Nieuwkamp Ricardo, Horselenberg Robert, van Koppen Peter
Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2018 Jun 26;25(6):902-921. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1482570. eCollection 2018.
The present study was designed to determine whether differences exist between true and false alibis and how accurate police detectives and lay people are in determining the veracity of alibis. This article provides a replication of the research by Culhane et al. (2013) with more representative participants. In the first experiment, real suspects in a remand prison generated true or false alibis. In the second experiment, a subset of those alibis were written out and were provided to experienced police officers and students for alibi evaluation and discrimination. Our results show that differentiating between true and false alibis is difficult, and even when more representative materials and participants are included, the accuracy did not exceed 60%. Interestingly we found that students and police officers focus on other aspects during the alibi discrimination. Thus, research using student participant cannot be, directly, used in alibi discrimination studies.
本研究旨在确定真实和虚假不在场证明之间是否存在差异，以及警方侦探和普通人在确定不在场证明的真实性方面的准确性如何。本文对卡尔汉等人（2013年）的研究进行了重复，采用了更具代表性的参与者。在第一个实验中，一所还押监狱中的真正嫌疑人编造了真实或虚假的不在场证明。在第二个实验中，其中一部分不在场证明被记录下来，并提供给经验丰富的警察和学生，用于不在场证明的评估和辨别。我们的结果表明，区分真实和虚假不在场证明很困难，即使纳入了更具代表性的材料和参与者，准确率也未超过60%。有趣的是，我们发现学生和警察在辨别不在场证明时关注的是其他方面。因此，使用学生参与者的研究不能直接用于不在场证明辨别研究。
