Excerpts

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].

The main effect of epoch was marginally significant, F (2.601, 36.410) = 2.865, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.170, BF 10 = 133.666, with 19 ms faster in Epoch 10 compared with Epoch 1 (651 and 670 ms of Epochs 10 and 1, respectively).

These correlations were positive and significant for songs directed to males [ r (11) = 0.626, p = 0.039; Figure 4 ] and positive and nearly significant for songs directed to females [ r (11) = 0.589, p = 0.057; Figure 4 ].

Although the interaction between social media self-disclosure and gender in predicting cyberbullying victimization was only marginally significant ( β = −0.166, p = 0.057, 95% CI = [−0.336, 0.005]), post-hoc analysis found the simple slope was significant for females ( β = 0.180, t = 4.141, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.095, 0.266]) but not significant for males ( β = 0.015, t = 0.195, p = 0.846, 95% CI = [−0.133, 0.162]) ( Figure 3 ).

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

The effect of vigilance in interaction with dyslexia was almost significant ( p = 0.057), showing a higher effect of vigilance in DD’s sense of competencies as compared to the control [b(DD) = 8.6; b(C) = 6.9].

Interestingly, also the interaction between Group and Emotion closely approached significance [ F ( 4 , 124 ) = 2.36; p = 0.057; η 2 G = 0.027].

In the RT analysis Test and Emotion interaction was statistically significant [ F (1,17) = 4.39, p = 0.05] as well as interaction of Age, Test, and Emotion close to significance [ F (1,17) = 4.16, p = 0.057].

Additionally, a marginally significant main effect of AI ( B = 0.097, SE = 0.050, t = 1.93, p = 0.057, semipartial r = 0.21) emerged.

The analysis showed a marginally significant main effect of Valence, F (1, 189) = 3.649, p = 0.057, ηp 2 = 0.019, suggesting that participants took less time answering to negative side effects ( M = 6.952, SD = 5.964; log( M ) = 1.621, log( SD ) = 0.825) than to the positive ones ( M = 8.249, SD = 9.089; log( M ) = 1.753, log( SD ) = 0.836).

For Immersion, the Kruskal-Wallis test approached significance, χ 2 (2) = 5.72, p = 0.057, ε 2 = 0.0339, but pairwise comparisons did not reveal significant differences between any groups. 4.

Further, performance in the cases where participants indicated rule knowledge as their basis was higher than in the cases where participants indicated that memory was their basis, and this difference approached significance (estimate = 0.39, SE = 0.21, p = 0.057).

Fifth-graders demonstrated a marginally significant typical distance effect for digit-context positive number comparisons [mean = −5.94, t (15) = −2.063, p = 0.057], but not for negative numbers [mean = −2.42, t (15) = −1.044, p > 0.3].

Results showed a marginally significant effect of depiction on the frequency of ToM-self, χ 2 (4) = 9.16, p = 0.057.

The main effect of Position was marginally significant with the tendency of faster responses to lower targets than higher targets [ F (1,40) = 3.854, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.088].

There was a marginally significant effect of WM load, F (2,87) = 2.95, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.064.

Results from a one-tailed Pearson correlation test indicated a trend toward significance in the association between musical training and AWM task performance ( r = 0.191, p = 0.057).

The main effect of Target Type only approached significance [ F T (1,18) = 4.14, p = 0.057, η G 2 = 0.00024] whereas the effect of Retinal Size was not significant [ F R (1,18) = 0.51, p = 0.484] as well as the remaining interactions (all F ≤ 2.33; all p ≥ 0.144).

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.

While in the negative-different condition the difference between the Mandarin and English speakers’ response speed only approached significance (estimate = 289, SE = 147, t = 1.96, p = 0.057), the Mandarin speakers were significantly slower in the negative same condition than the English speakers (estimate = 328, SE = 108, t = 3.03, p = 0.004).

IPA in interaction with Time and Time 2 showed marginal significance with B = −1.13, t (58.2) = −1.94, p = 0.057 and B = 0.06, t (43.6) = 1.90, p = 0.098, respectively, indicating that higher IPA was related to a stronger linear decrease of SBP and a stronger quadratic response.

However, note this association was only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.058).

The interaction term of training support approached significance, β = −0.112, SE = 0.059, T = −1.898, p = 0.058.

However, when the expressed emotion was happiness, the difference between the two was marginally significant F (1,61) =3.72, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.05.

PcM showed an intermediate profile between V6 and CSv, in which prediction accuracy was significant when limiting data to the coherent motion condition (0.406, p = 0.006) and showed a tendency toward significance when limiting it to the random motion condition (0.344, p = 0.058).