119
.001]. There was also task by group interaction [F(3,43) =
4.81, P < .01] and a block by task interaction [F(3,43) =
6.81, P < .001]. The main effect for block, the interaction
of block by group, and the three way interaction were all
not significant. The results of the full ANOVA table are
presented in Appendix C, Table C-60.
The main effect by group was further explored using
independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Since the
difference between the LH NCS and RH NCS was not significant
[T(1,22) = .509, P = .6159], these two groups were combined.
Using the significance level of P < .017, based on the
Bonferroni correction, the RHD group (mean=-.829, sd=2.61)
had smaller SCR magnitude compared to the CONS (mean=6.212,
sd=8.30), [T(1,33) = 2.733, P < .017]. There was no
difference between the LHD group (mean=.481, sd=3.40) and
the CONS or the LHD and the RHD. The results of the t-tests
are presented in Table C-61 in Appendix C.
The main effect by task revealed that the shock
condition produced significantly greater responding than the
reward condition when the respective control conditions were
held constant. The mean for the shock minus shock control
variable was 6.82 (sd=15.71) whereas the mean for the reward
minus reward control variable was -.62 (sd=13.06).
The block by task interaction was explored using paired
t-tests with a Bonferroni correction requiring P < .0125 for
significance. The results revealed that the SCR magnitude