“marginally significant”

However, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between anthropomorphic cues and situational loneliness (F(1, 236) = 3.82, p = 0.052) showing that the effect of anthropomorphic cues on perceived product personalization is likely to be more pronounced when consumers experienced high (vs. low) situational loneliness.

Table 5: Model adequacy is marginally significant (p=0.052) suggesting the model does not correctly fit.

Notably, however, sex was the only other covariate significantly associated with risk aversion (estimate = -1.49, SE = 0.39, p < 0.001), although income had a marginally significant inverse relationship with risk aversion (p = 0.052).

Under the sentence conditions, an rANOVA with these two factors on the accuracy showed significant main effects of scrambling and topicalization [scrambling, F (1,16) = 12, p = 0.0036; topicalization, F (1,16) = 9.5, p = 0.0072], and an interaction between these factors was marginally significant [ F (1,16) = 4.4, p = 0.052].

Using ANOVA, we found a marginally significant univariate effect of embryonic cold‐temperature regime on tadpole mass ( F 2,27 = 3.3, p = 0.052).

In Model 2 ( Fig 4A ), RAN ( p = .002) and arithmetic ( p < .001) were significant predictors of reading ( R 2 = .42), while grapheme-phoneme processing was marginally significant ( p = .052).

The advantage of the independent commission starts to become apparent at the Moderately Effective level, where it has marginally significant positive effect ( p = 0.052) with a coefficient of 1.736.

A marginally significant cluster was found in neutral trials in 188–216 ms ( T sum = 344.235, p = 0.052).

The univariate analysis also reveals a trend for FC to reduce the increase in financial difficulty, which is marginally significant (β = −0.18 ± 0.094, p = 0.052) ( Table 3 ).

inverted) and channel cluster location (left, central, and occipital) as within subjects factors demonstrated a main effect of orientation, F (1, 15) = 5.781, p = 0.030, η p 2 = 0.278, a main effect of location, F (2, 30) = 9.047, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.376, and a marginally significant interaction between orientation and location, F (2, 30) = 3.273, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.179.

Regarding Caring and Sharing attitudes, we observed a similar main effect of time ( Caring : F (1,181) = 34.373, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.160; Sharing : F (1,181) = 58.725, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.245) and condition ( Caring : F (1,181) = 17.959, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.090; Sharing : F (1,181) = 22.442, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.110); however, we only identified a marginally significant effect of time × condition interaction effects on the Sharing variable (F (1,181) = 3.815, p = 0.052, ⴄp 2 = 0.021).

Age at PA diagnosis was a marginally significant risk factor ( p = 0.052) that could have reached significance with a larger sample size.

There are marginally significant differences in the median density of marks between the recipient and the handle segments, for the back (Mann−Whitney U = 14, exact p = 0.052) but not for the front side (Mann−Whitney U = 26, exact p = 0.361), with the recipient having the higher average density of marks on both sides of the spoon. 2) The scatterplot of mark densities of merged and unmerged quadrants (the second method of building observation units) (Plot B in Fig 12 ) suggests that there is no correlation between the front and the back mark density (r = -0.02, p = 0.454, N = 35).

In addition, the beauty of body shape was related to low body fatness and perceived similarity, and high perceived body health was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

The variation in prevalence of Rickettsia -positive ticks across all counties was marginally significant (p = 0.052), with a higher prevalence in St.

However, in the high Bd dose treatment, infection intensity had a significant negative effect (GLM: B = − 4.38, SE = 1.73, F 1,10 = 6.39, P = 0.03), and the length of larval development a marginally significant positive effect ( B = − 5.01, SE = 2.28, F 1,9 = 5.01, P = 0.052) on toadlet body mass.

On average, across the four training days, the sham group performed better ( M = 86% (82%, 90%)) than the active group ( M = 81% (77%, 85%)), with a marginally significant difference between the two groups (Welch two-sample t -test for nonequal variance: t 47.27 = 1.99, p = 0.052, two-tailed, d = 0.56).

The difference in performance between consistent and inconsistent trials was marginally significant when the task was to report the content of their own perspective, t (32) = 2.01, p = .052, d = 0.18.

Cases with high miR-150-5p expression were also found to have more frequent intraperitoneal recurrence than those with non-high miR-150-5p expression, with the difference being marginally significant (20.5% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.052).

For the subgroup with low facilitation in the pre-change epoch (Figure 4 C) we observed a marginally significant main effect of configuration [ F (1, 5) = 6.41; p = 0.052] and a significant change by block interaction [ F (4, 20) = 3.95; p < 0.05], all other main effects and interactions (notably including the configuration by change interaction) were not significant (all p > 0.180).

Endorser image congruence positively predicts intention to gamble responsibly (RG Intention), with a marginally significant effect ( b = 0.11, se = 0.05, p = 0.052), as shown in the RG Intention Model 1 testing results.

This analysis showed a trend towards a main effect of Diagnosis (F(1,29.02) = 3.02, p < 0.10), and a marginally significant main effect of Timepoint (F(1,28.9) = 4.01 initial = 95.3 ± 0.98, follow-up = 92.7 ± 1.00, p = 0.052).

Among high-educated participants in the total sample, the change over time in vegetable intake was marginally significant (p = .052) and no group differences were found (p = .25).

Previously screened The variation of the self-sampling effect by previous screening history was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), with the strongest effects observed among women screened less than 5 years ago and women without registered screening.

A stratified analysis of tumor clinical stage indicated that the curative effect of CCRT+AC on patients with N 2–3 disease was marginally significant (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.11–1.06, P =0.052).