Assessing the Credibility of Child Alibi Corroborators

ABSTRACT

Across two studies, we investigated the effect of alibi corroborator age on alibi assessment. In Study 1, we examined the impact of the alibi corroborator’s age (i.e., 8- vs. 25-year-old) and relationship with the suspect (i.e., stranger vs. neighbor vs. son) on five dependent measures related to corroborator credibility and suspect guilt. In Study 2, we examined the impact of the corroborator’s age (i.e., 4- vs. 8- vs. 25-year-old) and the perceived level of cognition needed to remember the alibi event (i.e., delayed vs. recent event). Participants’ perceptions were somewhat more favorable toward the 8-year-old corroborator, compared to a 4- or 25-year-old. The current results help to shed light on an existing inconsistency in the alibi literature regarding the impact of corroborator age on alibi assessment outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• Alibi assessment
• child witness
• credibility
• corroborator
• believability
• age

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ Participants could self-identify as more than one race for all samples.

² The large number of incomplete surveys is primarily a function of the recruitment method, as Qualtrics distributes mass recruitment e-mails to potential participants, and the survey system records a response even if the individual does nothing aside from clicking on the link in the e-mail. The vast majority of dropped cases were of this nature, however for completeness and transparency the total number from the Qualtrics system was reported.

³ Prior to running Study 2, a pilot study was conducted on potential study materials. Participants (n = 34) rated the level of difficulty associated with remembering alibi events that varied along two dimensions (delay: 1-day ago vs. 1-week ago vs. 1-month ago; novelty: novel vs. mundane). A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of delay on ratings of difficulty, Wilks’ λ =.38, F(2, 32) = 26.05, p <.001, multivariate η_p2=.62. Participants rated the event that occurred 1-month ago as being significantly more difficult to remember than the event that occurred 1-day ago (mean difference = 2.38, p <.001). These results suggest that the manipulation of the perceived cognitive difficulty used in the present study (i.e., 1-day delay vs. 1-month delay) was successful.

⁴ The parental status variable was not reported as there was an insufficient number of parents in the sample.

⁵ Our interpretation of effect size is based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines.