Excerpts

There was a marginally significant main effect of Interview condition, F (1, 86) = 3.64, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.04, indicating that the suspects in the SUE combined ( M = 1.91, SD = 0.29) overestimated the interviewer's knowledge about the critical phase to a higher extent, compared to the suspects in the Early disclosure condition ( M = 0.96, SD = 0.41).

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.

There is a strong trend for a rise in DD with age ( r τ = 0.134, p = 0.060) and a small negative trend for DoG1 and age ( r τ = −0.140 , p = 0.072).

The interaction between DisplaySize and Congruency was marginally significant, F (1, 19) = 4.04, MS e = 360, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.18.

There was a marginally significant treatment response observed for the K-10 ( F 1, 26 = 3.86, p = 0.060).

Analyses showed a group effect [ F (1,45) = 27.64, p = 0.000], as WL were higher for children with dyslexia than for children without dyslexia (Estimate = 269, SE = 51) and the morphological condition was close to significance [ F (2,33) = 3.02, p = 0.06].

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).

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.

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.

For response times, a marginally significant main effect of online review [ M positive = 1078.787 ms, SE = 62.632; M negative = 999.723 ms, SE = 53.379; F (1, 22) = 3.948, p = 0.060, η 2 = 0.152] and a significant main effect of brand familiarity were identified [ M familiar = 1065.109 ms, SE = 59.244; M unfamiliar = 1013.401 ms, SE = 52.142; F (1,22) = 5.385, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.197].

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).

The interaction between accountability and self-interest was marginally significant, b = −0.10, SE = 0.05, t (49) = −1.93, p = 0.060.

The path of perceived teacher support positively predicting self-efficacy through performance-approach goals and positive emotions is borderline significant ( 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.

The direct effects of growth mindset on psychological well-being and school engagement in this group are marginally significant ( p = 0.060 and p = 0.054, respectively).

which ), caused by lower performance on which than on who questions [ F (1,32) = 10.89, p = 0.002], and a marginally significant effect of group, caused by the HI children performing below the hearing children [ F (1,32) = 3.79, p = 0.06].

Sixteen year-olds performed better than the12-year-olds (mean differences = 2.50, 95% CI [0.32, 4.69], p < 0.05), yet 15 year-olds showed a trend of outperforming the 12-year-olds (mean differences = 2.27, 95% CI [−0.050, 4.58], p = 0.06).

Results and Discussion An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on word/non-word (W+ versus W-) and phonological similarity to Chinese (C+ versus C-) revealed a marginally significant effect of word ( M w+ = 5.74, SD = 1.60, and M w - = 5.15, SD = 1.91); F (1,35) = 3.70, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.10; a significant effect of phonological similarity ( M c+ = 6.28, SD = 1.53 and M c - = 4.61, SD = 1.64), F (1,35) = 59.32, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63; and a significant word by phonological similarity interaction, F (1,35) = 7.18, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.17.

Although we found no age differences in parent-report of impersonation ( p = 0.42), we found marginally significant age differences in parent-report of ICs [ F (2,61) = 2.97, p = 0.06] with 9-year-olds having the lowest rate of parent-report (76%).

( 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).

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).

Effects of Mindfulness Training on Cortisol The CAR measured over 3 workdays showed a marginally significant Group*Time interaction, controlling for baseline CAR, cohort, gender, years of policing, smoking status, and BMI [ χ 2 (2, N =13)=5.55, p =0.06, η 2 =0.04; Figure 3 ; Table 2 ].

t, both p < 0.005, suggesting an “all or nothing” attitude toward compliance), individualistic reasons for compliance (while collectivist reasons for compliance were strongly and positively associated with trust, p < 0.001), educational level, time of data collection, and age (the last one showed a marginally significant negative correlation, β = −0.018, p = 0.06).

The Other × BPQ term approached but did not reach significance ( b = 0.09, SE = 0.05, t = 1.89, p = 0.060); corresponding simple-slope estimates at BPQ = −1/0/+1 SD were 0.00 / 0.02 / 0.05.

An LSD post-hoc test indicated that the percentage of retrieval was almost significantly higher at the first compared to the third session ( p = 0.06).