ALIBI BELIEVABILITY: THE IMPACT OF SALACIOUS ALIBI ACTIVITIES

Transcription

1 SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2012, 40(4), Society for Personality Research ALIBI BELIEVABILITY: THE IMPACT OF SALACIOUS ALIBI ACTIVITIES MEREDITH ALLISON, KYLA R. MATHEWS, AND STEPHEN W. MICHAEL Elon University We examined how alibi strength and a suspect s claim of engaging in salacious alibi activities impact alibi believability. Specifically, we investigated whether an alibi of watching an X-rated movie versus watching a regular movie caused differences in alibi believability, perceived likelihood of guilt, and ratings of various character traits. Undergraduates read a crime description and a mock transcript before completing a questionnaire (adapted from Olson & Wells, 2004). Alibis were rated as more believable when the suspect provided a salacious alibi. Suspects with salacious alibis were rated as more honest, open, and less likely to be guilty. Keywords: alibi believability, salacious alibi, juror perception, strength of evidence, suspect character. An alibi is a claim that you were elsewhere at the time a crime was committed (Olson & Wells, 2004). Alibis are important because Wells et al. (1998) found that in 11 out of 40 wrongful conviction cases, innocent individuals provided either weak or no alibi evidence and were later found to be guilty of crimes they did not commit. It has been suggested that weak alibis tend to lack supportive physical evidence (Olson & Wells, 2004). However, when alibis are offered as evidence at trial in the United States and Canada, supportive physical evidence is unusual (Burke & Turtle, 2003). Confounding this issue, jurors expect alibi statements to be extremely specific and accurate. However, these episodic Meredith Allison, Kyla R. Mathews, and Stephen W. Michael, Department of Psychology, Elon University. Kyla R. Mathews is now at the Creative Arts Therapies Department, Drexel University; Stephen W. Michael is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso. This research was supported by an Elon University Rawls scholarship granted to the second author. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Meredith Allison, Department of Psychology, Elon University, CB 2337, Elon, NC , USA. mallison5@elon.edu 605

2 606 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY memories are not typically encoded with the expectation that such intensive analysis will be necessary and as a result, people do not tend to form precise memories of everything that they do (Burke, Turtle, & Olson, 2007). Despite the great weight alibis can carry in the courtroom, alibi research is limited. Alibi believability research has generally been focused on the strength of the alibi evidence. Alibis supported by strong physical (e.g., receipt) or person (e.g., store clerk) evidence have been found to be more believable than alibis that were lacking such evidence (Culhane & Hosch, 2004; Olson & Wells, 2004). Further, alibis were perceived as weaker when in the context of a trial compared to a police investigation because of the likely inference that the suspect at trial must not have had strong corroborative alibi evidence (Sommers & Douglass, 2007). Olson and Wells (2004) noted that an alibi s surface traits (details of the alibi story provided) typically do not make an alibi strong or weak, but rather it is the corroborative evidence that is key. These authors suggested that surface traits may matter when it comes to alibi believability only when there is weak corroborative evidence. In the current study, we examined whether the salaciousness of the alibi activities affects believability. It is possible that suspects may have engaged in activities at the time of the crime such as having an affair, breaking the law in an unrelated incident, or watching X-rated material. Suspects in such a position may face a difficult decision: admit to socially/morally unattractive behavior or lie about their whereabouts. How would jurors, police investigators, and judges react to salacious alibis? In impression management research it has been suggested that, typically, people are concerned about what others think of them and like to project positive images of themselves to others (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Suspects who are charged with a crime and have salacious alibis must weigh the costs and benefits of admitting to the salacious activities. The potential benefits are that their admission could be viewed as a sign of honesty because evaluators may assume that the only reason suspects would admit to unflattering and unexpected information in the course of a police investigation was because it was true (e.g., Lalljee, Watson, & White, 1982). The potential costs of admission are that the suspects may be viewed negatively by evaluators (e.g., police, jurors) and, if they are not believed, they could be charged with the crime in question. Implicit personality theory (Ashmore, Griffo, & Green, 2007; Schneider, 1973) could support either positive or negative views of suspects with salacious alibis. An evaluator who attributes the alibi admission to honesty would likely have several positive views of the suspect (e.g., honest in the face of pressure to be dishonest). However, evaluators who do not attribute the admission to honesty may view the suspect negatively because they would associate negative attributes with the socially unattractive behavior (e.g., Ashmore et al., 2007). Additionally,

