Table 2:

Results of the inferential tests used to analyze the raw proportion of responses for the large magnitude reinforcer and AUCs at the end of baseline training for rats trained in either delay discounting or probability discounting.

Delay Discounting					Probability Discounting
Raw Proportion of Responses					Raw Proportion of Responses
Factor	DF	F Statistic	P	ηp2	Factor	DF	F Statistic	P	ηp2
Delay	1.714, 37.703	118.543	<.001	.843	Delay	1.701, 37.412	166.274	<.001	.883
Schedule	1, 22	98.025	<.001	.817	Schedule	1, 22	6.574	.018	.230
Delay × Schedule	1.714, 37.703	16.513	< .001a	.429	Delay × Schedule	1.701, 37.412	3.869	0.036b	.150
AUC					AUC
Factor	DF	t Statistic	P	d	Factor	DF	t Statistic	P	d
Schedule	22	−9.802	<.001	−4.002	Schedule	22	−2.666	.014	−1.089

^aTo probe the significant interaction, independent-samples t tests (with Bonferroni correction) were used to compare the proportion of responses between rats trained on the ascending and descending schedules at each delay. Rats trained on the descending schedule showed greater responding for the large magnitude reinforcer at each delay (all t’s ≥ −4.905, all p’s < .001, all d’s ≥ 2.002), with the exception of the 0-s delay, t(11.000) = −2.756, p = .019, d = 1.166

^bTo probe the significant interaction, independent-samples t tests (with Bonferroni correction) were used to compare the proportion of responses between rats trained on the ascending and descending schedules at each odds against. There were no significant differences between rats trained on the ascending and descending schedules at any of the odds against (all t’s ≤ −2.817, all p’s > .011, all d’s ≥ .063).