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 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2021 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.
Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation [grant number 372/14]. 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.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Israel Science Foundation | 372/14 |
Keywords
- SIT
- alibi evaluation
- credibility assessment
- deception detection
- intergroup bias
- social identity theory
