Alibi believability: Corroborator certainty, cooperativeness and relationship with the defendant

IF 0.8 4区 心理学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Meredith Allison, Courtney Kollar
{"title":"Alibi believability: Corroborator certainty, cooperativeness and relationship with the defendant","authors":"Meredith Allison,&nbsp;Courtney Kollar","doi":"10.1002/jip.1618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Alibi believability can be affected by characteristics of the alibi corroborator, including the relationship between the defendant and corroborator, which has been studied extensively by researchers. The corroborator's certainty that they were together at the time of the crime may also influence alibi believability, but only a few studies have examined this. Another factor that may affect believability is the corroborator's cooperativeness with the police, which is yet to be studied in the alibi context. Online U.S. participants recruited from CloudResearch (<i>N</i> = 280) acted as mock jurors and evaluated a mock arson case where the defendant used an alibi defence. The alibi corroborator's relationship to the defendant (brother/neighbour), the certainty that they were together at the time (65%/100%) and cooperativeness with police (cooperative/uncooperative) were manipulated between participants. The participants were evenly split when it came to verdict (<i>p</i> &gt; .05) but were more likely to vote guilty when the corroborator was a brother rather than a neighbour (<i>p</i> &lt; .01) and when the brother was uncooperative versus cooperative (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). As expected, alibis were more believable when they were corroborated by a neighbour rather than a brother and when the corroborator was 100% certain that they were together versus 65% certain (<i>p</i>s &lt; .01). Alibis were also more believable when the corroborator cooperated than when he was uncooperative (<i>p</i> &lt; .01). Cooperative (vs. uncooperative) corroborators led to more positive defendant and corroborator views on all six character trait measures (<i>p</i>s &lt; .01). Implications and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":46397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jip.1618","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.1618","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Alibi believability can be affected by characteristics of the alibi corroborator, including the relationship between the defendant and corroborator, which has been studied extensively by researchers. The corroborator's certainty that they were together at the time of the crime may also influence alibi believability, but only a few studies have examined this. Another factor that may affect believability is the corroborator's cooperativeness with the police, which is yet to be studied in the alibi context. Online U.S. participants recruited from CloudResearch (N = 280) acted as mock jurors and evaluated a mock arson case where the defendant used an alibi defence. The alibi corroborator's relationship to the defendant (brother/neighbour), the certainty that they were together at the time (65%/100%) and cooperativeness with police (cooperative/uncooperative) were manipulated between participants. The participants were evenly split when it came to verdict (p > .05) but were more likely to vote guilty when the corroborator was a brother rather than a neighbour (p < .01) and when the brother was uncooperative versus cooperative (p < .05). As expected, alibis were more believable when they were corroborated by a neighbour rather than a brother and when the corroborator was 100% certain that they were together versus 65% certain (ps < .01). Alibis were also more believable when the corroborator cooperated than when he was uncooperative (p < .01). Cooperative (vs. uncooperative) corroborators led to more positive defendant and corroborator views on all six character trait measures (ps < .01). Implications and future directions are discussed.

Alibi可信度:确证确定性、合作性和与被告的关系
不在场证明的可信度会受到不在场证明证人特征的影响,包括被告与证人之间的关系,这一问题已被研究者广泛研究。证人确信他们在犯罪时在一起,这也可能影响不在场证明的可信度,但只有少数研究对此进行了检验。另一个可能影响可信度的因素是证人与警方的合作,这在不在场证明的背景下还有待研究。从CloudResearch招募的美国在线参与者(N = 280)扮演模拟陪审员,评估一个模拟纵火案,其中被告使用不在场辩护。不在场证明证人与被告的关系(兄弟/邻居)、他们当时在一起的确定性(65%/100%)和与警察的合作(合作/不合作)在参与者之间被操纵。当涉及到判决时,参与者平分秋色(p >.05),但当证人是兄弟而不是邻居时,更有可能投有罪票(p <.01),兄弟不合作与合作(p <. 05)。不出所料,当不在场证明得到邻居而不是兄弟的证实时,当证实者100%确定他们在一起而不是65%确定时,不在场证明更可信(ps <. 01)。当证人配合时,他的不在场证明也比不配合时更可信(p <. 01)。合作(与不合作)确证者导致被告和确证者对所有六项性格特征测量的看法更为积极(ps <. 01)。讨论了影响和未来的发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (JIP-OP) is an international journal of behavioural science contributions to criminal and civil investigations, for researchers and practitioners, also exploring the legal and jurisprudential implications of psychological and related aspects of all forms of investigation. Investigative Psychology is rapidly developing worldwide. It is a newly established, interdisciplinary area of research and application, concerned with the systematic, scientific examination of all those aspects of psychology and the related behavioural and social sciences that may be relevant to criminal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信