Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. T. Gilbert, D. S. Malone (1995)
The correspondence biasPsychological Bulletin, 117
R. Lindsay, Robert Lim, L. Marando, D. Cully (1986)
Mock‐Juror Evaluations of Eyewitness Testimony: A Test of Metamemory Hypotheses1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16
J. P. Friedman (1998)
Alibi instructions and due process of lawWestern New England Law Review, 20
G. Wells, M. Small, Steven Penrod, R. Malpass, Solomon Fulero, C. Brimacombe (1998)
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and PhotospreadsLaw and Human Behavior, 22
H. Mcallister, N. Bregman (1989)
Juror Underutilization of Eyewitness Nonidentifications: A Test of the Disconfirmed Expectancy Explanation1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19
H. Black, B. Garner (1968)
Black's Law Dictionary
R. N. Gooderson (1977)
Alibi
D. Gilbert (1991)
How mental systems believe.American Psychologist, 46
Michael Leippe (1985)
The Influence of Eyewitness Nonidentifications on Mock‐Jurors' Judgments of a Court Case1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15
D. Wegner, R. Wenzlaff, R. Kerker, A. Beattie (1981)
Incrimination through innuendo: Can media questions become public answers?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40
Rebecca Bouchard (2003)
Western New England Law Review
T. Sullivan (1971)
Presentation of the DefenseJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 62
—Richard Whately (2002)
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.The American psychologist, 57 12
G. Wells, Paul Windschitl (1999)
Stimulus Sampling and Social Psychological ExperimentationPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25
J. Friedman (1998)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—ALIBI INSTRUCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAWWestern New England law review, 20
D. Epstein (1964)
Advance Notice of AlibiJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 55
An alibi witness ’ s influence on jurors ’ decision making
Derek Koehler (1991)
Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment.Psychological bulletin, 110 3
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.
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 21, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.