Abstract
A taxonomy of alibis is proposed involving two forms of supporting proof: physical evidence and person evidence. Levels of physical evidence and person evidence were combined to create 12 cells in the taxonomy. Participants (n = 252), who were asked to assume the role of detectives, evaluated alibis representing these 12 cells. The believability of the alibis generally followed the taxonomy's predicted pattern, but physical evidence, when present, tended to overwhelm the person evidence more than had been expected. In addition, alibi evaluators seemed to not consider the possibility that a stranger who corroborated an alibi might be mistaken about the identity of the person. Trait inferences regarding the alibi providers tended to follow the believability data, even when the traits themselves were not relevant to believability of the alibi. We call for the development of a literature on the psychology of alibis, recommend the taxonomy as a framework, and suggest several avenues of inquiry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (in press). An alibi witness's influence on jurors' decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Epstein, D. M. (1964). Advance notice of alibi. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 55, 29-38.
Friedman, J. P. (1998). Alibi instructions and due process of law. Western New England Law Review, 20, 343-386.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, D. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
Gooderson, R. N. (1977). Alibi. London, UK: Heinemann Educational.
Koehler, D. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499-519.
Leippe, M. R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness nonidentifications on mock jurors' judgments of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656-672.
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, 15, 447-459.
Nolan, J. R. (1990). Black's law dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1989). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: A test of the disconfirmed expectancy explanation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 20-29.
Sullivan, T. P. (1971). Presentation of the defense. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 62, 153-172.
Wegner, D. M., Wenzlaff, R., Kerker, R. M., & Beattie, A. E. (1981). Incrimination through innuendo: Can media questions become public answers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 822-832.
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.
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling in social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Olson, E.A., Wells, G.L. What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy. Law Hum Behav 28, 157–176 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3