| Popis: |
The evaluation of evidence by legal decision makers requires careful and deliberate review. Although empirical studies have recently begun to address the effects of contextual factors on alibi believability, no study to date has examined the combined impact of such factors. The rationale for the proposed study comes in part due to previous literature that has yet to fully examine how alibi evaluations may differ across the investigative timeline, as well as the combined impact of evaluator context, crime seriousness, and alibi consistency on alibi believability. The proposed study will use an experimental design with the aim to address the combined impact of evaluator role (i.e., police investigator or juror), crime seriousness, and alibi (in)consistency on perceived alibi credibility and strength, and suspect likelihood of guilt. It is hypothesized that alibi evidence will be evaluated as more credible and stronger, and the suspect as less guilty, when 1) presented in the context of an interrogation compared to a trial and 2) when alibi statements are consistent compared to inconsistent. Further, it is hypothesized that highly serious crimes will enhance both investigator and juror perceptions of suspect guilt. |