3 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY 607 the negativity bias suggests that negative traits are weighted more heavily in impression formation than are positive traits (e.g., Crandall, 1975; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989) because they are typically more distinctive. The impact of surface traits on alibi believability remains to be explored. In this study, we examined the impact of the suspect s moral attractiveness (salacious or nonsalacious alibi), the strength of the physical evidence supporting the alibi (strong or weak), and the characteristics of the alibi corroborator (credible or noncredible corroborator) on alibi believability, the likelihood of the suspect being rated guilty, and the ratings of the suspect s character. We hypothesized that the highest believability, lowest guilt, and highest positive character trait ratings would result from strong alibis that were supported by a credible corroborator (e.g., Olson & Wells, 2004). We also hypothesized that salaciousness (a surface trait) would matter only when the alibi evidence was weak (Olson & Wells, 2004). However, analyses of the direction of the salaciousness effect were exploratory as the literature suggests opposing outcomes for this manipulation. Method Participants There were 226 participants, 69 males and 157 females, in this study. The mean age was (SD = 1.11) with a range of 18 to 22 years. All participants were undergraduates at a medium-sized liberal arts university and they received bonus credit in their psychology courses in exchange for participation. Independent Variables Each participant read identical crime descriptions adapted from Olson and Wells (2004) that described a convenience store robbery-homicide in which a masked gunman shot and killed the cashier and stole $1,000 in cash. The police investigation narrowed in on current and past employees because the nature of the crime suggested that the perpetrator had inside knowledge of the workings of the store. The investigators targeted current and past employees and asked each suspect where he or she was at the time the crime was committed. Participants were also given a mock transcript of an interview between a police investigator and a suspect from the crime in which the suspect s alibi was discussed. We used a 2 (strong or weak alibi) 2 (salacious or nonsalacious alibi) 2 (credible or noncredible corroborator) between-subjects design. The participants were randomly assigned to 1 of these 8 experimental conditions. The eight versions of the transcript described either a strong alibi (neighbor corroborator and cable bill as physical evidence) or a weak alibi (brother corroborator and no physical evidence). Other variations of the transcript described either a salacious alibi (watched an X-rated movie) or a nonsalacious alibi (watched a regular

4 608 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY movie), and a noncredible corroborator (brother/neighbor having a past criminal record) or a credible corroborator (brother/neighbor having no past criminal record. Dependent Measures After they had read the transcript, all participants completed identical questionnaires. Participants first provided demographic information (age and gender). They then made several ratings on 11-point Likert scales (e.g., 1 = do not believe the alibi at all to 11 = believe the alibi completely) in relation to alibi believability, suspect guilt, and corroborator believability. Next, participants rated the suspect on 20 character traits on 10-point scales (1 = does not describe this suspect at all to 10 = describes this suspect perfectly). Examples of traits were cunning, sincere, trustworthy, and scheming (taken from Olson & Wells, 2004). For these 20 traits, a don t know option was included for participants to choose if they felt that they did not know whether the character trait applied to the suspect. Results All of the results reported below met all univariate or multivariate assumptions. Alibi Believability Participants ratings of alibi believability were assessed via a 2 (strength of alibi evidence) x 2 (salaciousness of alibi) x 2 (credibility of corroborator) between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA). Alibi strength, F(1, 218) = 32.34, p <.001, partial 2 =.13, and suspect salaciousness, F(1, 218) = 12.70, p <.001, partial 2 =.05, each had a significant main effect on alibi believability ratings. Consistent with past research, strong alibis (M = 5.34, SD = 1.96) were seen as more believable than weak alibis (M = 3.96, SD = 1.81). Having a cable receipt and a neighbor corroborating the suspect s whereabouts led to higher believability ratings. Salacious alibis (M = 5.08, SD = 1.85) were rated as more believable than nonsalacious alibis (M = 4.22, SD = 2.07): Claiming to have been watching pornography helped suspects in terms of believability. The credibility of the corroborator had no main effect on believability and no interactions were significant (all p values >.05). Guilt Ratings Participants ratings of the likelihood of guilt were subjected to a 2 (strength of alibi evidence) x 2 (salaciousness of alibi) x 2 (credibility of corroborator) between-subjects ANOVA. As with the alibi believability measure, alibi strength, F(1, 218) = 5.25, p <.05, partial 2 =.02, as well as alibi salaciousness, F(1, 218) = 6.55, p <.05, partial 2 =.03, had significant main effects on guilt ratings,

