Advertisement

The Psychology of Alibis

  • Steve CharmanEmail author
  • Kureva Matuku
  • Alexandra Mosser
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Psychology and Law book series (APL, volume 4)

Abstract

The psychological study of alibis is in its nascent phase, and the empirical literature on alibis is correspondingly inchoate. This chapter reviews the current state of the literature on the psychology of alibis. First, we discuss the process of alibi generation and argue that there are three main obstacles that prevent innocent suspects from generating accurate and believable alibis: They often lack a memory of the critical event, they rely heavily on schema-based responding, and they lack the ability to produce corroborating evidence. Based on the extant literature, we propose the schema disconfirmation model as a theoretical framework in which to understand the process of alibi generation. Next, we discuss the process of alibi evaluation and delineate the factors that make alibis more or less believable. To reconcile seemingly conflicting findings, we suggest theoretical refinements to the alibi skepticism hypothesis, which claims that evaluators are particularly skeptical of alibi claims. Finally, we propose directions for future research with the aim of (a) advancing our theoretical understanding of the alibi generation and evaluation processes, and (b) encouraging researchers to adopt a system variables approach to maximize the impact alibi research can have on the collection and treatment of alibi evidence.

Keywords

Alibi generation Alibi believability Schemas Autobiographical memory Wrongful convictions Policing 

