Influence of Factor

Influence of Factor

Introduction:

The aim of the current work was to check the effect of 2 eye witness factors, ethnic background and accent,how could is affects the sensed favourability of eye witness evidence and case temperament in criminal trials. For this purpose Some of testimonial were made and videotaped. The tapes varied by ethnic background and accent of the eyewitness; the testimonial text was very. some eyewitness favourability variables was, a) credibleness, b) mind of accuracy, c) obliquity, and d) cachet, as well as their relationship to case temperament, were assessed.

Method

For this purpose 152 participants was selected to complete this research, some of the participants were also excluded as they wasn't belong to selected country , talking individually each person who was selected just viewed one tape from the six tapes.

Following calculation shows the relation ship between Accent & video apes

Accent & video tapes

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Included

Excluded

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Accent

100

100.0%

0

.0%

100

100.0%

Factor

100

100.0%

0

.0%

100

100.0%

a. Limited to first 100 cases.

Statistics

Accent

Factor

N

Valid

152

152

Missing

0

0

Mean

1.5197

3.6645

Std. Error of Mean

.04066

.13654

Median

2.0000

3.5000

Mode

2.00

3.00

Std. Deviation

.50126

1.68336

Variance

.251

2.834

Skewness

-.080

-.006

Std. Error of Skewness

.197

.197

Range

1.00

5.00

Minimum

1.00

1.00

Maximum

2.00

6.00

Accent

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

1

73

48.0

48.0

48.0

2

79

52.0

52.0

100.0

Total

152

100.0

100.0

Factor

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

1

18

11.8

11.8

11.8

2

25

16.4

16.4

28.3

3

33

21.7

21.7

50.0

4

22

14.5

14.5

64.5

5

22

14.5

14.5

78.9

6

32

21.1

21.1

100.0

Total

152

100.0

100.0

Case Summaries

Accent

Factor

1

2.00

2.00

2

1.00

1.00

3

2.00

4.00

4

2.00

6.00

5

1.00

5.00

6

1.00

1.00

7

2.00

6.00

8

1.00

3.00

9

1.00

1.00

10

2.00

4.00

11

2.00

4.00

12

2.00

2.00

13

1.00

1.00

14

1.00

3.00

15

1.00

5.00

16

2.00

2.00

17

1.00

3.00

18

2.00

6.00

19

1.00

3.00

20

1.00

1.00

21

2.00

6.00

22

2.00

6.00

23

2.00

2.00

24

2.00

2.00

25

2.00

4.00

26

1.00

5.00

27

1.00

5.00

28

2.00

6.00

29

1.00

1.00

30

2.00

4.00

31

1.00

3.00

32

2.00

6.00

33

2.00

4.00

34

1.00

3.00

35

2.00

6.00

36

2.00

6.00

37

1.00

5.00

38

2.00

6.00

39

2.00

4.00

40

1.00

5.00

41

2.00

6.00

42

2.00

6.00

43

1.00

5.00

44

1.00

1.00

45

2.00

6.00

46

2.00

6.00

47

1.00

1.00

48

2.00

4.00

49

1.00

1.00

50

1.00

3.00

51

1.00

5.00

52

2.00

4.00

53

2.00

4.00

54

2.00

2.00

55

1.00

1.00

56

