Credibility assessments of alibi accounts: the role of cultural intergroup bias

Abstract

Research has shown that judges and jurors are influenced by suspect ethnicity and that they might discriminate against out-group suspects in making decisions. This study examined the tendency to favor in-group members, as predicted by social identity theory, in assessing alibi credibility. Forty Israeli-Jewish and 40 Israeli-Arab participants assessed the credibility of an alibi statement provided by a suspect who was either Israeli-Jewish or Israeli-Arab. Findings show that participants were more likely to believe the alibi when it was provided by an in-group suspect than by an out-group suspect, supporting intergroup bias in alibi credibility assessments. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Key words:

• alibi evaluation
• credibility assessment
• deception detection
• intergroup bias
• SIT
• social identity theory

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a dissertation written by the first author, submitted to Bar-Ilan University in partial fulfilment of the requirements towards the PhD degree.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nir Rozmann has declared no conflicts of interest

Galit Nahari has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

The study received ethical approval from the departmental ethics committee (Bar-Ilan University). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation [grant number 372/14].