References

  1. Allison, M., & Brimacombe, C. A. (2010). Alibi believability: The effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1054–1084.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00610.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, M., Jung, S., Sweeney, L., & Culhane, S. E. (2014). The impact of illegal alibi activities, corroborator involvement and corroborator certainty on mock juror perceptions. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 21, 191–204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.803275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison, M., Mathews, K. R., & Michael, S. W. (2012). Alibi believability: The impact of salacious alibi activities. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40, 605–612.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. (1992). What is autobiographical memory? In M. A. Conway, D. C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, & W. A. Wagenaar (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives on autobiographical memory (pp. 13–29). Netherlands: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7967-4_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barclay, C. R. (1986). Schematization of autobiographical memory. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 82–99). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, T. M., & Turtle, J. W. (2003). Alibi evidence in criminal investigations and trials: Psychological and legal factors. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 1, 286–294.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, T. M., Turtle, J. W., & Olson, E. A. (2007). Alibis in criminal investigations and trials. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. I: Memory for events (pp. 157–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Charman, S. D., Carbone, J., Kekesie, S., & Villalba, D. (2015). Evidence evaluation and evidence integration in legal decision-making: Order of evidence presentation as a moderator of context effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 214–225.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charman, S. D., Kavetski, M., & Hirn Mueller, D. (2017). Cognitive bias in the legal system: Police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief-consistent manner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 193–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charman, S. D., Reyes, A., Villalba, D. K., & Evans, J. R. (2017). The (un)reliability of alibi corroborators: Failure to recognize faces of briefly encountered strangers puts innocent suspects at risk. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 35, 18–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connolly, D. A., Price, H. L., & Gordon, H. M. (2010). Judicial decision-making in timely and delayed prosecutions of child sexual abuse in Canada: A study of honesty and cognitive ability in assessments of credibility. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 16, 177–199.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crozier, W. E., Strange, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2017). Memory errors in alibi generation: How an alibi can turn against us. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 35, 6–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An alibi witness’ influence on mock jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1604–1616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02789.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (2012). Changed alibis: Current law enforcement, future law enforcement, and layperson reactions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 958–977.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812438185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culhane, S. E., Hosch, H. M., & Kehn, A. (2008). Alibi generation: Data from U.S. Hispanics and U.S. Non-Hispanic whites. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6, 177–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15377930802243395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Culhane, S. E., Kehn, A., Horgan, A. J., Meissner, C. A., Hosch, H. M., & Wodahl, E. J. (2013). Generation and detection of true and false alibi statements. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 619–638.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.729018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahl, L. C., Brimacombe, C. A. E., & Lindsay, D. S. (2009). Investigating investigators: How presentation order influences participant-investigators’ interpretations of eyewitness identification and alibi evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 368–380.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9151-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahl, L. C., & Price, H. L. (2012). “He couldn’t have done it, he was with me!”: The impact of alibi witness age and relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 475–481.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dysart, J. E., & Strange, D. (2012). Beliefs about alibis and alibi investigations: A survey of law enforcement. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 11–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2011.562867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eacott, M. J. (1999). Memory for the events of early childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 46–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Au, D. (2016). Safety in numbers: A policy-capturing study of the alibi assessment process. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 260–269.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebbinghaus, E. (1885/1913). Memory: A study in experimental psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fawcett, H. (2016). The effect of evidence timing and witness motivation upon juror evaluations of alibi witnesses and defendants. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 575–587.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1081317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedman, W. J. (1993). Memory for the time of past events. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 44–66.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211–222.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., Jolly, K. W., Chavez, R. M., & Shaw, L. H. (2011). Effects of an alibi witness’s relationship to the defendant on mock jurors’ judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 127–142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9225-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hyman, I. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Errors in autobiographical memory. Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 933–947.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00041-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jung, S., Allison, M., & Bohn, L. (2013). Legal decision-making on crimes involving an alibi. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 9, 45–58.  https://doi.org/10.1037/t04698-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if i saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Krall, E. A., & Dwyer, J. T. (1987). Validity of a food frequency questionnaire and a food diary in a short-term recall situations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 73, 1374–1377.Google Scholar
  34. Leins, D. A., & Charman, S. D. (2016). Schema reliance and innocent alibi generation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 111–126.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01151.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333–339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01067033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maeder, E. M., & Dempsey, J. L. (2013). A likely story? The influence of type of alibi and defendant gender on juror decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 543–552.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.727066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malloy, L. C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Marion, S. B., & Burke, T. M. (2013). False alibi corroboration: Witnesses lie for suspects who seem innocent, whether they like them or not. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Marion, S. B., & Burke, T. M. (2017). Altruistic lying in an alibi corroboration context: The effects of liking, compliance, and relationship between suspects and witnesses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35, 37–59.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2013). ‘What would you say if you were guilty?’ Suspects’ strategies during a hypothetical behavior analysis interview concerning a serious crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mazzoni, G., & Kirsch, I. (2002). Autobiographical memories and beliefs: A preliminary metacognitive model. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 121–146). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1989). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: A test of the disconfirmed expectancy hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 447–459.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01218.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mosser, A. E., & Evans, J. R. (n.d.). From the police station to the hospital bed: Using the Cognitive Interview to enhance epidemiologic interviewing. In Evidence Based Investigative Interviewing (in press).Google Scholar
  46. Mohr, C. D., Brannan, D., Wendt, S., Jacobs, L., Wright, R., & Wang, M. (2013). Daily mood-drinking slopes as predictors: A new take on drinking motives and related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 944–955.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 89–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nieuwkamp, R., Horselenberg, R., & van Koppen, P. J. (2016). A lie and a mistress: On increasing the believability of your alibi. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 733–745.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1142934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nunez, N., Kehn, A., & Wright, D. B. (2011). When children are witnesses: The effects of context, age and gender on adults’ perceptions of cognitive ability and honesty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 460–468.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson, E. A. (2013). “You don’t expect me to believe that, do you?” Expectations influence recall and belief of alibi information. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1238–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2012). ‘But can you prove it?’ - examining the quality of innocent suspects’ alibis. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 18, 453–471.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.505567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 157–176.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2012). The alibi-generation effect: Alibi-generation experience influences alibi evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2010.02003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pozzulo, J. D., Pettalia, J. L., Dempsey, J. L., & Gooden, A. (2015). Juvenile offenders on trial: Does alibi corroboration evidence and defendant age interact to influence jurors’ perceptions and verdicts? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22, 224–234.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.937518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Price, H. L., & Dahl, L. C. (2014). Order and strength matter for evaluation of alibi and eyewitness evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Price, H. L., & Dahl, L. C. (2017). Investigator sensitivity to alibi witness inconsistency after a long delay. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35, 60–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications and limitations of a two factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 418–430.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rubin, D. C. (Ed.). (1996). Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory. New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527913.Google Scholar
  60. Sakrisvold, M. L., Granhag, P. A., & Mac Giolla, E. (2017). Partners under pressure: Examining the consistency of true and false alibi statements. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 35, 75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sargent, M. J., & Bradfield, A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 995–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204265741.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sommers, S. R., & Douglass, A. B. (2007). Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 41–54.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X114301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Strange, D., Dysart, J., & Loftus, E. F. (2014). Why errors in alibis are not necessarily evidence of guilt. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 222, 82–89.  https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2003). Deception among pairs: “Let’s say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!” - deception among pairs. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 109–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000116238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In R. H. C. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). People and places in my memory: A study on cue specificity and retrieval from autobiographical memory. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (Vol. 1, pp. 228–233). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  67. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Willard, J., Guyll, M., Madon, S., & Allen, J. E. (2017). Relationship closeness and self-reported willingness to falsely take the blame. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 34, 767–783.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Charman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kureva Matuku
    • 1
  • Alexandra Mosser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.University of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations