Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy

What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 28 (2) – Oct 21, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/what-makes-a-good-alibi-a-proposed-taxonomy-9uCd8TA3F4

References (18)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

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.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 21, 2004

There are no references for this article.