Excerpts

We found a marginally significant main effect (β = 0.16, SE = 0.09, p = 0.06): mothers who spent more time engaging in maternal behaviors also had higher levels of baseline cortisol over weeks 1 and 2.

The age differences during post-test were marginally significant [χ 2 (2, N = 342) = 5.63, p = 0.06, Cramer’s V = 0.13], indicating, in line with this latter finding, that the adults tended to choose the teacher less often than did the 7- and 10-year-olds.

The main effect of mean-centered BDI-II approached significance [ F (1, 41) = 3.73, p = 0.06], with a higher number of commission errors produced by high relative to low BDI participants.

A main effect of experimental condition on measures of well-being was approaching significance, Pillais' Trace = 0.13, F (12, 459) = 1.70, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.043 3 .

It should also be noted that although the interaction of worries with HWS-PE was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), the same trend was observed (i.e., that the effect of COVID-19 worries on anxiety was stronger among individuals with low HWS-PE).

Behavioral Results Accuracy The repeated ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant congruency effect ( F = 3.64, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that the participants responded more accurately in the congruent trials ( M = 0.988, SD = 0.003) than in the incongruent trials ( M = 0.985, SD = 0.003).

Also in contrast to the early P3, the SI-perpetrator × Trait-BIS interaction was only marginally significant for the late parietal P3 amplitude, F (4,88) = 2.32, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10.

We found a marginally significant interaction between group, valence, and congruity, F (2,40) = 3, MSE = 570, p < 0.06 (see Figure 6 ).

Luminance standard deviation showed a trend toward significance ( F (2,123) = 2.96, p = 0.06) but did not exceed the conventional threshold.

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).

( 2011 ) found a marginally significant ( p < 0.06) difference between AEE in highly active individuals (i.e., more positive AEE) and less active individuals ( d = 0.81).

Subsequent per-group analyses only yielded a marginally significant main effect of Condition for the L1 group's total viewing times [ F 1(2, 64) = 2.98, p = 0.06; F 2(2, 34) = 2.5, p = 0.09], and a marginal one in the by-items analysis for the L2 group's rereading times [ F 1(2, 66) = 2.46, p = 0.09; F 2(2, 34) = 0.85, p = 0.43], however.

At first blush, a change in the number of pumps from the 2nd to the 3rd block emerged, but the difference was only marginally significant, t (22) = 1.95, p = .06.

More interestingly, the Proposed solution x Group interaction was marginally significant [ F (1.32) = 3.69, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0 . 10 ].

The interaction between number of targets and self-motion approached significance [ F (4,52) = 2.43, MSE = 45.43, p < 0.06].

There was no significant difference between MAU and CON -users ( p = 0.39), while a marginally significant difference was observed between MAU -users and the inconsistent group ( p = 0.06).

However, when the two subtests were examined separately, only the backward condition of the Corsi blocks task significantly predicted the subtest Series (β = 0.22, p < 0.05), and the backward condition of the digit-span test predicted the subtest Concepts, although in latter case it was only marginally significant (β = 0.18, p = 0.06).

Results of the analyses on latency showed a significant difference between long-time priming ( M = 744 ms) and short-time priming ( M = 673 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 46.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.56, F 2 (1,22) = 30.91, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58, and a marginally significant, but unreliable 17-ms, difference between long-time concepts ( M = 717 ms) and short-time concepts ( M = 700 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 3.81, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, F 2 (1,22) < 1, ns.

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

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.

Beyond that, the post-hoc comparison following the Games-Howell procedure revealed that the difference between assimilation and marginalization was marginally significant for anger-in ( p = 0.06).

Most findings were either clearly significant or non-significant, and there were few of the borderline and near-significant results that can result from underpowering, with the exception of the 0.3 correlation ( p = 0.06) between Arithmetic Scaled Score and Backward Digit Span, However, it is still possible that some potentially significant associations were not found due to the relatively small sample size and that this may partially explain the limited number of independent predictors found.

Rotation had a significant effect on RTs, F (1,21) = 19.65, MSe = 7459.94, p < 0.001, and a marginally significant effect on errors, F (1,21) = 4.19, MSe = 0.03, p < 0.06, with rotated conditions being 13 ms faster and 2.7% more often correct.

They also showed longer total duration ( U = 770.0, p = 0.017) and a near-significant trend for mean duration of self-touch ( U = 727.5, p = 0.06).