Amy Bradfield Douglass

Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective

Purpose. The nascent field of alibi evaluation research has produced interesting and inconsistent findings. We focus on a heretofore unexamined variable that may play a critical role in alibi evaluation: context. Specifically, two experiments tested the hypothesis that the same alibi can be evaluated differently when presented in the context of a police investigation vs. criminal trial. Method. In Study 1, 101 college participants evaluated an alibi in one of three contexts: police investigation, criminal trial, or a control condition devoid of specific legal context. Dependent measures included ratings of alibi strength and credibility, as well as the likelihood that the suspect was guilty. In Study 2, both context and the presence of a corroborating witness were varied in a scenario presented to 139 college participants. Results. Across studies, an alibi was rated as stronger in the police investigation vs. trial context, consistent with the prediction that the fact that a case has proceeded to trial implies to perceivers that the alibi is relatively weak. In Study 2, an alibi was deemed stronger when corroborated vs. uncorroborated, but this difference was only significant in the police investigation context. Conclusions. If alibi research is to fulfil its promise for legal and policy implications, a clearer understanding of the variables that influence alibi evaluation must be developed. The present results illustrate the importance of context in this investigation, suggesting that two researchers studying evaluations of the same alibi may arrive at different conclusions based on the simple framing of the experimental task.

Do Prophylactics Prevent Inflation? Post-identification Feedback and the Effectiveness of Procedures to Protect Against Confidence-inflation in Earwitnesses

After viewing or hearing a recorded simulated crime, participants were asked to identify the offender’s voice from a target-absent audio lineup. After making their voice identification, some participants were either given confirming feedback or no feedback. The feedback manipulation in experiment 1 led to higher ratings of participants’ identification certainty, as well as higher ratings on retrospective confidence reports, in both the immediate and delay groups. Earwitnesses who were asked about their identification certainty prior to the feedback manipulation (experiment 2) did not demonstrate the typical confidence-inflation associated with confirming feedback if they were questioned about the witnessing experience immediately; however, the effects returned after a week-long retention interval. The implications for the differential forgetting and internal-cues hypotheses are discussed.

The Dynamic Interaction Between Eyewitnesses and Interviewers: The Impact of Differences in Perspective on Memory Reports and Interviewer Behavior

Despite myriad possible differences in perspectives brought to an investigative interview by eyewitnesses and interviewers, little is known about how such differences might affect eyewitness memory reports or interviewer behavior. Two experiments tested the impact of such differences in a dynamic interaction paradigm in which participants served as eyewitnesses and interviewers. In Experiment 1 (N = 38 pairs), reporting goals for eyewitnesses and interviewers were manipulated in a factorial design, with participants instructed to provide or obtain either as much information as possible or only accurate information. Matching interviewer-interviewee instructions promoted accurate reporting, regardless of the actual content of the instructions. In Experiment 2 (N = 45 pairs), access to information about corroborating eyewitness identifications was manipulated in a factorial design. Corroborating information affected interviewers, but not eyewitnesses. When interviewers did not have access to corroborating information, they provided more negative feedback, and there was a trend toward interrupting more and asking more yes/no questions. These experiments indicate that differences in perspective can have effects on both the content of a witnesss report and the behavior of an interviewer. The potential for differences in perspective should be considered in research on protocols intended to maximize eyewitness report accuracy.