Allison Meredith, Caluri Grace, Jordoson Jeppe, Solan Sophia
Department of Psychology, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2024 Sep 3;32(4):594-615. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2024.2362145. eCollection 2025.
Cloud Research ( = 320) participants read a hypothetical description of an arson and police investigation. They were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a 2 (presence of alibi evidence) X 2 (presence of prosecution evidence) X 2 (presence of judicial alibi instructions) between-participants design. They completed alibi believability ratings, chose a verdict and evaluated the defendant's character. Alibis were more believable in the absence of incriminating prosecution evidence and the presence of exonerating alibi evidence. Alibi evidence also led to more positive views of the defendant. The presence of judicial instructions decreased likelihood of guilt ratings. Most participants chose a not guilty verdict, yet guilty verdicts were more common when prosecution evidence was present. Scalar verdict-confidence ratings were higher when prosecution evidence was present and alibi evidence was absent. While participant recall on the judge's instructions were poor, they performed well on two recognition questions.
云研究（(n = 320)）的参与者阅读了一份关于纵火和警方调查的假设性描述。在一项被试间设计中，他们被随机分配到八个条件中的一个，该设计为2（有无不在场证明证据）×2（有无控方证据）×2（有无司法不在场证明指示）。他们完成了不在场证明可信度评级，选择了一个判决，并对被告的性格进行了评估。在没有有罪控方证据且存在无罪不在场证明证据的情况下，不在场证明更可信。不在场证明证据也导致对被告有更积极的看法。司法指示的存在降低了有罪评级的可能性。大多数参与者选择了无罪判决，但当有控方证据时，有罪判决更常见。当有控方证据且没有不在场证明证据时，标量判决信心评级更高。虽然参与者对法官指示的回忆很差，但他们在两个识别问题上表现良好。
