Excerpts

In this model, clarity change for the full subsample remained non-significant, p = 0.240, however participants without mental illness demonstrated an increase in clarity that was marginally significant at p = 0.067.

However, the effect of the manipulation on students' entrepreneurial intent (INT) after controlling for students' gender and entrepreneurial role models, was marginally non-significant [ F (1, 75) = 3.445, p = 0.067].

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 results of the analysis of the effect of empathy on the ratings of aggressors showed significant two-way interactions between face gender and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .4) = 4.34, p < 0.05] and between face gender and affective empathy [ F ( 1 , 4970 .5) = 7.22, p < 0.01], a significant three-way interaction between cognitive empathy, face gender, and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .4) = 10.97, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant three-way interaction between affective empathy, face gender, and observer gender [ F ( 1 , 4970 .5) = 3.35, p = 0.067].

Task effects in adults While there was a substantial change in RT across the three tasks, increasing from 1660 ms for the Butterfly task to 1760 ms for the Identity task and 1900 ms for the Expression task, the main effect of task on RT was only marginally significant [ F (2,48) = 2.9, p = 0.067].

The interaction between individual power and electrode reached marginal significance, F (1, 38) = 3.545, p = 0.067, η 2 = 0.085.

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).

This comparison yielded a marginally significant effect in favor of the additive model χ 2 (2) = 5.42, p = 0.067, p pb = 0.069, indicating that the two additional parameters did indeed add explanatory value.

For CS+ marginally significant decreased ratings were associated with higher STAIS#2 scores for block 4, r (50) = -0.26, p = 0.067, and block 5, r (50) = -0.26, p = 0.070; for CS- marginally significant increased ratings were related to increased STAIS#2 scores for block 3, r (50) = 0.27, p = 0.056, and block 4, r (50) = 0.25, p = 0.076.

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.

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.

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.

An independent sample t -test indicated that, similar to Study 1, there was only a marginally significant difference in self-reported SES between the two groups, t (100) = 1.85, p = 0.067, Cohen’s d = 0.37.

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].

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.

The interaction between Previous Accuracy × Time was marginally significant [ F (1,38) = 3.57, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.09].

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.

The near-significant effect of published articles on future published articles (0.103, p = 0.068, 95% CI [−0.035, 0.239]) indicates a potential association.

Looking at the Condition * Religiosity interactions, we observed a marginally significant interaction in the USA sample (Religiosity * Secular: p = 0.068; Religiosity * Control: p = 0.052), but this interaction did not replicate in the other sites (ps > 0.3; Table 4 , Models B).

However, the path from reading ability to MT6 was marginally significant (β = 0.09, p = 0.068), and the path from visual–spatial ability to CT6 (β = –0.05, p = 0.680), and MT6 (β = –0.02, p = 0.853) was not significant.

However, one difference between the groups approached significance: people in the mood-responsive group had marginally higher scores on the IRI Fantasy scale than those in the remaining group [20.7 vs. 17.7; F (1, 31) = 3.60, p = 0.068].

Furthermore, despite the fact that the favorite songs were accompanied by a black screen, they showed a trend for being more engaging than the multimodal music videos ( p = 0.068).

Simple slope tests showed that optimism positively predicted well-being for Euro-Canadians ( b = 0.40, t = 4.35, p < 0.001), but the effect was weaker and only marginally significant for Chinese ( b = 0.17, t = 1.83, p = 0.068).

The trend toward significance for the positive coefficient for daylight (0.017, z = 1.828, p = 0.068) indicates a potential, slight increase in activity with an increase in amount of daylight.

The multivariate main effect of Time was marginally significant [Pillai’s V = 0.064, F (2, 81) = 2.78, p = 0.068, ηp 2 = 0.064], while the Time * Group interaction did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.628).