Excerpts

The mean pleasantness ratings for the four sounds identified in the more Positively valenced group were 1.35 points higher than the Negatively valenced group, which was a marginally significant difference [independent samples t (3) = 1.991, p < 0.07, one-tailed].

The results of the one-sided two-sample T -tests are presented as following: the control group, the participants who were simply asked for a donation, donated more than the first treatment group who were offered the tote bag as a thank-you gift ( p = 0.048, mean.c = 28.76, Sd-c = 25.65, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74); the difference become insignificant when compared to the second treatment group for whom the statement is given ( p = 0.205, mean.c = 28.76, Sd.c = 25.65, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42); however, the difference between the control groups is only weakly significant ( p = 0.070, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42).

At the same time, in 10 out of 18 caregivers, the family strain showed a trend to decrease (FSQ: from 14.6 ± 7.7 to 11.0 ± 6.0, p = 0.07) improving from “strongly recommended” support to within the “range of attention.” Levels of anxiety and depression were substantially unvaried in all caregivers, except for two who asked for help, and whose anxiety levels decreased.

Results showed that the effect size of PATHS at follow-up was 0.10, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

In the two-way interaction model, the interaction of percent positivity with relationship quality was marginally significant, p = 0.07, as was the interaction of cosine and relationship quality, p = 0.054.

Furthermore, the intervention predicted participants’ personal norm marginally significant ( B = −0.17; p = 0.07, CI [−0.349; 0.016]), which in turn predicted participants’ willingness to offer expired but still edible food highly significant ( B = 0.05, p < 0.001, CI [0.019; 0.076]).

The analysis of variance revealed a marginally significant difference between the scale values of valence pre and post-training sessions [ F (1, 11) = 3.99; p = 0.07; η 2 = 0.27].

Within Solo condition, music segments 1 and 5 are statistically lower than other music segments ( p < 0.001) and within Ensemble condition, music segments 1 and 5 are, respectively statistically ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant ( p = 0.07). 4.

The phase relationships at other frequencies were not significant except for a marginally significant difference around 180° ( p = 0.07) at 9.38 Hz.

However, age differences in mixing costs were marginally significant on the basis of means, F (1, 41) = 3.50, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.08, but not significant for log-transformed RT ( p = 0.75).

The SCZ and the HC group only differed at a statistical trend ( Md SCZ = 6, Md HC = 7; W = 551.1, p = 0.07, d C = 0.27).

In addition, only a marginally significant correlation was found after being thanked (phase c), p = 0.07.

The moderating role of mental health literacy on the relationship between psychological vulnerability and adolescent anxiety was left marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

ERPs Results As shown in Figure 3 , the ANOVA on N400 amplitude showed that the main effect of disclosure was marginally significant [ F (1, 32) = 3.515, p = 0.070, η p 2 = 0.099].

When examining subdimensions of FT, the burden of depleted FT coping resources (coping FT) was strongly associated with the risk of repeat AC visits (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.15–1.40, P < 0.001) while material FT burden showed a trend toward association (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, P = 0.07).

The following univariate ANOVAs indicated that following a sad mood induction, participants who received emotionally engaging instructions exhibited a marginally significant greater decline in general mood [ F (1, 26) = 3.70, p = 0.07] and a greater incline in sad rating [ F (1, 26) = 6.24, p < 0.05] than participants who received emotionally disengaging instructions, compared to baseline mood ratings.

However, there was a suggestive trend ( p < 0.07, two-tailed) for the control house ( M = 3.57, SD = 3.10) to contain more mirrors than the target house ( M = 1.00, SD = 1.41).

Social anxiety reached a marginally significant main effect, F (1, 92) = 3.33, p = 0.07, ∂η 2 = 0.04, while degree of depressive symptoms did not, F (1, 92) < 0.10, p = 0.76.

Although the relationship between wife’s hair length and husband-rated wife’s attractiveness showed marginal significance ( β = 0.11, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = [−0.014, 0.230], p = 0.070), the indirect effect remained significant. 1 On the other hand, the indirect pathway from husband’s hair length to sexual frequency via wife-rated husband’s attractiveness and wife’s sexual desire did not yield significance.

Post-hoc analyses showed that Japanese books had significantly more challenge events than Indonesian books ( M Japanese = 4.75, SD = 2.49; M Indonesian = 2.6, SD = 1.76, p = 0.035) and that American books had a greater number of challenge events than Indonesian books, although the difference was only marginally significant ( M American = 4.5, SD = 3.46, p = 0.07).

The second ANOVA, conducted in order to provide a more in-depth investigation into the interaction between the priming effect and emotional valences, did yield a marginally significant Prime Emotion × Target Emotion interaction [ F (2,56, 97.21) = 2.5, p < 0.07, η p^2 = 0.06].

There was also a trivial main effect of the variable quintile, F (4, 156) = 270.59, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.87 (ε = 0.26), and the variable quintile also interacted significantly with congruence, F (4, 156) = 6.97, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.15 (ε = 0.51), with prime type, F (4, 156) = 5.80, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.13 (ε = 0.45), and in a marginally significant three-way interaction with congruence and prime type, F (4, 156) = 3.02, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.07 (ε = 0.38).

The 3-way interaction between epoch, emotion and exaggerated was marginally significant, F (36, 2664) = 1.95, p = 0.07.

Follow-up t -tests showed that the magnitude of the Validity effect was similar for Groups 1 and 2 (54 and 56 ms, respectively; t < 1), and that the effect was smaller for Group 3 (44 ms) than for Group 2 [ t (238) = 2.44, p < 0.02] and, although marginally significant, than for Group 1 [ t (238) = 1.84, p < 0.07].

Similarly, the difference between the score of DMT students group and the score of art studies students group approached significance ( p = 0.07).