Excerpts

The results showed that for Arabic, the comparison between word and pseudo-word contexts is marginally significant ( p = 0.0633) and between pseudo-word and non-word contexts is highly significant ( p = 0.0019).

They had lower abstract reflection [ F (1, 62) = 7.81, p = 0.007, η 2 p = 0.112]; higher –although marginally significant– referential activity [ F (1, 62) = 3.56, p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.054], and the covariation between referential and reflection/reorganization activities [ F (1, 32) = 3.74, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.057].

At Transfer, a significant trend can be noted between the trained group ( M = 14.30; SE = 0.419) and the control group ( M = 12.03; SE = 0.651), p = 0.064.

The indirect effect of Frame on self-protective behavior with Worry and Perceived threat as serial mediators was only marginally significant, not supporting H 11, z = −1.85, p = 0.064, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.001].

However, extraversion showed a trend for a negative association with the figural ABC ( r = −0.22, p = 0.064).

The difference between the cross-lagged path coefficients was marginally significant, Δχ 2 (1) = 3.42, p = 0.064, with a stronger association leading from WM-t1 to ToM-t2 than in the opposite direction.

Only for maternal sensitivity the interaction effect was found to be almost significant, with a small effect size [ F (1, 116) = 3.49, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.03].

In addition, contact with real robots had a marginally significant influence (β = -0.09, p = 0.064), indicating a reducing effect on people’s negative expectancies (partly supporting hypothesis 2a; hypothesis 3b is not supported).

The ANOVA on these retention scores revealed that there was a significant main effect of age, F (1, 30) = 7.362, p = 0.011, η 2 = 0.11; a main effect of condition only approaching significance, F (1, 30) = 3.697, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.05, suggesting marginally higher identification scores in the without book condition; and no significant main effect of session, F (1, 30) = 0.013, p = 0.909, η 2 < 0.001.

Need for cognition and WM had marginally significant mediating effects in congruent conditions (β = −0.280, p = 0.064).

This did not vary by SES, but the interaction between SES and nationality approached significance [ F (1,283) = 3.45, p = 0.064] suggesting that the lower Indian frequencies were a feature of the lower SES Indians’ judgments (40.7%, SD = 16.48) and not of the higher SES Indians’ judgments whose frequency scores averaged at 47.3% ( SD = 12.89) and were thus very similar to the judged frequencies offered by the English participants.

The interaction between Language × Direction was marginally significant [ F (1,19) = 3.882, p = 0.064], as FW Tagalog gave rise to a decrease in oxyHb (inverted response), whereas FW and BW English as well as BW Tagalog resulted in an increase in oxyHb (canonical response; significant and marginal Bonferroni post hoc tests: FW Tagalog versus BW Tagalog p = 0.002; FW Tagalog versus FW English p = 0.054; FW Tagalog versus BW English p = 0.077; Figure 7 ).

A binomial logistic regression with hubristic pride and dominance as the independent variables showed that the correlation between dominance and destructive eWOM was marginally significant ( B = 0.24, p = 0.064), while hubristic pride had no significant effect on destructive eWOM ( B = 0.20, p > 0.05).

The two-way interaction between Overlap and Prime Type was marginally significant ( t = 1.91, p = 0.064).

For the total fixation duration (TFD), a marginally significant interaction was found between emotion and group ( F (3, 522) = 2.479, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.014).

However, this path was marginally significant after controlling for demographic variables ( β = 0.109, p = 0 0.064) in the conditional model.

Finally, the three-way interaction was marginally significant (β = -0.130, SE = 0.070, z = -1.846, p < 0.064), revealing different grammaticality by attraction patterns in sentences containing singular and plural objects.

As shown in Table 3 , gender explained the largest proportion of between-study variance (adjusted R 2 = 45.16%) and demonstrated a borderline significant moderating effect ( p = 0.064).

Interaction between the group and the learning mode was marginally significant [ F (2,92) = 2.831, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.058].

The analysis approached significance, F (1,160) = 3.5, p = 0.064, suggesting that films were rated as slightly more positive when already known ( M = 462.5, SD = 102.3 vs.

Due to a marginally significant group by correctness interaction in the omnibus ANOVA, F (1, 36) = 3.65, p = 0.064, another follow-up analysis was conducted separately for natives and learners.

There was a marginally significant interaction between empathy and SIO, [ β =0.11, t (170)=0.1.87, p =0.064 (−0.01, 0.33)].

Results Outcomes of independent sample t -tests and χ 2 -tests revealed there were no significant differences at T0 between ACT and both control conditions on all included potential moderator/predictor variables, although the difference between ACT and WL in the percentage of people working full/part-time reached marginal significance, with ACT participants working full/part-time more often than WL participants [χ 2 (1) = 3.439, p = 0.064].

Our results revealed that the L1 group showed a positive correlation between their task performance and connectivity strengths ( r =0.52, p =0.006), whereas the L2 group showed a similar trend but with a marginal significance ( r =0.38, p =0.064).

There was marginally significant effect of condition (Pearson’s χ 2 = 3.44, p = 0.064).