5 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY 609 but none of the interactions was significant (all p values >.05). Consistent with Olson and Wells (2004), suspects with strong alibis (M = 5.02, SD = 1.86) were seen as less likely to have committed the crime than suspects with weak alibis (M = 5.54, SD = 1.63). Suspects with salacious alibis (M = 4.99, SD = 1.69) were seen as less likely to have committed the crime than suspects with nonsalacious alibis (M = 5.56, SD = 1.80). Again, suspects who claimed to have been watching pornography at the time of the crime received leniency in guilt ratings. The credibility of the corroborator had a significant main effect on guilt ratings too, F(1, 218) = 4.90, p <.05, partial 2 =.02. Suspects with credible corroborators (M = 5.03, SD = 1.92) were rated as less likely to have committed the crime than suspects with noncredible corroborators (M = 5.53, SD = 1.56). Character Traits As stated earlier, a don t know option was included for the character traits. We ran the analyses reported here with all 20 character traits included and treated the don t know options as missing data 1. Ratings of the suspect s character were compared using a 2 (alibi strength) x 2 (alibi salaciousness) x 2 (corroborator credibility) between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Using Wilk s Lambda, we found a significant multivariate main effect of alibi salaciousness, F(20, 71) = 1.98, p <.05, partial 2 =.36. The univariate results showed that suspects with salacious alibis were viewed as less suspicious, and more honest, open, and trustworthy (see Table 1). Claiming to have watched pornography as opposed to a regular movie led to positive views of the suspect s character. There were no significant multivariate effects of alibi strength or corroborator credibility, nor were there any significant multivariate interactions (all p values >.05). Table 1. Significant Univariate Effects of Salacious Alibis on Character Traits Character trait F(1, 90) 2 Salacious Nonsalacious M (SD) M (SD) Honest ** (1.83) 3.39 (1.81) Open ** (2.06) 3.66 (2.01) Trustworthy 4.24 * (1.65) 3.18 (1.77) Suspicious 6.30 * (1.71) 7.11 (1.83) Note: * p <.05, ** p < We calculated the frequency with which participants endorsed the don t know option and it was very low (11 items had frequencies of less than 10%, 17 were less than 20%). The two items with the highest don t know frequencies were loyalty (25.2%) and shrewdness (29.2%). We ran the analyses with these two items excluded and the results remain the same as those reported in the main body of this paper.

