Pairwise comparisons showed that the EG showed significant results between the Baseline and the Acquisition-SQIC condition ( p < 0.0001) and close to significance between the Baseline and the Transfer condition ( p = 0.07). 4.4.
We found a marginally significant simple effect of Group, such that ASD participants had lower CC [ B = -0.898; SE = 0.501; Wald Chi-Square = 2.12; p = 0.07; Exp(B) = 0.41]; a simple effect of Repetitive [ B = 0; SE = 0.001; Wald Chi-Square = 3.99; p = 0.046; Exp(B) = 1.00], such that participants who moved faster during the Repetitive motion task, attained more CC in the Following round of the MG.
However, we found only a marginally significant ( p = 0.07) interaction in the regression model for the RAT.
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 trial type and age group was marginally significant, F (1,20) = 3.58, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.15.
The effect of HLG approached significance [ F (1,19) = 3.90, p = 0.07], where the visual acuity under HLGY was better than under HLGN.
This effect is statistically significant for all kinds of positive expectancies, with the exception of relaxation expectancies that only show a statistical trend ( p = 0.07).
However, this effect only approached significance ( t = 1.83, p = 0.07).
However, the main effect of span was marginally significant [ F (2, 67) = 2.67, p = 0.07, η 2 =0.19], and there was a significant Elaboration x Span interaction [ F (2, 67) = 3.97, p = 0.05, η 2 =0.23].
The direct relationship of the CPRS with hypothetical complacency was approaching significance ( B = -0.17, p = 0.07).
In terms of the d-FRN's statistical analysis from the other-chosen stocks, a 2 (stock owner: self, other) × 10 (electrode: F3, F4, FC1, FC2, Fz, Cz, C3, C4, CP1, and CP2) ANOVA produced a marginally significant main effect of ownership, F (1, 21) = 3.65, p = 0.07, η 2 partial = 0.148.
Response latencies in Range 3 were faster than in Range 4, although this effect was marginally significant [ F (1,7) = 4.72, MSE = 0.02,4, p < 0.07].
The ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Condition, [ F (2, 112) = 5.951, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.10] a marginally significant main effect of Gaze Trial, [ F (3, 168) = 2.35, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.04].
In repeated measures ANOVAs, S1 compatibility approached significance in RTs, F (2,42) = 3.01, MSe = 575.99, p < 0.07, but not in error proportions, F (2,42) = 0.79, MSe = 0.002, p > 0.7; while S2 compatibility had a significant effect on both RTs, F (2,42) = 42.82, MSe = 20235.00, p < 0.001, and errors, F (2,42) = 48.85, MSe = 0.21, p < 0.001.
The overall model explained a marginally significant proportion of variance in VO 2 max, [ R 2 = 0.41, F (2,10) = 3.52, p < 0.07].
The interaction of Performance with Size approached significance [ F (1,87) = 3.37, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.33].
For the duration of CE and the self/environment dimension, the effect of stage was only marginally significant ([ F (3) = 2.8, p = 0.07] and [ F (3) = 2.7, p = 0.08] respectively).
To explore whether chills were more moving or intense in the original stimuli, ratings were compared across experiences of chills in original and manipulated conditions; a difference approaching significance between conditions was found for being moved and emotional intensity ratings in chills experiences [ F (2, 48) = 2.67, p = 0.07]; notably, chills were rated as more intense in the original conditions [ F (2, 48) = 10.22, p = 0.0004, partial eta 2 = 0.11], but not more moving.
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).
The main effect of direction consistency was marginally significant ( M = 18.3 ms), F (1, 13) = 4.0, p = 0.07.
After 4 weeks, the differences between HIIT and CON in WC reached marginal significance ( p = 0.07).
The main effect of RD on visual-spatial WM was marginally significant [ F (1, 172)=3.32, p =0.07].
There was a marginally significant effect of the prevention focus on the level of goal [ F (1,111) = 3.5 , p = 0.07] such that high-prevention respondents were setting directionally lower goal levels compared to the low-prevention respondents.
The results indicate a marginally significant effect of happiness when bargaining power is low, OR = 2.06, p = 0.07, 95% CI (0.94, 4.49), such that happy participants are 2.06 times more likely to make a request (probability of requesting increases to 40.61% when happiness increases by one unit).
Similarly, there was a significant group difference in number of errors [ F (1, 113) = 11.86, p = 0.0008; Figure 5A ], though the Group × Level interaction here was not quite significant [ F (2, 228) = 2.69, p = 0.07].