Results

      The descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the experimental measures can be found on Table 1 below.
The research question addressed how the incentive manipulation would influence the performance (number correct) on the TOL and LNS tasks.  The paired-samples t-test showed no significant differences in performance on the TOL or the LNS tasks under incentive and non-incentive conditions.
Hypothesis 1 stated that the scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions would be moderately correlated with each other because they are both considered to be “cold” EF tasks.  Correlational analysis found a non-significant positive correlation, r (8) = 0.268, p = 0.227.  The scatter-plot indicates a positive association, however many outliers caused the correlation to be non-significant.
1
Hypothesis 2 stated that the scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under non-incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a low magnitude.  Correlational analysis once again found a non-significant positive correlation between the non-incentive TOL and IGT.  This suggests that better scores on the TOL were related to better (less risky) choices on the IGT.  The exception to this finding was the first block of 20 IGT trials in which there was a significant negative correlation between the TOL and IGT, r (8) = -0.744, p = 0.007 (see scatter-plot below).  This means that, for the first 20 trials of the IGT, participants who did well on the TOL task made significantly worse (more risky) choices on the IGT.  In general, there was a low negative correlation between the LNS under non-incentive conditions and IGT, meaning that higher scores on the LNS resulted in poorer choices on the IGT.  The correlation between the LNS score and the first block of 20 IGT trials showed a moderate negative correlation, r (8) = -0.536, p = 0.055.
2
Hypothesis 3 stated that the scores on the TOL and LNS tasks given under incentive conditions will be correlated with the “hot” EF task, IGT, at a moderate to high magnitude.  Correlational analysis yielded several significant positive correlations between the TOL under incentive conditions and IGT Block 2, r (8) = 0.598, p = 0.034, IGT Block 3, r (8) = 0.726, p = 0.009, IGT Block 4, r (8) = 0.725, p = 0.009, IGT Block 5, r (8) = 0.633, p = 0.025, and the IGT net total, r (8) = 0.776, p = 0.004 (see scatter-plot below).  Correlations between the LNS under incentive conditions and the IGT were all non-significant, ranging from negative to positive.
3

Table 1. 
Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Tasks

 

Descriptive Statistics

Tasks                                       Mean                           Standard Deviations

IGT Block1                             -2.60                                        4.33


IGT Block2                             1.60                                         9.47
IGT Block3                             6.30                                         11.37
IGT Block4                             5.20                                         12.52
IGT Block5                             2.20                                         13.21
IGT NetTotal                          12.80                                       41.34
TOLinc                                    13.60                                       1.58
LNSinc                                    4.60                                         1.17
TOL                                        13.40                                       1.51
LNS                                        4.60                                         1.27

*For all IGT Blocks the possible range is -20 (all risky choices) to 20 (all good choices)…IGT Total from -100 (all risky choices) to 100 (all good choices) ...LNS from 0 to 7 for each trial...TOL from 0 to 15 for each trial.