Meredith Allison, assistant professor of psychology, has published a paper on alibi believability in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
As part of her dissertation work at the University of Victoria, Allison and her graduate advisor, Elizabeth Brimacombe, studied the believability of a defendant’s alibi. They studied how the strength of the evidence supporting the alibi such as physical evidence, the defendant’s prior record, and the judge’s instructions on the correct legal use of prior convictions, can impact people’s perceptions of the defendant’s alibi and guilt.
Abstract:
Undergraduates (N = 339) listened to a simulated police interview with a defendant concerning his alibi. We studied the impact of (a) the strength of the alibi evidence; (b) defendant’s prior convictions; (c) judge’s instructions on prior conviction evidence; and (d) perceivers’ need for cognition (NFC) on alibi believability and defendant guilt ratings.
Defendants previously convicted of the same crime as the current charge were seen as more likely to be guilty than defendants previously convicted of a different crime. Judge’s instructions did not affect guilt ratings. NFC was less influential than anticipated, but did affect participants’ understanding and recall of judicial instructions. Strong alibis were seen as more believable and led to lower guilt ratings than weak alibis.
Citation:
Allison, M. & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2010). Alibi believability: The effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1054-1084.