Statistical Designs & Analyses -- Likely Schedule of Class Events for Exam #1

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

The relationship of situated social cognition factors and consent to search perceptions in innocent suspects

Between-groups factorial ANOVAs were conducted to examine the relationships between situated social cognition predictors, gender, and perceptions of the search request and the participants’ consent. Table 1 displays a summary of the descriptive statistics.

Freedom to refuse consent to the search request

The results yielded a significant three-way interaction between gender, room size, and lighting conditions, as they relate to freedom to refuse consent to the search request, F(1,256)=5.53, MSe=5.50, p=.02, r=.15. Table 2 displays all F-tests. Estimated marginal means were used to compare the cell means to determine the direction of the interaction. The results were such that for males, those in the lit condition reported higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent when in the small room (5.67>2.68, p<.01, r=.54), a finding contrary to the research hypothesis that those in the large room would give higher ratings. Males in the dark condition reported no difference in levels of freedom to refuse consent between the small and large room conditions (2.68=3.21, p=.49), also contrary to that which was hypothesized. Likewise, for females, there was no difference in ratings of freedom to refuse consent by room size for either the lit (3.25=3.12, p=.78) or dark condition (3.20=2.95, p=.62).

The factorial ANOVA also yielded a significant two-way interaction for the situated social cognition factors—room size and lighting—as they relate to freedom to refuse consent to the search request, F(1,256)=4.72, MSe=5.50, p=.03, r=.14. This effect showed that those in the small room gave higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent in the lit condition than in the dark condition (4.46>2.94, p<.01, r=.31), as was hypothesized. However, there was no difference in ratings between the lit and dark conditions in the large room (3.18=3.08, p=.82). This overall interaction is descriptive for males but not for females, as females had no difference in freedom to refuse consent ratings between lit and dark conditions in the small room. We also hypothesized that the interaction between room size and lighting would yield the highest ratings. This effect is indeed the largest of the two-way interactions and is only smaller than the three-way interaction and main effect for lighting.

There is also a significant two-way interaction between gender and lighting, F(1,256)=4.62, MSe=5.50, p=.03, r=.13, such that males in the lit condition gave higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent than did those in the dark condition (4.46>2.95, p<.01, r=.31). This effect supports the research hypothesis that those in the lit condition would give higher ratings than those in the dark condition. The effect was descriptive for males in the small room, as hypothesized, but not for males in the large room, for whom there was no difference between the lighting conditions in ratings of freedom to refuse consent (3.25=3.21, p=.80). For females, however, there was no difference in ratings of freedom to consent between the lit and dark conditions (3.18=3.07, p=.74), an effect that was descriptive for both room size conditions.

The two-way interaction between gender and room size is not significant, F(1,256)=1.345, MSe=5.50, p=.25, although this is not descriptive, as there is a marginally significant effect for males, such that those in the small room gave higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent than did those in the large room (4.18>3.23, p=.09, r=.19). There was no effect for females (3.22=3.04, p=.58), for whom the (lack of) interaction is descriptive.

There is also a main effect of lighting, F(1,256)=6.22, MSe=5.50, p=.01, r=.15, such that those in the lit condition gave higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent than those in the dark condition, in support of the research hypothesis. This main effect is descriptive for males in the small room (5.67>2.68, p<.01, r=.54), but is misleading in all other conditions, for which there are no significant effects.

The main effects of gender and room size were both marginally significant, F(1,256)=3.12, MSe=5.50, p=.08, r=.11 and F(1,256)=3.05, MSe=5.50, p=.08, r=.11, respectively. Males gave higher ratings of freedom to refuse consent than did females. This effect was descriptive for participants in the small room in the lit condition (5.67>3.25, p<.01, r=.46), but is misleading in all other conditions. The main effect of room size shows that those in the small room gave higher freedom to refuse consent ratings than did those in the large room, opposite of the research hypothesis and that which Cesario and colleagues (2010) would have predicted. However, this effect was only descriptive for males in the lit condition (5.67>3.25, p<.01, r=.46), and is misleading in all other conditions.

Voluntariness of consent to the search request

The same three-way interaction examined voluntariness of consent to the search request as the dependent variable. (Refer to Table 3.) However, the three-way interaction was non-significant with few significant lower-order effects. We exploratorily added age as a fourth independent variable to analyze if a four-way interaction would be viable. In fact, the four-way interaction was significant, F(1,256)=4.22, MSe=6.75, p=.04, r=.13. Follow-up analyses of the estimated marginal means of the cells revealed that older males in the small room and lit condition gave higher ratings of voluntariness of consent than did younger males in the same conditions (7.80>4.50, p<.01, r=.54). There was no difference between older and younger males in the small and dark room. Furthermore, there were no significant effects for males or females in the large rooms, regardless of age or lighting condition. Although, there was a marginally significant effect for females in the small and lit room condition, such that younger females gave higher ratings of voluntariness of consent than did older females (4.74>3.42, p=.08, r=.25). However, there was no difference in voluntariness ratings between younger and older females in the dark, small room condition.

As previously stated, the original three-way analysis of gender, room size, and lighting condition was not significant, F(1,256)=1.226, MSe=6.75, p=.27. Similarly, none of the additional three-way interactions involving age was significant.

Of the two-way interactions, one was significant and another was marginally significant, though the other four did not achieve statistical significance. There is an interaction between gender and lighting, as they relate to perceptions of voluntariness of consent to the search, F(1,256)=3.90, MSe=6.75, p<.05, r=.12. This interaction showed that males gave marginally higher ratings of voluntariness of consent in the lit condition than did females (5.19>4.25, p=.07, r=.18). However, this effect is only descriptive for males in the small, lit, and older condition, compared to females in the same condition (7.80>3.42, p<.01, r=.64). There is no difference at any other level of the lit conditions. In addition, this two-way interaction shows there is no difference between the genders in the dark condition (411=4.65, p=.32), which is descriptive at all levels of the dark condition.

There is a marginally significant two-way interaction for gender and room size, as they relate to voluntariness of consent to the search request, F(1,256)=3.68, MSe=6.75, p=.06, r=.12. This interaction shows males rate their voluntariness of consent as marginally higher than do females when both are in the small room condition (5.26>4.34, p=.08, r=.17). This interaction is descriptive for older males in the small and lit room, as compared to older females in the same condition (7.80>3.42, p<.01, r=.64), but is misleading at all other levels of the small room condition. However, for this interaction, there is no difference by gender in voluntariness ratings when in the large room condition (4.04=4.56, p=.33), which is descriptive across all levels of the large room condition. No other two-way interaction or any of the main effects was significant.