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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 535-548 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | Psychiatry, Psychology and Law |
Volume | 29 |
Issue number | 4 |
Early online date | 19 Jul 2021 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2022 |
Keywords
- SIT
- alibi evaluation
- credibility assessment
- deception detection
- intergroup bias
- social identity theory
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Law
- Psychology (miscellaneous)
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine