marginally significantp = 0.058
6C ), while the state × condition interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 71) = 3.72, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.050).
6C ), while the state × condition interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 71) = 3.72, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.050).
Although the state × condition interaction reached only marginal significance ( F (1, 71) = 3.46, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.046), post-hoc comparisons revealed a consistent pattern: fair proposals induced significantly higher interbrain global efficiency than unfair proposals in both state 1 ( t = 3.856, p FDR = 3.34 × 10 -4 , Cohen’s d = 0.454, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.014]) and state 2 ( t = 2.478, p FDR = 0.016, Cohen’s d = 0.292, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.009]).