Excerpts

Type III tests of fixed effects reported significant main effects of SI type ( F (1, 53.474) = 5.22, p = 0.026) and Group ( F (1, 23.916) = 14.079, p < 0.001) with a marginally significant interaction between the two factors ( F (1, 55.579) = 3.439, p = 0.069).

However, the product of the two path coefficients was only marginally significant ( ab = 0.013, z = 1.81, p = 0.069).

The correlation between age and hours spent online was marginally significant ( r = −0.104, p = 0.069).

7 Furthermore, participants in the WEAK DEFAULT treatment also had a marginally significant higher prevalence of choosing exactly the pro-socially set default amount (= 100 ECU) (11.6% in WEAK DEFAULT vs. 4.6% in NO DEFAULT, z = 3.32, p = 0.069, n 1 = 129, n 2 = 129).

A marginally significant main effect for gaining condition (i.e., gain, neutral, and loss) was found (see Figure 2 ) F (2,26) = 2.964, MSE = 3.18, p = 0.069.

In line with our expectations, we found a marginally significant difference when comparing the banner AOI hit likelihoods for static and animated banner advertisements containing a face, χ 2 (1, N = 108) = 3.315, p = 0.069, showing that animated faces were 2.073 times more likely to direct participants’ attention to the advertisement than static faces.

Conversely, the effect of Group showed a trend that did not reach significance [ F (2,109) = 2.7, p = 0.069].

Egger’s test approached significance ( p = 0.069).

The additional LMM analysis showed a main effect for maximal deceleration on heart rate ( p < 0.001; row 6 in Table 1 and Figure 6D ), and a moderate trend toward significance was also found on HRV LF/HF ratio ( p = 0.069; row 4 in Table 1 and Figure 6E ).

Moreover, the influence of paranoia on predicting opponent’s fear was marginally significant ( Supplementary Table S5 ; odds ratio=1.23, 95% CI [0.98, 1.54], p =0.069).

Finally, an interaction between GROUP and HEMISPHERE showed a trend toward significance [ F (2,120) = 2.73, p = 0.069], showing that FA was lower in the left hemisphere of singers compared to both hemispheres of instrumentalists.

Finally, the three-way interaction between donor’s identifiability, recipients’ identifiability and the number of recipients approached significance F (1, 295) = 3.23, p = 0.069, η p 2 = 0.011.

As expected, we found a marginally significant effect of SVO in Model 1, b = 0.083, t (123) = 1.831, p = 0.069.

Time Elapse From Equivalence Tests and IRAP Time between equivalence tests and IRAP had a marginally significant effect on the modulation of D-IRAP for trial type 1 [Type 1 right after : Mean = 0.72, SD = 0.35; Type 1 7 days : Mean = 0.58, SD = 0.46; t (133) = 1.83, p = 0.069], as depicted in Figure 4 .

Interestingly, further analysis revealed that British participants perceived their past selves as being further away than their future selves at a marginally significant level, F (1, 80) = 3.41, p = 0.069, Cohen’s d = 0.407.

The results showed that the priming effect approached significance, F = 3.51, p = 0.069, η p 2 = 0.084, indicating lower activation in the attachment security priming condition than in the control priming condition.

We observed again an almost significant three-way interaction [ F (1,37) = 3.5, p = 0.069].

The role of the decoding accuracy (Model 2) was marginally significant ( p = 0.069), and the explained variance reached 12.7%.

The statistical analysis showed that the number of dimensions in the final stepwise DFA was lower in the bilingual model than in the monolingual model, although this was only marginally significant [5.97 < 7.00, t (5) = 2.31, p = 0.069].

Though we do found the interaction of action × object was close to significance in the RTs ( p = 0.069).

The initial model (AIC = 497.2) which includes the three predictors shows that LF-P is marginally significant (β = 0.49, Z = 1.77, p = 0.07), while NF-P (β = 0.12, Z = 0.80, p = 0.426), and SI (β = -0.08, Z = -0.44, p = 0.663) are not.

Moreover, fatalistic determinism is negatively correlated with the internal locus of control in the FAD-J, but not significant in the FAD+ (the difference is so-called marginally significant, Z = 1.831, p = 0.07).

There was a main effect of prime type on relative accuracy, F (1,68) = 4.63, p < 0.05, and a marginally significant cognitive load by prime-type interaction, F (1,68) = 3.33, p = 0.07.

A marginally significant main effect of button function was found [ F (1,80) = 3.38, p = 0.070, η p 2 = 0.04], together with a significant interaction effect of age group and button function [ F (2,80) = 3.51, p = 0.035, η p 2 = 0.08].

The interaction between the factors was not significant for Opacity, χ 2 (2) = 0.07, p = 0.96, and it approached significance for Oiliness, β Standard = −0.69, SE Standard = 0.32, χ 2 (2) = 5.42, p = 0.07.