Excerpts

A similar HLM for response latency yielded a main effect for consistency, b = 0.33 ( SE = 0.03), t (7268) = 9.89, and p < 0.0001, a marginally significant main effect of consensus, b = 0.005 ( SE = 0.002), t (133) = 1.90, and p = 0.060, and no interaction, t (7235) = 0.84 and p = 0.400.

Neuroticism approached significance ( p = 0.06), indicating that more power may reveal a significant difference between adults and adolescents.

We observed a main overall effect of group on VAMT Bias scores across IMR, STM, and LTM, at a statistical trend level ( p = 0.06), where patients with MDD tended to recall more negative words than positive words compared to healthy controls who recalled more positive words compared to negative words.

Patients tended to remember more negative words relative to positive words compared to healthy controls at borderline significance ( p = 0.06), and affective memory biases were negatively associated with depressive symptoms across the two groups at borderline significance ( p = 0.07), however, the effect sizes were small.

Meanwhile, middle-to-higher-income Latino(a) parents, in comparison with White parents, reported significantly more changes in appreciation of life (95% CI Mdifference [0.16, 1.25], p < 0.01), improved relationships (95% CI Mdifference [0.16, 1.13], p < 0.01), and new possibilities (95% CI Mdifference [0.15, 1.16], p < 0.01), as well as more changes in personal strength that was approaching significance (95% CI Mdifference [−0.02, 1.12], p = 0.06).

Regression analysis with age and culture as predictors of number of acquired skills in prone, showed that age is only a marginally significant predictor of number of skills (β = 0.10, p = 0.06, R 2 = 0.01) while culture significantly predicts the number of skills and significantly adds to the explained variance of age (β = 0.18, p < 0.001, Δ R 2 = 0.03).

In contrast, confusion did not significantly predict exploratory behavior; however, in case of incorrect answers the path coefficient was positive and marginally significant ( p = 0.060).

Moreover, the interaction between Language and kind of Verb almost reached significance as well, F (1, 72) = 3.68, MSe = 3490.70, p < 0.06.

A marginally significant interaction of the newly introduced factor Window (80 vs. 120 ms) with Stimulus type [ F (1,15) = 4.03, p = 0.06] suggested an earlier peak for the word than pseudo-word stimuli (also visible in the ERP patterns).

Follow-up tests for each level of Order, separately, indicated that there was no Task effect associated with Order 1 [ F (4, 10.88) = 1.86, p = 0.19] nor for Order 2 [ F (4, 10.27) = 2.36, p = 0.12], but there was a nearly significant Task effect for Order 3 [ F (4, 14.39) = 2.87, p = 0.06].

WS participants also considered avoiding trustworthy faces more than control participants, though the difference in MD was of borderline significance (0.45 vs. 0.29, p = 0.06).

The predictability effects were significant at FCZ, CZ, CPZ, and PZ ( p s < 0.0001), but only marginally significant at Fz ( p = 0.06).

The relationship between Raven’s performance and total sleep (SDSC) score approached significance, r s (46) = 0.28, p = 0.06.

The main effect for Focus approached significance, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.23, and this was likely to be attributed to the slower times recorded by the internal focus group.

For the analysis of different score of d4, d3, d2, d1 for both high- and low-level group together, it showed that there is no significant difference in d3, d2, and d1 for two groups, with marginal significance in d4, p = 0.06.

Furthermore, and suggesting a lack of safety concerns might be due to feeling less responsible for the research assistant, in comparison to those who raised their concerns, those who spoke-up despite being unconcerned felt less obligated to raise concerns, MD = −1.48, p = 0.004, and less sorry for the research assistant's problems, MD = −1.16, p = 0.02, and a marginally significant trend suggested they might have less concerns that they think the research assistant was not aware of, MD = −0.1.24, p = 0.06.

The linear trend for this effect, however, was only marginally significant [ F (1, 95) = 3.83, p < 0.06].

However, after modifying the experimental procedure so that more dissonance was thought to be induced (i.e., making choice more important and meaningful), they found a marginally significant difference between preference change in the Rate-Choose-Rate condition and that in the Rate-Rate-Choose condition ( p = 0.06; Chen and Risen, 2010 ), suggesting that the mere act of making a choice seems to have an effect on preference over and above the artifact.

It should be noted that subjects showed a trend toward selecting the larger number for the 1 vs. 2 condition ( p = 0.06; Figure 2 ).

A 2 (Group) × 2 (Run) × 3 (Condition) mixed ANOVA for errors with repeated measures for Run and Condition revealed no significant differences between Groups, F (1, 29) = 1.17, p = 0.29, η 2 = 0.04, no significant effect for Run, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η 2 = 0.07, no significant effect for the Run × Group interaction, F (1, 29) < 1, a significant trend for the Condition × Group effect, F (2, 58) = 3.04, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, and a significant Run × Condition × Group interaction, F (2, 58) = 5.20, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.15.

On the other hand, the interaction was only marginally significant when limited to the two-flanker and four-flanker conditions, F (1, 8) = 5.04, p = 0.06, and was in the opposite direction.

The interaction role by actor effect approached significance ( p = 0.06).

Gender was a significant moderator of the actor effect ( p < 0.05), while the interaction between gender and partner effect approached significance ( p = 0.06).

For the Stroop task, bilingual variables almost reached statistical significance (Estimated bilingualism β = 0.145, p = 0.06; L2 Proficiency β = 0.135, p = 0.07), although indicative of a bilingual disadvantage.

A χ 2 -homogeneity test revealed just a marginally significant difference between the interleaved and the blocked group at T1 with a small effect size, χ 2 (5, N = 2288) = 10.55, p = 0.06, C corr = 0.10.