responses and responses less than .02 were recorded to 0).

One RHD subject was removed from the analyses due to corrupt

data (the experimenter was unable to get the electrodes to

remain firmly attached to the subject's palm).

 Repeated measures analyses of variance were used with

 group as the between subject factor and condition (shock,

 no-shock) as the within subject factor. Block was not

 included in these analyses because there were not enough

 responses within each block. Results revealed a main effect

 for group [F(3,43) = 3.13, P < .05], a main effect for

 condition [F(1,43) = 29.52, P < .001], as well as an

 interaction between condition and group [F(3,43) = 6.47, P <

 .01]. See Table C-21 for the full ANOVA table in Appendix

 C.

 The main effect of group was explored using independent

t-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Since the difference

between the LH NCS and RH NCS was not significant, these

groups were combined. Three comparisons were conducted with

a Bonferroni correction of P < .017. Results indicated

that none of the groups were significantly different from

one another. There was a lower percentage of responses in

the RHD group (mean=13.18%, sd=17.15) compared to the CONS

(mean=35.00%, sd=29.00), however, this difference did not

reach significance [T(1,34) = 2.304, P = .0276]. The LHD

group (mean=15.83%, sd=25.09) did not have a significantly