The main effect of the end approached significance, F (1, 143) = 3.44, p = 0.066, partial ω 2 = 0.016, whereas the main effect of the beginning marginally failed to reach significance, F (1, 143) = 2.12, p = 0.120, partial ω 2 = 0.007.
None of the variables predict self-harming behavior, except for the two related to interaction with content in digital social networks self-injury ( p = 0.043) and suicide ( p = 0.001) content in digital social networks; suicide ideation is marginally significant ( p = 0.066).
The results of time estimation showed that the difference between the experimental and control groups was marginally significant, t (55) = 1.87, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.5, and that the experimental group ( M = 7.57 s, SD = 3.63) was smaller than the control group ( M = 9.34 s, SD = 3.41).
Mechanisms of motor control in handwriting readiness In the integrated structural model, while Pencil Grip showed a marginally significant positive association with Writing Performance (β = 0.137, p = 0.066), its direct impact appeared to be partially suppressed by the inclusion of the overarching VMI-Performance factor.
Maximum Blink Duration approached significance (1, 52) = 3.526, p = 0.066, η 2 p = 0.064.
The effect of sex at baseline only approached significance for motor originality ( p = 0.066, with males tending to be generally more original than females) but did not differentially influence the size of the intervention effect in males and females.
Further, we found that the difference in the amount of parents’ persistence-focused language directed to boys and girls approached significance t (29)=1.04, p =0.066, 95% CI[−0.15, 0.50], with parents using more persistence-focused utterances with girls ( M =0.13, SD =0.16) than with boys ( M =0.07, SD =0.12).
The fixed effects omnibus tests indicated a marginally significant effect for role of session participant ( F = 3.38, p = 0.066) and a significant effect for Order of OD-session ( F = 4.07, p = 0.044), suggesting that these variables were associated with the SRS scores.
Separately, the two-way interaction of Priming × Sequence on pain ratings was marginally significant to painful shocks ( F (1,17) = 3.86, p = 0.066), but insignificant to non-painful ratings ( F (1,17) = 0.16, p > 0.5).
Furthermore, partial Spearman correlation tests were performed, and found that there was a significant trend of correlation between the signal intensity of pIFG and the complex sentence processing performance ( rho = 0.455, p = 0.066) with the verbal working memory effects of the word-list processing eliminated.
Otherwise, no individual difference regressor served as a significant predictor of ΔGo_Accuracy (all other p s = 0.149), although the inclusion of step two regressors resulted in the Phase_Order variable to yield a near-significant p -value, p = 0.066.
Critically, when both components were entered simultaneously in the full sample, the unique prospective effect of psychological investment on body dissatisfaction reached marginal significance from T2 to T3 ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), whereas behavioral engagement showed no significant unique effect at either interval (T1 → T2: β = −0.05, p = 0.30; T2 → T3: β = −0.06, p = 0.15).
When we omitted the NR subjects from our analyses, we still observed an effect of monetary reward [ F (2, 58) = 16.530, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant effect of liquid feedback [ F (1, 29) = 3.658, p = 0.066].
Furthermore, being positive to COVID-19 was almost significant (OR: 1.96; p = 0.066).
A supplementary sensitivity analysis decomposing ARSME into behavioral engagement and psychological investment components revealed that psychological investment showed a marginally significant prospective effect on body dissatisfaction ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), while behavioral screen time did not, providing preliminary support for cognitive-processing-focused interventions.
There was a marginally significant difference for post-test [ F (2, 62) = 2.84, p = 0.066].
This result was, however, only marginally significant ( b = −0.36, p = 0.066).
Notably, representational preference approached significance in the L2→L1 condition ( t = −1.860, p = 0.066; see Table 4 ).
Directionally consistent with our hypotheses, this analysis revealed that higher status trials had a marginally significant higher proportion of donors than lower status ones, p = 0.066.
For Hypothesis 3 , the regression results showed that participants’ maximum level of joy had an approximately significant association with self-perceived persistence at the level 0.05 (β = 0.002, p = 0.066), but we did not confirm that it related to the help-seeking (β = −0.002, p = 0.210) and self-reliance persistence (β = −0.002, p = 0.347).
Second, emotional engagement showed a near-significant pattern ( p = 0.066), with a small effect size (d = 0.21).
More direct to our hypothesis, the interaction between week and country was marginally significant [ F (4,526) = 2.22, p = 0.066, η2 = 0.02)].
These main effects were qualified by a marginally significant comprehensibility × belief consistency interaction, F (1, 42) = 3.56, p = 0.066, ηp2 = 0.078, OP = 0.45 (see Figure 1 ).
Backward masking reduced target visibility [ F (1,14) = 92.73], and close proximity was marginally significant in reducing target visibility [ F (1,14) = 3.96, p = 0.066].
The frontal cluster reaches a trend toward significance [ t (24) = −1.92, p = 0.066; |d| = 0.38], the right temporal [ t (24) = 0.38, p = 0.705; d = 0.08 ] and the centro-parietal [ t (24) = −0.83, p = 0.413; |d| = 0.17] clusters do not yield significant results, respectively (see Figures 3 , 4 ).