2.00

4.00

57

2.00

2.00

58

2.00

6.00

59

2.00

2.00

60

1.00

5.00

61

1.00

3.00

62

1.00

1.00

63

2.00

4.00

64

1.00

3.00

65

1.00

3.00

66

2.00

4.00

67

2.00

6.00

68

2.00

2.00

69

2.00

6.00

70

1.00

1.00

71

2.00

2.00

72

1.00

3.00

73

1.00

3.00

74

1.00

3.00

75

1.00

3.00

76

1.00

3.00

77

2.00

4.00

78

2.00

2.00

79

1.00

3.00

80

2.00

4.00

81

2.00

2.00

82

2.00

6.00

83

1.00

5.00

84

1.00

5.00

85

2.00

6.00

86

1.00

3.00

87

2.00

4.00

88

2.00

4.00

89

2.00

4.00

90

1.00

3.00

91

2.00

4.00

92

2.00

6.00

93

1.00

3.00

94

1.00

3.00

95

2.00

2.00

96

2.00

2.00

97

2.00

6.00

98

1.00

5.00

99

2.00

6.00

100

2.00

2.00

Total

N

100

100

Mean

1.5600

3.7000

Median

2.0000

4.0000

Grouped Median

1.5600

3.6667

Std. Error of Mean

.04989

.16787

Sum

156.00

370.00

Minimum

1.00

1.00

Maximum

2.00

6.00

Range

1.00

5.00

First

2.00

2.00

Last

2.00

2.00

Std. Deviation

.49889

1.67874

Variance

.249

2.818

Kurtosis

-1.980

-1.177

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.478

.478

Skewness

-.245

-.048

Std. Error of Skewness

.241

.241

Harmonic Mean

1.3889

2.7039

Geometric Mean

1.4743

3.2362

a. Limited to first 100 cases.

Descriptive Statistics

N

Sum

Mean

Skew ness

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Accent

152

231.00

1.5197

-.080

.197

Factor

152

557.00

3.6645

-.006

.197

Valid N (listwise)

152

Variables Entered/Removedb

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Factorsa

.

Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Accent

Model Summary

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.318a

.101

.095

.47684

a. Predictors: (Constant), Factors

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

3.835

1

3.835

16.865

.000a

Residual

34.106

150

.227

Total

37.941

151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Factors

b. Dependent Variable: Accent

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for B

B

Std. Error

Beta

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1

(Constant)

1.173

.093

12.624

.000

.989

1.356

Factors

.095

.023

.318

4.107

.000

.049

.140

a. Dependent Variable: Accent

Findings (Accent)

Overall the statistics shows that there is a positive relation ship exists between the accent & the factors, i.e. it was found that people who belongs to different nations or was treated as accent are considered less trustful in delivering information as compare to those who was accent free.

Ethnic Background & video tapes

Case Processing Summarya

Cases

Included

Excluded

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Background

100

100.0%

0

.0%

100

100.0%

Factors

100

100.0%

0

.0%

100

100.0%

a. Limited to first 100 cases.

