Driver s nonaccommodative behaviors ie dismissiveness

Driver ’ s nonaccommodative behaviors (i.e., dismissiveness, indifference, and
belligerence) were all nonsignificant with regard to both dimensions of outcome,
b ²³ .014, t (67) ²³ 0.115, p ² .91, b ²³ .111, t (67) ²³ 0.917, p ² .362,
b ²³ .009, t (67) ²³ 0.073, p ² .94. Logistic regressions performed to assess driver
belligerence on repercussions of the stop or whether a break was offered were
nonsignificant, x
2
(1, N ² 69) ² 1.259, p ² .26, x
2
(1, N ² 69) ² 0.350, p ² .55. In sum,
there was no support for the presence of a relationship between and of the three
driver ’ s nonaccommodative behaviors, i.e., dismissiveness, indifference, and belli-
gerence, being related to extensive policing, whether they received a citation or arrest,
or whether a break was offered.
The fourth hypothesis predicted that intergroup encounters would be judged less
accommodative and more nonaccommodative than intragroup encounters. In terms
of the officer ’ s behavior, an ANOVA assessing driver ethnicity on officer accom-
modation revealed a significant result. White (non-Latino) officers accommodated
Latino drivers ( M ² 2.41, SD ² 0.65) significantly less than White (non-Latino)
drivers ( M ² 2.75, SD ² 0.64), F (1, 67) ² 4.849, p ² .03, h
2
² .067. An ANOVA
assessing driver ethnicity on officer nonaccommodation revealed a nonsignificant
finding despite the direction of the means. White (non-Latino) officers did not
significantly differ in their level of nonaccommodation toward Latino drivers
( M ² 0.333, SD ² 0.70) and White (non-Latino) drivers ( M ² 0.210, SD ² 0.44),
F (1, 67) ² 0.781, p ² .38, h
2
² .012. Therefore, there is partial support for the
hypothesis; White (non-Latino) officers were less accommodative with Latino drivers
than White (non-Latino) drivers.
An ANOVA assessing driver ethnicity on the driver ’ s accommodation revealed a
small but significant result. Latino drivers ( M ² 2.35, SD ² 0.60) accommodated
White (non-Latino) officers significantly less than White (non-Latino) drivers
( M ² 2.71, SD ² 0.50), F (1, 67) ² 7.454, p ² .01, h
2
² .100. Three ANOVAs, assessing
driver ethnicity on the three measures of the driver ’ s nonaccommodation, were each
nonsignificant. The first ANOVA revealed Latino drivers ( M ² 0.32, SD ² 0.81) did
not significantly differ in their level of dismissiveness toward White (non-Latino)
officers than White (non-Latino) drivers ( M ² 0.34, SD ² 0.68), F (1, 67) ² 0.012,
p ² .92, h
2
² .000. The second ANOVA revealed Latino drivers ( M ² 0.15, SD ² 0.44)
did not significantly differ in their level of indifference toward White (non-Latino)
officers than White (non-Latino) drivers ( M ² 0.17, SD ² 0.38), F (1, 67) ² 0.061,
p ² .81, h
2
² .001. The third ANOVA revealed Latino drivers ( M ² 0.00, SD ² 0.00)
418
H. Giles et al.
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 15:44 22 August 2013

did not significantly differ in their level of belligerence toward White (non-Latino)
officers than White (non-Latino) drivers ( M ² 0.06, SD ² 0.34), F (1, 67) ² 0.971,
p ² .33, h
2
² .014. Therefore, partially supporting H4, Latino drivers were less
accommodative toward White (non-Latino) officers.