Excerpts

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.

Results showed that Moderate Cluster VI significantly differed from the overall distribution, χ 2 = 11.57, p < 0.003, df = 3, while Simple Cluster I and Cluster II were marginally significant, χ 2 = 7.21, p = 0.066, df = 3, and χ 2 = 7.38, p = 0.061, df = 3, respectively.

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 ).

In the 6-year-old group, the difference in helping behavior between the time delay condition ( M = 0.81, SD = 0.32) and the time pressure condition ( M = 0.58, SD = 0.43) was marginally significant, p = 0.066.

In contrast, for males the three-way interaction was marginally significant (LRT: χ 2 = 3.37, df = 3, p = 0.066, Figure 4 ).

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.

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).

This result was, however, only marginally significant ( b = −0.36, p = 0.066).

Only in the younger group did the mean pattern score of the load-related pattern also contribute to task performance; in the older group, significance of this association was only marginally significant with p = 0.0665 (We performed corresponding linear regressions to predict mean reaction time in both age groups but did not find any associations with the load-related patterns in either age group and elected to omit the table listing for clarity.).

In the first aggregated region spanning the area from Cl2 until V, linear mixed models revealed a main effect of COMP, which however shows up with a marginal significance [ χ ( 1 ) 2 = 3 . 365 , p = 0.0666].

The main effects of moral scenario, F (1, 39) = 285.86, p < 0.001, η 2 g = 0.71, and temperature, F (1, 39) = 5.33, p = 0.026, η 2 g = 0.08, were significant, and the interaction between temperature and scenario was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 3.54, p = 0.067, η 2 g = 0.03.

There was also a marginally significant effect of career preference on perceived social support, F (2, 192) = 2.75, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.03 (see Figure 4 ).

The interaction approached significance for intercepts, F (3.07, 242.24) = 2.40, p = 0.067; η 2 = 0.030, but not for slopes, F (3.06, 242.11) = 0.98, n.s.; η 2 = 0.012.

Event-Related Potential Results N1 As shown in Figures 2B,D , the 2(game-result) × 2(category) ANOVA for N1 peak amplitude showed a marginally significant interaction between two variables [ F (1,32) = 3.60, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.101].

As can be seen in Figure 2 , a majority of children (18) showed improvements in their SIPC scores from pre- to post-intervention, although the effect was only marginally significant [ t (30) = -1.903, p = 0.067, effect size r : 0.333, Cohen’s d : -0.706].

In this sense, there were statistically significant differences in men between those who practiced PA according to the ACSM and those who did not ( F 1,1244 = 10.688, p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.049), and a tendency toward significance in women ( F 1,1244 = 3.364, p = 0.067, η 2 = 0.043).

There was a significant difference in mean relative preference values between simple and complex portraits, t (20) = 2.91, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.57 ( FDR corrected ) and a marginally significant difference between simple and complex landscapes, t (20) = 2.14, p = 0.067, Cohen's d = 0.55 ( FDR correcte d).

Focusing on angry-misattribution, the group difference approached significance [ t (35)=−1.89; p =0.067; d =0.64], with victims having a higher mean ( M =0.46, SD =0.47) for misattributing neutral faces compared to non-involved individuals ( M =0.19 SD =0.40).

A trend toward significance was also seen for activity at mismatched latitudes (−0.139, z = −1.834, p = 0.067) and could suggest a potential, slight decrease in activity at mismatched latitudes compared to activity displayed at matched latitudes.

It is noted that the decrement value had a significant trend to be larger than 0 even in the goal-present and gradual-stop conditions, t (26) = 1.92, p = 0.067, and the values in other conditions were significantly larger than 0, t s > 9.62, p s < 0.001.

The Group difference between the PTSD+ and PTSD- subjects was approaching significance ( p = 0.067); however, the interaction between trial type and PTSD symptomatology group was still non-significant [ F (1,63) = 0.57, p > 0.05].

Among rural students, learning motivation was significantly higher in the experimental group (M = 5.35) than in the control group (M = 4.23; t = 4.06, p < 0.001), whereas among urban students the corresponding difference was smaller and reached only marginal significance (M = 5.07 vs. 4.53; t = 1.85, p = 0.067).

For CB, the Integrated and Partial 1 group displayed a stronger drop in Correct Behavior with the former being significantly different to the Parallel ( p = 0.047) and Partial 2 ( p = 0.009) group, while the latter was approaching significance to the Parallel ( p = 0.067) and showing clearly significant difference to the Partial 2 ( p = 0.015) group.

No significant differences were found between these groups on these variables, although with regard to discrepancy the test approached significance ( p = 0.067), suggesting a stronger discrepancy in the participants who were excluded.

A marginal trend emerged regarding the effect of time, F (1, 51) = 3.51, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.064.