Date of Award

January 2025

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Andre Kehn

Abstract

Past research indicates a prevalent distrust of alibi evidence, coined by Olson and Wells (2004) as the alibi skepticism hypothesis. This inherent distrust prompts inquiries into the factors that enhance or undermine the credibility of alibi evidence in a trial. Utilizing attribution theory (Allison et al., 2012; Weiner, 2010), this study investigates the elements contributing to the believability of alibi statements, specifically the impact of alibi consistency, timing of disclosure, and the salaciousness of the alibi statement on jurors' perceptions of the defendant's character. Participants were randomly assigned to one of twelve conditions and read a mock trial summary that included details of the crime, investigation, and attorney statements. Participants then rated the perceived believability of the alibi statement, the defendant’s character traits, and rendered a verdict decision. Results indicated that alibi consistency significantly influenced alibi believability, character assessments, and verdict decisions. Neither alibi salaciousness nor timing of disclosure showed significant independent effects, though multiple interactions between salaciousness, consistency, and timing of disclosure were observed. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Download

Share

COinS