Case Summariesa

Background

Factors

1

1.00

2.00

2

1.00

1.00

3

2.00

4.00

4

3.00

6.00

5

3.00

5.00

6

1.00

1.00

7

3.00

6.00

8

2.00

3.00

9

1.00

1.00

10

2.00

4.00

11

2.00

4.00

12

1.00

2.00

13

1.00

1.00

14

2.00

3.00

15

3.00

5.00

16

1.00

2.00

17

2.00

3.00

18

3.00

6.00

19

2.00

3.00

20

1.00

1.00

21

3.00

6.00

22

3.00

6.00

23

1.00

2.00

24

1.00

2.00

25

2.00

4.00

26

3.00

5.00

27

3.00

5.00

28

3.00

6.00

29

1.00

1.00

30

2.00

4.00

31

2.00

3.00

32

3.00

6.00

33

2.00

4.00

34

2.00

3.00

35

3.00

6.00

36

3.00

6.00

37

3.00

5.00

38

3.00

6.00

39

2.00

4.00

40

3.00

5.00

41

3.00

6.00

42

3.00

6.00

43

3.00

5.00

44

1.00

1.00

45

3.00

6.00

46

3.00

6.00

47

1.00

1.00

48

2.00

4.00

49

1.00

1.00

50

2.00

3.00

51

3.00

5.00

52

2.00

4.00

53

2.00

4.00

54

1.00

2.00

55

1.00

1.00

56

2.00

4.00

57

1.00

2.00

58

3.00

6.00

59

1.00

2.00

60

3.00

5.00

61

2.00

3.00

62

1.00

1.00

63

2.00

4.00

64

2.00

3.00

65

2.00

3.00

66

2.00

4.00

67

3.00

6.00

68

1.00

2.00

69

3.00

6.00

70

1.00

1.00

71

1.00

2.00

72

2.00

3.00

73

2.00

3.00

74

2.00

3.00

75

2.00

3.00

76

2.00

3.00

77

2.00

4.00

78

1.00

2.00

79

2.00

3.00

80

2.00

4.00

81

1.00

2.00

82

3.00

6.00

83

3.00

5.00

84

3.00

5.00

85

3.00

6.00

86

2.00

3.00

87

2.00

4.00

88

2.00

4.00

89

2.00

4.00

90

2.00

3.00

91

2.00

4.00

92

3.00

6.00

93

2.00

3.00

94

2.00

3.00

95

1.00

2.00

96

1.00

2.00

97

3.00

6.00

98

3.00

5.00

99

3.00

6.00

100

1.00

2.00

Total

N

100

100

Mean

2.0700

3.7000

Median

2.0000

4.0000

Grouped Median

2.0959

3.6667

Std. Error of Mean

.07818

.16787

Sum

207.00

370.00

Minimum

1.00

1.00

Maximum

3.00

6.00

Range

2.00

5.00

First

1.00

2.00

Last

1.00

2.00

Std. Deviation

.78180

1.67874

Variance

.611

2.818

Kurtosis

-1.346

-1.177

Std. Error of Kurtosis

.478

.478

Skewness

-.124

-.048

Std. Error of Skewness

.241

.241

Harmonic Mean

1.7291

2.7039

Geometric Mean

1.9038

3.2362

a. Limited to first 100 cases.

Statistics

Background

Factors

N

Valid

152

152

Missing

0

0

Mean

2.0724

3.6645

Std. Error of Mean

.06474

.13654

Median

2.0000

3.5000

Mode

2.00

3.00

Std. Deviation

.79819

1.68336

Variance

.637

2.834

Skewness

-.131

-.006

Std. Error of Skewness

.197

.197

Range

2.00

5.00

Minimum

1.00

1.00

Maximum

3.00

6.00

Background

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

1

43

28.3

28.3

28.3

2

55

36.2

36.2

64.5

3

54

35.5

35.5

100.0

Total

152

100.0

100.0

Factors

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

1

18

11.8

11.8

11.8

2

25

16.4

16.4

28.3

3

33

21.7

21.7

50.0

4

22

14.5

14.5

64.5

5

22

14.5

14.5

78.9

6

32

21.1

21.1

100.0

Total

152

100.0

100.0

Descriptive Statistics

N

Sum

Mean

Skewness

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Background

152

315.00

2.0724

-.131

.197

Factors

152

557.00

3.6645

-.006

.197

Valid N (listwise)

152

Variables Entered/Removedb

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Factorsa

.

Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Background

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

87.677

1

87.677

1.542E3

.000a

Residual

8.527

150

.057

Total

96.204

151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Factors

b. Dependent Variable: Background

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for B

B

Std. Error

Beta

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1

(Constant)

.414

.046

8.903

.000

.322

.505

Factors

.453

.012

.955

39.274

.000

.430

.475

a. Dependent Variable: Background

Findings (Ethnic Background)

Second hypothesis is about the ethnic background that how its relates to the accent or how it favours the accent factors, again it was found that is has a positive relation, from this research it was concluded that the German was treated as the most favourable in terms of accent then the Mexican & then the Lebanese .keeping in mind the independent variable was the background and accent.

Elaboration likelihood model

The elaboration likelihood model or like hood Elaboration Model (ELM) is a social psychology theory developed by the researchers RE Petty and JT Cacioppo in 1981 (completed in 1986) and aimed to integrate different theories of cognitive psychology on the phenomenon of human persuasion. According to this model, the change in attitudes that generated a particular message can be produced in us through two different cognitive processing routes: the central ...