118
(mean=10.426, sd=15.102) than the reward compared to reward-
control trials (mean=1.170, sd=9.S57).
The interaction was explored using separate t-tests
with Bonferroni correction for the shock and reward tasks.
Since there were no significant differences between the LH
NCS and the RH NCS during the shock task or the reward task,
the groups were combined. Results revealed that during the
shock task the LHD group, (mean=.833, sd=7.334) had a
smaller difference between the percentage of responses for
the shock and control trials compared to the CONS
(mean=18.33, sd=16.73), [T(l,34) = -3.443, P < .01], but not
the RHD group (mean=3.636, sd=5.95), [T(l,21) = -1.000, P =
.3285]. The RHD group also had a significant smaller
difference in the percentage of responses greater than .02
micro sieman than CONS [T(1,33) = 32.814, P < .01] There
were no significant differences between any of the groups
for the reward minus reward control variable. Tables of the
t-tests, Table C-58 and C-59, are presented in Appendix C.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to compare SCR magnitude between the two tasks.
Group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) was the between subjects
factor and task (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no
reward) and block (one to four) were the within subject
factors.
There was a main effect for group [F(3,43) = 4.42, P <
.01] along with a main effect for task (F(l,43) = 24.82, P <