Excerpts

The difference in direction of effects is highly significant ( z = 3.43, p < 0.001), and suggests that the unpublished literature does not consist of a large number of counter-theoretical outcomes, as would be expected if the self-regulation depletion model was spurious.

The two first-stage paths from digital orientation to Organizational learning ( β = 0.513, p < 0.001) and to Organizational forgetting ( β = 0.487, p < 0.001) were both highly significant, as were the second-stage paths from Organizational learning ( β = 0.276, p < 0.001) and Organizational forgetting ( β = 0.263, p < 0.001) to AI capability.

Sufficient correlations for PCA were indicated, as the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant, χ 2 (780) = 4029.79, p < 0.001.

These results were confirmed by a mixed ANOVA on the Fisher-z-transformed correlation values, for which the interaction of within-participant (rating dimension) and between-participant factor (across-group comparison) became highly significant [ F (22,32967) = 1781.268, p < 0.001, n2 = 0.178].

This difference was highly significant [χ 2 (2, N = 1676) = 133.94, p > 0.001] with a Cramer’s φ = 0.28, which meant a small (almost moderate) effect.

In this model, the direct effect of moral context on intentionality ( b = 1.74, SE = 0.26, p < 0.001) was approximately halved, yet remained highly significant ( b = 0.85, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001).

The results unambiguously support that perceived closeness reacts to the treatment manipulation: future managers feel closer to their fellow, with an average closeness equal to 3.96, than to subjects from the other school (3.09, the difference is highly significant, p < 0.001, according to paired-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test).

We observed a highly significant main effect of semantic relatedness {semantically related > semantically unrelated; [ F (1,46) = 49.122, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.516]}, suggesting a reducing effect of semantic primes on N400 amplitude.

The interaction between learning condition and post-test condition (i.e., the match effect) was also highly significant (β = 1.56, p < 0.001).

Test–retest repeatability correlation coefficients for the two domain scores were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The contribution of the 3 variables used is highly significant ( p < 0.001) in all models.

We crucially found that this interaction was negative and highly significant (β = 3.37, SE = 0.54, z = 6.21, p < 0.001).

The primary effect of time was highly significant ( F = 509.072, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.924), indicating a consistent reduction in depression severity across all groups over time.

The test showed that the full model is highly significant for both analyses compared to the additive only model [detailed coordinate system: χ ( 50 ) 2 = 234.54, p < 0.001, V = 0.52; simple coordinate system: χ ( 50 ) 2 = 287.39; p < 0.001, V = 0.47], which in turn is also highly significant compared to the null model [detailed coordinate system: χ ( 51 ) 2 = 220.14, p < 0.001, V = 0.45; simple coordinate system: χ ( 51 ) 2 = 6832.17, p < 0.001, V = 2.55].

However, the between-subject effect of CP was now clearly significant, F (1,47) = 18.74, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.28.

As we had expected, the main effect of Manipulations was highly significant, F (3,63) = 130.82, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.862.

There were highly significant increases in the number of words remembered over Trials I-V (linear trend F = 312.74, p < 0.001; quadratic trend F = 17.64, p < 0.001; for all effects reported in this section df = 1.32), indicating learning of words over trials.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy showed the data for Section 1 to be factorable (KMO = 0.856), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also highly significant (χ 2 = 2868, df = 36, p < 0.001).

The KMO statistic was 0.846 (overall; per-item MSAs ranged 0.777–0.895, all above the 0.70 threshold), and Bartlett's test was highly significant, χ 2 (28) = 14,651.70, p < 0.001, indicating that the correlation matrix was suitable for factor analysis.

By the same token, high IAS total scores were associated with high scores on TAS-20 and with high scores on two components of TAS-20, “difficulty identifying feelings” and “difficulty describing feelings.” The results from the regression analysis showed that Interoception was a moderately significant predictor of Alexithymia, explaining 13% of the variance (beta = 0.37, p < 0.001).

There is a moderate, yet highly significant correlation between Raven and CRT scores (Spearman's ρ = 0.306, p < 0.001) which suggests that they may have a common source, but do not capture the same cognitive skills.

Even when this distribution is dropped to have 10,000 randomly selected comparisons from each condition, there is still an extremely significant difference of F (1,19,999) = 1,004.58, p < 0.001.

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.

Moreover, the direct effect of boredom on the time judgment remained highly significant even when other mediating factors were entered into the mediation model (Model 1, Figure 6A ) [direct effect = −0.31, SE = 0.297, t = −10.27, p < 0.001, 95% CIs (−0.36, −0.25)].

First, data suitability tests yielded ideal results: the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.76 (>0.7), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant ( χ 2 = 782.82, p < 0.001), indicating the data were well-suited for factor analysis.