Excerpts

Interestingly, participants CRT's scores were not significatively correlated neither with reaction times on the task, r (19) = 0.06, p = 0.78 nor with the number of no responses per participant, r (19) = −0.20, p = 0.36, although there was an almost significant trend to correlate with the frequency of “too early” responses, r (19) = −0.41, p = 0.06.

Finally, a positive trend could be observed between math anxiety scores and the IES difference ( r = 0.24; p = 0.06).

The effect on bias bordered on significance [ t (4) = 2.03, p = 0.06] suggesting that participants may have been more conservative in the training phase compared to the test phase (see Figure 3B ).

The multiple regression model combining motor expertise and visual experience showed a trend toward significance in explaining the performance in outcome prediction ( r = 0.32, p = 0.06).

The relation of attentional control to reading comprehension was marginally significant (0.19, p = 0.06) after controlling for short-term memory, decoding, vocabulary, and inference.

Using Pillai’s trace, the multivariate statistics revealed a main effect of WTC on cognitive functioning, F (3,31) = 3.32, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.24, as well as a marginally significant interaction between WTC and leisure time activity, F (3,31) = 2.79, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.21, but no main effect of leisure-time activity, F (3,31) = 1.48, p = 0.24, η 2 = 0.13, and voluntariness in WTC, F (3,31) = 2.03, p = 0.13, η 2 = 0.16.

The AgCC group revealed a borderline significant correlation between ToM and the SDQ Peer Problems subscale [ r (17) = −0.45, p = 0.06], and the Prosocial subscale marginally correlated with ToM [ r (17) = 0.46, p = 0.06], complex mental state recognition [ r (18) = 0.42, p = 0.08], and inhibitory control [ r (15) = 0.48, p = 0.06].

Familiarity with App Inventor was a marginally significant predictor of selection to the central position (β = 0.39, p = 0.06).

The ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (1,37) = 3.74, p = 0.06, and a significant main effect of block, F (2.3,84) = 37.38, p < 0.001 [Greenhouse–Geisser corrected; linear contrast: F (1,37) = 53.88, p < 0.001].

The difference between the effect size for fusion versus sacred values was marginally significant ( z =1.85, 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 HI interlocutors also produced longer turns ( Figure 5A ), although the effect seemed to be largest at higher levels of background noise, as the effect of hearing status was only near-significant at the low noise level ( Tables 1 , p = 0.06).

Only for subjective sleep quality, the linear equation produced the largest effect size (the quadratic effect just failed to reach significance, p = 0.06).

Considering the marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.06) and the exploratory nature of investigating bystanders’ roles in prosocial intervention, we conducted a comparison examining the condition effects within each task type.

For game 1 (n-shaped), greater anticipatory SCR was associated (an almost significant correlation) with improved performance, OR (odds ratio) = 0.03, p = 0.06, R 2 = 0.001.

The ANCOVA revealed no significant group difference for the 0–20 number line estimation errors [ F (1, 37) = 2.77; p = 0.11; partial eta 2 = 0.05], but did reveal a significant difference for the overall estimation error score [ F (1, 37) = 4.36, p = 0.044; partial eta 2 = 0.11], and a borderline significant difference for estimation errors in the 0–100 number line task, [ F (1, 37) = 3.77, p = 0.06; partial eta 2 = 0.092].

Facebook For Facebook, as shown in Figure 2 , the ANOVA revealed a main effect of news topic, F (6, 486) = 2.61, p = 0.017, η p 2 = 0.03, with statistically similar sharing rates for Education ( M = 16%), Europe ( M = 15%), Scotland ( M = 15%), Health ( M = 14%), Economy ( M = 14%) and Crime ( M = 13%), with the interesting effect showing significantly lower sharing rates for Immigration ( M = 9%) in comparison to each of the other topics, all p’s ≤ 0.033, with the exception of a marginally non-significant difference with Crime, t (81) = 1.91, p = 0.060, d = 0.21.

A similar regression predicting intention to drink coffee revealed a marginal trend for the main effect of condition (β = -0.16, t = -1.91, p = 0.06, r p = -0.16) with participants in the experimental condition reporting less desire for coffee, no significant effect of sensation seeking (β = 0.02, t = 0.21, p = 0.83, r p = 0.02) and no significant interaction (β = -0.02, t = -0.22, p = 0.83, r p = -0.02).

The COVID infection group also rated higher on PRL compared to those who had started or finished vaccination ( M = 6.51), though only marginally significant at t = 1.53, p = 0.06 (Cohen’s d = 0.16).

There was also marginally significant ( p < 0.06) trend for antecedent events (0.48) to be rated higher than consequent events (0.45).

ANOVA also revealed marginally significant interaction between self-referential type and caudality [ F (8,136) = 2.78, p = 0.06].

Number was marginally significant with higher scores for singular objects (0.97) than for plural ones (0.91; β = -1.180, z = -1.863, p = 0.06).

When we re-examined the time window 350–450 ms for the 23 subjects in the test phase, with Group as between-subjects variable, we observed, besides the significant interaction of Familiarity × Quadrant ( F 3,63 = 5.53, p = 0.003), two interactions with the factor Group: a significant Familiarity × Group ( F 1,21 = 24.3, p < 0.001), and a near-significant three-way Familiarity × Quadrant × Group ( F 3,63 = 2.67, p = 0.06).

A 2 (type of alternative: cognitive/affective) × 2 (decision condition: distraction/immediate) mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction [ F (1, 118) = 3.56, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.03].

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).