Are less credible alibis also perceived as more similar to each other?

Abstract

Psychological factors influencing the perceived value of alibis from the perspectives of police officers and jurors warrant careful examination due to their potential to lead to false accusations or convictions. While alibis should theoretically hold equal value regardless of presentation context, research by Sommers and Douglass (2007) suggests otherwise, revealing that contextual factors impact alibi credibility judgments. In their study, the same alibi was perceived as less credible when presented in a “criminal trial” context in comparison to a “police investigation” context. In the sensory domain, when the same odorants are labeled as “body odours” rather than “cheese odours,” not only are they perceived as less pleasant, but this hedonic deflation effect is accompanied by a condensation effect; where the preference for one odorant over another is reduced (Zellner et al., 2014). Is the label-induced alibi credibility deflation effect, observed in a “criminal trial” context by Sommers and Douglass (2007), likewise accompanied by a condensation effect, making less credible alibis also more similar to each other? In the present study, when the alibis were accompanied by a strong motive to commit the crime (Experiment 2), a condensation effect emerged in the “criminal trial” context, in line with our hypothesis. In contrast, when the alibis were accompanied by a weak motive, alibis were perceived as less credible in the “police investigation” context. Furthermore, when no motive was included at all (Experiment 1), the label-induced alibi credibility deflation effect reported by Sommers and Douglass (2007) vanished. These findings underscore the need to consider the motivation to commit a crime when examining contextual effects on alibi credibility judgments.