The Psychology of Alibis

The effect of alibi consistency, presence of physical evidence and timing of disclosure on mock juror perceptions

Inconsistent alibis often are viewed negatively, but they may be due to simple mistakes and not deception. The strength of alibi evidence also matters; alibis supported by strong corroborative physical evidence are more believable than alibis with no physical evidence. The timing at which the alibi is disclosed to the prosecution also can affect alibi believability. Two hundred and seventy online participants evaluated a consistent or inconsistent alibi that had corroborative physical evidence or not, and was disclosed early or late. Collapsing across the three conditions, more participants voted guilty than not guilty, and more believable alibis were associated with more not guilty verdicts. Consistent alibis were more believable, and the defendant was viewed more positively on five character traits than when the alibi was inconsistent. There were few effects of alibi timing. In sum, consistency led to positive views of alibis and defendants.

Credibility assessments of alibi accounts: the role of cultural intergroup bias

Research has shown that judges and jurors are influenced by suspect ethnicity and that they might discriminate against out-group suspects in making decisions. This study examined the tendency to favor in-group members, as predicted by social identity theory, in assessing alibi credibility. Forty Israeli-Jewish and 40 Israeli-Arab participants assessed the credibility of an alibi statement provided by a suspect who was either Israeli-Jewish or Israeli-Arab. Findings show that participants were more likely to believe the alibi when it was provided by an in-group suspect than by an out-group suspect, supporting intergroup bias in alibi credibility assessments. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Contact Tracing: A Memory Task With Consequences for Public Health

In the battle for control of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), we have few weapons. Yet contact tracing is among the most powerful. Contact tracing is the process by which public-health officials identify people, or contacts, who have been exposed to a person infected with a pathogen or another hazard. For all its power, though, contact tracing yields a variable level of success. One reason is that contact tracing's ability to break the chain of transmission is only as effective as the proportion of contacts who are actually traced. In part, this proportion turns on the quality of the information that infected people provide, which makes human memory a crucial part of the efficacy of contact tracing. Yet the fallibilities of memory, and the challenges associated with gathering reliable information from memory, have been grossly underestimated by those charged with gathering it. We review the research on witnesses and investigative interviewing, identifying interrelated challenges that parallel those in contact tracing, as well as approaches for addressing those challenges.