The simple main effect of test time showed that the cognitive training group significantly improved on executive control, F (1,66) = 28.57, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.30, the active control group showed a trend of improvement, F (1,66) = 3.61, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.05, and the waitlist group did not show any improvement ( p = 0.84).
For the Stroop task, bilingual variables almost reached statistical significance (Estimated bilingualism β = 0.145, p = 0.06; L2 Proficiency β = 0.135, p = 0.07), although indicative of a bilingual disadvantage.
Fifth, although not statistically significant, the baseline difference in total WEPS scores between the intervention and control groups approached significance ( p = 0.06), with the intervention group showing marginally higher initial interest.
Gender was a significant moderator of the actor effect ( p < 0.05), while the interaction between gender and partner effect approached significance ( p = 0.06).
Results of the analyses on latency showed a significant difference between long-time priming ( M = 744 ms) and short-time priming ( M = 673 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 46.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.56, F 2 (1,22) = 30.91, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58, and a marginally significant, but unreliable 17-ms, difference between long-time concepts ( M = 717 ms) and short-time concepts ( M = 700 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 3.81, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, F 2 (1,22) < 1, ns.
The relationship between Raven’s performance and total sleep (SDSC) score approached significance, r s (46) = 0.28, p = 0.06.
The Distributive Justice × Procedural Justice interaction was marginally significant on voluntary tax compliance ( p = 0.06).
The main effect of motion speed was marginally significant ( F 1,44 = 2.99, p = 0.06).
The effect on bias bordered on significance [ t (4) = 2.03, p = 0.06] suggesting that participants may have been more conservative in the training phase compared to the test phase (see Figure 3B ).
In fact, we observed marginally significant ( p = 0.06, Student's t -test for case 1 ) and significant ( p = 0.009) preference bias in gaze for the last half second and for the half second after the decision timing, respectively.
A one way ANOVA comparing group performance in the acoustic condition of the rhythmic synchronization task after 1 year of training showed a strong trend toward significance F (1,30) = 3.54, p = 0.06 with the music group outperforming the control group.
The main effect of size approached significance [ F (1, 23) = 4.007, p < 0.06; P BIC (H 0 |D) = 0.416] indicating a slightly lower accuracy for search in large sets (95.6%) than for search in small sets (96.7%).
The interaction between delay interval, age, and educational track showed a trend toward significance [Greenhouse–Geisser F (1.77,1098.32) = 2.34, p = 0.06].
We found a marginally significant interaction between group, valence, and congruity, F (2,40) = 3, MSE = 570, p < 0.06 (see Figure 6 ).
A 2 (Group) × 2 (Run) × 3 (Condition) mixed ANOVA for errors with repeated measures for Run and Condition revealed no significant differences between Groups, F (1, 29) = 1.17, p = 0.29, η 2 = 0.04, no significant effect for Run, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η 2 = 0.07, no significant effect for the Run × Group interaction, F (1, 29) < 1, a significant trend for the Condition × Group effect, F (2, 58) = 3.04, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, and a significant Run × Condition × Group interaction, F (2, 58) = 5.20, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.15.
Moreover, self-control was related to a reduction in the number of words per minute, at a marginally significant level ( r = −0.24, p < 0.06).
It should be noted that subjects showed a trend toward selecting the larger number for the 1 vs. 2 condition ( p = 0.06; Figure 2 ).
It should also be noted that although the interaction of worries with HWS-PE was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), the same trend was observed (i.e., that the effect of COVID-19 worries on anxiety was stronger among individuals with low HWS-PE).
While the main effect of Part-Whole Condition was only marginally significant, F (1,37) = 3.75, MSE = 161151.68, p = 0.060, there was a significant Orientation by Part-Whole Condition interaction, F (1,37) = 30.71, MSE = 112415.92, p < 0.001.
In the upper alpha band, there were no significant effects of Training or Task, apart from a marginally significant interaction between Task and Hemisphere [ F (1,19) = 4.07, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.18], which revealed a larger hemispheric ERD difference (in favor of the right hemisphere) in the figural-spatial compared to the multiplication problems.
A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].
The main effect for Focus approached significance, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.23, and this was likely to be attributed to the slower times recorded by the internal focus group.
This tendency marginally approached significance (461 ms and 484 ms, respectively, F (1,17) = 4, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.19).
A Friedman’s Test indicated that the items regarding uses of successfully spotting were rated differently in P3, χ 2 (9, N = 23) = 26.80, p < 0.01, whereas items referring to reasons and characteristics of successfully spotting in P1 and P2 just failed to reach significance [P1: χ 2 (6, N = 23) = 12.02, p = 0.06; P2: χ 2 (8, N = 23) = 15.24, p = 0.06].
t, both p < 0.005, suggesting an “all or nothing” attitude toward compliance), individualistic reasons for compliance (while collectivist reasons for compliance were strongly and positively associated with trust, p < 0.001), educational level, time of data collection, and age (the last one showed a marginally significant negative correlation, β = −0.018, p = 0.06).