103
(mean=20.52, sd=16.03), [T=(l,33) = 3.10, P < .017]. The
LHD group (mean=8.99, sd=13.13) was not significantly
different from any of the other groups. The difference
between the LHD group and the CONS approached significance
[T(l,34) = -2.152, P = .0386], suggesting that the LHD group
had less responding compared to the CONS during the shock
condition.
Examination of the means and standard deviations of the
SCR revealed large standard deviations compared to the
means. Thus, the overall ANOVA was conducted with log
transformed data. Using log transformation, the findings
remained the same as above.
Since past studies have found a significant positive
correlation between SCR and arousal ratings, the
correlations between range corrected skin conductance
magnitude and the arousal ratings during the shock condition
was obtained. The results revealed a trend towards
significance for the control subjects [R = .36, Beta = -
4.66, T( 1,22) = -1.80, P = .085] The correlation between
SCR and arousal was not significant for the LHD group [R =
.11, Beta = 1.18, T(l,10) = .343, P = .7390] or the RHD
group [R = .287, Beta = -1.04, T = -.899, P = .3923].
In sum, subjects had a greater percentage of responses
in response to the shock tone than in response to the
control tone. Also, the results revealed that the RHD and
LHD subjects did not have significantly fewer responses than