Excerpts

The comparison between the two conditions proved that even if subjective measures recorded a two times higher effect size than objective measures, the difference was only marginally significant, QB(1) = 2.65, p = 0.104 (RQ2) ( Table 3 ).

All significant results above were detected here too (i.e., main effect of Time perspective, differences between past and future trials, and group comparison on distant future), but the main effect of Condition was only approaching significance, F (1, 33.01) = 2.78, p = 0.105 (all other comparisons, p > 0.05 as reported above; see Supplementary Table 4 for full details).

A monolingual advantage for mixing costs in the switching task might be considered marginally significant ( p = 0.105), as might the bilingual advantage in the flanker effect ( p = 0.090).

Nevertheless, additional exploratory analyses, for each experimental block separately, showed results that are similar, although not significant, to our main analysis: the main effect of phonotactics was marginally significant in both blocks for the French group (1st block: p = 0.108, 2nd block: p = 0.088), while it was not significant for the German group.

Notably, the regression coefficient for the interaction of value difference and the high certainty indicator (i.e., the increase in choice precision between low and high value certainty trials) was positive but only marginally significant (mean beta2 = 0.042, p = 0.108) (see Figure 7 ).

As shown in Figure 4 , the post hoc analysis show that the reaction time (for alerting score) of the control group had increased from pre-test and post-test, and the difference was approaching to but not quite statistically significant [Adjusted Mean pre (SE)=16.51 (3.36); Adjusted Mean post (SE)=22.34 (3.00), p=0.11]; on the contrary, the reaction time (for alerting score) of the experimental group significantly decreased from pre-test to post-test [Adjusted Mean pre (SE)=27.08 (3.32); Adjusted Mean post (SE)=19.34 (2.97), p =0.04] with a medium effect size (Cohen’s ƒ =0.32).

The experiment × reference frame × target position interaction approached significance [ F (6,156) = 1.73, p = 0.11, η2 = 0.09]. 3 Note that additional correlation analysis revealed evidence for the independence of position priming effects (see also Maljkovic and Nakayama, 1996 ; Tower-Richardi et al., 2012 ).

Whereas the interaction for HEXACO agreeableness observed in Study 1 fell short of significance here, F (1,253) = 2.62, p = 0.11, η p 2 = 0.01, there was again a significant interaction between honesty-humility and game type, F (1,253) = 11.48, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.04.

The extent to which parents stated that their child learns from books showed a trend toward being related to children’s learning choice of books, r (70) = -0.19, p = 0.11, but their belief in touchscreens as a learning tool was not related to children’s choice of touchscreens, r (68) = 0.03, p = 0.81.

No other effects approached significance ( p > 0.11).

The interaction of validity and previous visibility just failed to reached marginal significance, F (1, 20) = 2.84, p = 0.11.

The direct comparison of the two error conditions showed a small trend ( p < 0.11).

However, anonymity did not have a significant trend ( p -value = 0.11), and the number of donations had an opposite significant downward trend from the first half (325.00) to the second half (287.11) ( p -value < 0.01).

The linear mixed-effect model revealed a marginally significant main effect of gender, χ ( 1 ) 2 = 2.63, p = 0.11, indicating that, overall, girls tended to perform better than boys (other p 's > 0.33).

A marginally significant interaction effect for cond * hrs_list was also found F (1, 74) = 2.64, p = 0.11; Figure 2C .

For spatial load there were significant effects of condition [ F (1,29) = 13.5; p < 0.001, η = 0.32], location [ F (4,116) = 10.3; p < 0.001, η = 0.26], and a weak trend for a condition × location interaction ( p < 0.11, η = 0.07).

The fact that more false alarms (conscious reports of target presence when no target was actually presented) were committed when central cues were spatially predictive (12% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1) than when they were not (6% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1), together with the finding of significant differences in the general d′ between spatially predictive and non-predictive cues, and close to significance differences in response criterion [ t (13) = 1.64, p = 0.11], strongly suggests that participants may have adopted a stricter response criterion to report targets at the unattended vs. the attended location, especially when central cues were spatially predictive of target appearance (Hsu et al., 2011 ).

This factor was marginally significant, F (2, 38) = 2.314, MSE = 0.021, p = 0.113, η 2 p = 0.114; Figure 2B presents the means (and SE s) for this effect.

Furthermore, we noted a marginal significance indicating a slight increase in Mu power and a reduction in the subjective sensation of action control following EEG-NFT ( p = 0.119).

The result for the father communication × grade (age) × gender interaction variable suggests a trend toward significance at the 0.05 level ( B = 0.075, SE = 0.048, t = 1.56, p = 0.119, 95% CI = [−019, 0.170]).

The analyses yielded a significant main effect of lexicality [ F 1 (1, 10) = 8.10, MSE = 0.058, p < 0.02; F 2 (1, 30) = 5.48, MSE = 0.167, p < 0.03] and a marginally significant effect of reduplication [ F 1 (1, 10) = 2.97, MSE = 0.027, p < 0.12; F 2 (1, 30) = 3.11, MSE = 0.07, p < 0.09].

However, the difference between groups YY and YN is only close to significance according to the regression results ( p = 0.12; Figure 5 ).

Analysis of dependency of BIS-reduction on daytime showed a trend for HGSHS-5 (BIS total intervention) with 88.8 at noon vs. 90.5 in the morning and evening ( p = 0.12).

CES-D Greater E1G fluctuation predicted higher scores on the anhedonia subscale of the CES-D [β(SE) = 0.8(0.3), p = 0.016] and a weak trend was seen between greater E1G fluctuation and a higher total CES-D score [β(SE) = 1.1(0.7), p = 0.122].

However, in these cases, the difference in the crossmodal task was not even marginally significant ( p = 0.13 in the n = 24 sample and p = 0.34 in the n = 18 sample, prior to Bonferroni correction), paralleling the mixed-effects analysis.