity in women.

Correlation between age of onset and language dominance was marginally significant, χ 2 (2) = 5.728, p = 0.057, φ = 0.383. 7 Recall that there were significant differences between 2L1 and eL2 children with regard to paternal school education and between MON and 2L1 children as well as between 2L1 and eL2 children regarding non-verbal IQ (see Table 1 ).

The difference in the FFMQ total scores between the two groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.057).

Separate analyses for the two kinds of Spatial Frequency revealed that the difference between illiterates (1,027 ms) and literates (1,295 ms) was marginally significant for high-spatial-frequency faces, t (20) = −2.02, p = 0.057, d = 0.90, but significant distinction between illiterates (973 ms) and literates (956 ms) for low-spatial-frequency faces was not reached, t (20) = 0.177, p = 0.861, d = 0.08.

For the ASMR-incapable group, there were significant multivariate effects at F (10, 88) = 2.56, p < 0.05; Wilk’s Λ = 0.601, η 2 = 0.225, and univariate analysis suggested significant differences for arousal–clam mood changes [ F (2, 48) = 6.52, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.214] and unpleasant–pleasant mood changes [ F (2, 48) = 6.84, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.214], and borderline significant difference with valence [ F (2, 48) = 3.04, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.562].

However, there was an inverse, marginally significant correlation between comments and closed prompts ( r = 0.74, p = 0.057), indicating that teachers who made more comments asked fewer closed questions.

The two-way interaction between Spatial Cuing and SOA was marginally significant, F (2,48) = 3.043, p = 0.057.

However, there was an almost significant stimulus type × group interaction ( p = 0.057) and a significant stimulus type × phase interaction ( p = 0.00003).

The effect of total (L1) orthographic neighborhood density was near-significant for total reading time (β = −15.64, SE = 8.22, t = −1.90, p = 0.057).

There was a marginally significant effect for Mandarin vocabulary as a predictor of the trilinguals' Mandarin RC performance: χ 2 (1) = 3.09, p = 0.079 and a marginal significance for Cantonese vocabulary as a predictor of the trilinguals' Cantonese RC performance: Cantonese χ 2 (1) = 3.62, p = 0.057), showing that, unsurprisingly, children's RC comprehension in a language improved as their vocabulary scores in the target language increased.

The linear regression for educational toys was marginally significant, F (1,159) = 3.67, p = 0.057, because again, the higher the AQ, the less likely the selection of an educational toy, see Figure 4B .

When looking at the values of the conditional effect of the focal predictor at values of each moderator, results showed that the p -values associated with the conditional effects of both Model 1b and Model 1c ( Figure 2 ) were higher and the established significance value and the 95% confidence interval included zero; in addition, a trend to a marginal significance was observed for revenge (i.e., p = 0.057) on the association between grandiose variant and cyberbullying behavior.

We also observed a marginally significant interaction of expression and group F (10,225) = 1.83, p = .057, η p 2 = 0.08.

Moreover, we detected that the group main effect was marginally significant ( F 1,36 = 3.85, P = 0.057).