6 610 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY Corroborator Believability Participants ratings of corroborator believability were subjected to a 2 (strength of alibi evidence) x 2 (salaciousness of alibi) x 2 (credibility of corroborator) between-subjects ANOVA. Both alibi strength, F(1, 214) = 14.28, p <.001, partial 2 =.06, and salaciousness, F(1, 214) = 6.92, p <.05, partial 2 =.03, had significant main effects on ratings of the believability of the corroborator. Corroborators were rated as more believable when the alibi was strong (M = 4.50, SD = 2.09) versus weak (M = 3.57, SD = 1.62) and when the alibi was salacious (M = 4.36, SD = 1.79) versus nonsalacious (M = 3.72, SD = 2.01). Thus the manipulations of the suspect s alibi activities and alibi evidence spread to judgments of his corroborator. Whether or not the corroborator had a criminal record did not affect ratings, and none of the interactions was significant (all p values >.05). Participants did not see past crimes as an indication of low corroborator credibility. Discussion Our findings confirm those gained in past research showing that the strength of alibi evidence affected alibi believability and suspect guilt ratings (Olson & Wells, 2004). We also expanded on past research by examining people s perceptions of suspects who admitted to engaging in salacious activities at the time of a crime and who had noncredible corroborators. As far as we know, this is the first study in which it was found that the surface traits of an alibi story can matter: Suspects with salacious alibis were viewed positively on several measures. Alibi believability ratings were higher, guilt ratings were lower, and assessments of the suspect s honesty, openness, and trustworthiness were higher when the alibi was salacious than when the alibi was nonsalacious. These results imply that admitting to engaging in salacious or questionable activities may serve to increase a suspect s or defendant s credibility in the eyes of a jury. Why were salacious alibis beneficial to suspects? It is likely that participants attributed the suspect s surprising admission to honesty (Lalljee et al., 1982). It is important to note that suspects are not always legally obliged to disclose their alibis early in the investigation (Connelly, 1983). Some suspects may be reluctant to state where they were and what they were doing, not because they committed the crime, but because they had been engaging in salacious activities. So the fact that the suspect in our study readily admitted to his whereabouts may have led the participants to infer that the suspect s underlying motive was to assert his innocence, regardless of the fact that this required him to admit to morally questionable activities (Sporer, 2008). Therefore, the participants may have assumed that his admission was a sign of honesty, not deception.

7 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY 611 There are several avenues of further research available regarding the effects of salacious alibis on social perceivers. As previously stated, suspects may be reluctant to reveal salacious alibis because they believe that the admission could hurt them. Would police officers see such reluctance as a sign of dishonesty or honesty? Previous researchers have suggested that changing an alibi has a strong impact on judgments (Culhane, 2005), but the timing of the alibi disclosure may also be important. Future researchers could also vary the type of alibi salaciousness. What if a suspect accused of robbery claims to have been at another location attempting an unrelated robbery? Alternatively, a suspect who stands accused of a serious offense such as homicide may be willing to confess to a lesser offense like robbery. How do mock jurors view admissions of criminal behavior? In summary, our research results confirm findings gained in previous studies that the strength of the evidence supporting an alibi is crucial to its believability. Our results also suggest that in some circumstances the surface traits of an alibi can affect alibi believability, because salacious alibis can lead to positive views of suspects. While further research is needed to confirm the results in regard to salaciousness, results gained in the present study suggest that an admission of morally questionable activities by a criminal suspect is viewed as a sign of honesty. References Ashmore, R. D., Griffo, R., & Green, R. (2007). Dimensions and categories underlying thinking about college student types. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, org/bcxdbz Burke, T. M., & Turtle, J. W. (2003). Alibi evidence in criminal investigations and trials: Psychological and legal factors. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 1, 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, Volume I: Memory for events (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Connelly, P. J. (1983). Alibi: Proof of falsehood and consciousness of guilt. Criminal Law Quarterly, 25, Crandall, J. E. (1975). Negativity bias in evaluative ratings. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, Culhane, S. E. (2005). Changing your alibi: Current law enforcement, future law enforcement, and layperson beliefs and behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An alibi witness influence on mock jurors verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, Lalljee, M., Watson, M., & White, P. (1982). Explanations, attributions and the social context of unexpected behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28,

8 612 ALIBI BELIEVABILITY Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, Sommers, S. R., & Douglass, A. B. (2007). Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, Sporer, S. L. (2008). Lessons from the origins of eyewitness testimony research in Europe. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 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,

9 Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.