Table 3.
β | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|
HEROIN USER INTERACTIONS | |||
Iowa gambling task | 0.006 | 0.078 | 0.938 |
CGT quality of decisions | 0.021 | 0.051 | 0.959 |
CGT risk adjustment | −0.002 | −0.018 | 0.985 |
CGT delay aversion | −0.054 | −0.290 | 0.772 |
CGT deliberation time | −0.055 | −0.240 | 0.811 |
CGT risk taking | 0.124 | 0.353 | 0.724 |
AMPHETAMINE USER INTERACTIONS | |||
Iowa gambling task | 0.003 | 0.047 | 0.963 |
CGT quality of decisions | −0.191 | −0.381 | 0.704 |
CGT risk adjustment | −0.117 | −0.942 | 0.347 |
CGT delay aversion | −0.191 | −0.381 | 0.704 |
CGT deliberation time | −0.286 | −1.16 | 0.246 |
CGT risk taking | −0.761 | −2.11 | 0.036 |
POLYSUBSTANCE USER INTERACTIONS | |||
Iowa gambling task | 0.224 | 3.04 | 0.003 |
CGT quality of decisions | −0.754 | −1.70 | 0.091 |
CGT risk adjustment | −0.022 | −0.203 | 0.839 |
CGT delay aversion | −0.203 | −1.21 | 0.226 |
CGT deliberation time | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.999 |
CGT risk taking | −0.359 | −0.967 | 0.334 |
CGT, Cambridge Gambling Task.