Perceived suspect credibility: a brief report on the association between suspect and observer gender

ABSTRACT

The current study examined the influence of gender on perceived credibility in an international drug trafficking setting. Two hundred law students (approximately half female) assessed a suspect’s credibility in a drug trafficking investigation. The participants read a transcript provided by either a male or a female suspect and rated a suspect as truthful/untruthful and their confidence level in this rating. The combined score represents credibility judgement. ANCOVA indicated a significant main effect of participant gender and a significant interaction between participant gender and suspect gender. Men considered the suspect as more credible than women, but this difference manifested only in the case of a male suspect. In the case of a female suspect, there was no significant gender difference between the participants. These findings highlight the dynamic interplay of the gender of both participants and suspects in the judgement bias field and are discussed in the context of defensive attribution theory. The applied implications address investigations, interrogations and other processes that surround them.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender
• credibility judgement
• legal decision-making

Notes on Contributors

Dr. Nir Rozmann has recently received a Ph.D. degree from the Department of Criminology at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. His research interests include legal and investigative decision-making, forensic judgemental biases, and credibility assessment.

Inna Levy, Ph.D., is an applied criminologist and a lecturer in the Department of Criminology, Ariel University, and Head of the Criminology track in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Zefat Academic College, Israel. Her research interests include victim blaming, attitudes towards offenders, rape victims’ experiences, pandemic-related victimization, and cultural and green criminology issues.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Transcript of the investigation

Question: Tell me please where are you coming from?

Answer: Nederland, I was in Amsterdam.

Question: What did you do in Amsterdam?

Answer: Sightseeing.

Question: With whom

Answer: be myself

Question: How long was your trip?

Answer: Three days

Question: You flew all the way to Amsterdam from Israel for only 3 day stay?

Answer: Yes, that’s me. I like it short and sweet and by myself.

Question:No problem, but why alone?

Answer: I flew to clear my head. It’s hectic … I needed to clear my head

Question: Why is it hectic for you?

Answer: you know, work, life, family I lost patience with all of it. Needed some quiet to clear my head.

Question: Who bought your ticket to Amsterdam?

Answer: my friend

Question: What’s his name?

Answer: Shalom Cohen

Question: Why did Shalom buy the ticket?

Answer: Because I needed a credit card and I don’t have one because I don’t have a steady job so the bank doesn’t give me credit.

Question: Did Shalom buy the ticket on his credit?

Answer: Yes

Question: Did you pay him back?

Answer: Of course. Why should he pay for my ticket? I payed him right away with cash.

Question: Where did you sleep in Amsterdam?

Answer: I was in an apartment

Question: Which apprtment? Whose is it?

Answer: I found it on the internet

Question: On the internet?

Answer: Yes, Airbnb. On a site you can find apartments all over the world. So I found one in Amsterdam.

Question: What’s the name of the street?

Answer: I don’t remember

Question: You don’t remember where the apprt.was?

Answer: Don’t remember

Question: You don’t remember where it was?

Answer: I remember where it was. I just don’t remember the street’s name

Question: If I show you a map, can you show me where it was?

Answer: Yes, I think so

Question: Where were you in Amsterdam?

Answer: Here and there just walked around

Question: Don’t evade the question, where were you exactly?

Answer: I can’t remember exactly all the places

Question: Try …

Answer: I was in Anna Frank’s museum, walked around the Red Winnows district, some coffee shops and so on, don’t remember exactly

Question: Did you meet anyone?

Answer: no

Question: Three days and you didn’t talk to anyone?

Answer: No, I told you, went to clear my head. Why do I need to talk to people?

Question: Do you know X (A contact related to drug dealing)?

Answer: No

Question: Did you meet X in Amsterdam?

Answer: I told you I don’t know him. So how could I meet him?

Question: I’ll tell you what I think, I think you flew to Amsterdam to make a drug deal.

Answer: It’s not true, I told you I needed to clear my head

Question: I think you went to meet people to make a deal to smuggle drugs to Israel.

Answer: I’m saying that’s nonsense, It was just a trip. I’m even ready to take a polygraph test. You are interrogating the wrong person. It’s a waste of time.

Question: Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your trip to Amsterdam?

Answer: there’s nothing

Question: maybe you’ve forgotten to tell me something? Places you’ve been? People you’ve met?

Answer: I’ve told you everything.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nir Rozmann

Dr. Nir Rozmann has recently received a Ph.D. degree from the Department of Criminology at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. His research interests include legal and investigative decision-making, forensic judgmental biases, and credibility assessment.

Inna Levy

Dr. Inna Levyis an applied criminologist and a lecturer at the Department of Criminology, Ariel University, and at the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies, Zefat Academic College, Israel. Her research interests include victim blaming, attitudes toward offenders, rape victims' experiences, and cultural and green criminology issues.