Excerpts

In the emotion dimension, the main effect of testing time was significant, F (3, 147)=3.958, p =0.009, η p 2 =0.075, and the Testing Time × Intervention Status interaction approached significant, F (3, 147)=2.378, p =0.072, η p 2 =0.046, suggesting that the emotion dimension may be relatively sensitive to the EC intervention.

For the connective ALTHOUGH, we observed a marginally significant interaction between factors, F (1,35) = 3.44, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.09 such that, for alternative trials, responses were faster in the left-to-right direction than in the right-to-left direction, p = 0.025 ( M = 481 vs. 537 ms).

While the results only showed a small trend for age differences in FTP [FTP; χ ( 4 , 95 ) 2 = 8.60, p = 0.072], there were differences for past time perspective [PTP; F (4, 95) = 5.68, p < 0.001].

With respect to sample size, the raw n specification showed a marginal trend, b ≈ 0.000, 95% CI [−0.000, 0.000], p = 0.072, explaining 2.07% of heterogeneity, whereas the log-transformed N was clearly nonsignificant ( p = 0.619).

The difference for local inferences questions was only a marginally significant trend, F (1, 85) = 1.92, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.038.

A two-way comparison using the Bonferroni method showed that external locus of control was significantly stronger in the death acceptance group (M = 412.73, SD = 106.14) than in the bargaining group (M = 503.23, SD = 195.13, p < 0.05, 95% CI = [−177.38, −3.62]) and marginally significant compared to the death avoidance group (M = 496.43, SD = 247.39, p = 0.072, 95% CI = [−172.51, 5.10]), with no significant difference in self-control between the bargaining and death avoidance groups. 3.4.

Although, the python jar was poked at a higher frequency than the leopard jar was poked, this difference only approached significance ( F (1,13) =3.850, p =0.072; Cohen’s d =1.1).

Extraversion was a marginally significant positive predictor in both the second, β = 0.12, SE = 0.04, p = 0.072, and the third, β = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.088, steps.

The distributional analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between HighNo and Bin2 (β = −0.22, z = −1.8, p = 0.072).

The change in fillers approached significance ( p = 0.072).

For upper back pain, the model approached significance (χ 2 (7) = 13.02, p =.072), with one device category emerging as a significant predictor (p =.048).

Although this increase of response priming was numerically still larger than the analogous alerting signal based increase for priming by novel primes, this difference was only marginally significant, F (1, 31) = 3.46, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.10.

Still, in our study, general criminality showed a trend level positive correlation with total malevolent creativity of revenge ideas ( r = 0. 18, p = 0 .072), suggesting that malevolent creativity tests may capture a certain albeit very small aspect of real-life behavior after all (see Supplementary part D ).

Results from the Sobel test showed that discriminability was the mediator between the duration of the ongoing task and EBPM performance, z = -1.65, p = 0.052 (marginally significant), while self-reminding was not, z = -1.14, p = 0.072 ( Table 6 ).

GI has a statistically significant effect, above and beyond the role of sex, on all the PYD variables ( p’ s < 0.05), and a marginally significant effect on Empathy ( p = 0.073).

Frame was once again significant in Model 2, and ZPT approached significance, as did the Model 2 improvement of fit, F change (5, 309) = 2.04, adjusted R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.073.

There was a marginal significance in the three-way interaction between Electrodes, Determiner Type, and Grammaticality ( F (2, 70) = 3.038, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.080), indicating that the RDP condition at Pz showed a significant P600 effect ( p = 0.048), whereas the QDP condition did not.

Proportion of Total Looking Time to the Area of Interest In the DLD group the GLM showed a significantly higher proportion of looks to the semantic-syntactic trials object compared to the typical trials object (β = 0.568, se = 0.202, z = 2.810, p = 0.005), and a marginally significant visual preference for the semantic condition object (β = 0.345, se = 0.192, z = 1.792, p = 0.073).

At the Pz electrode, a marginally significant main effect of image category was found in the female group: Females: F (2,12) = 3.29, p = 0.073, η 2 p = 0.35.

Planned comparisons at the 50 ms SOA condition showed that mediated priming was significantly smaller than direct priming ( p < 0.003) and was also smaller than backward priming, although the latter effect was only marginally significant ( p = 0.073).

When controlling for post-Encoding affect, the relationship with percent time in NREM2 sleep remained marginally significant (partial r = 0.344, p = 0.073), suggesting that NREM2 sleep during the nap may be associated with improvement in affect.

(2024) , the accuracy data analysis in this study revealed only main effects of prime type, χ 2 (1) = 21.64, p < 0.001, and translation direction, χ 2 (1) = 53.45, p < 0.001, with the accuracy rates being significantly higher for the targets preceded by translation primes (2.29% difference) and in the L2–L1 direction (6.39% difference), as well as a marginally significant main effect of the number of translations, χ 2 (1) = 3.22, p = 0.073, with a higher accuracy rate for OTPs (1.18% difference).

It is worth noting that the TAS of participants working in the absence of plants was higher than that in the presence of plants at a marginal significance level [ F (1,20) =3.572, p -value =0.073, η P 2 =0.152] (see Figure 5 ).

Although it did not correlate significantly with the overall M Total , r (282) = −0.023, p = 0.696, the correlation of Conscientiousness with the Repetitive Sounds factor was marginally significant, r (171) = −0.137, p = 0.073.

There was an almost significant 7 four-way interaction of all the factors involved in the experiment (i.e., congruency × visual field × SOA × gender), F (3,174) = 2.36, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.04.