The present study was designed to establish the base rate of alibis and supportive evidence for alibis of non-offenders. That is important because the presence and lack of an alibi are often seen as a clear indicator of innocence and guilt, respectively, of a suspect. A large sample of laypersons (N = 841) was randomly assigned to one of 32 conditions in which they were asked to generate a true alibi after they were falsely accused of being the perpetrator of a mock robbery. Each condition consisted of either a Tuesday or a Saturday and one of 16 timeframes. In general, the majority of the participants had an alibi (99.5%) and supportive evidence for their alibis (92.4%). The supportive evidence often consisted of a combination of supportive evidence rather than one distinct form of supportive evidence (33.3%). Although it is widely assumed that the alibi believability is determined based on the strength of the supportive evidence, our results show that the type of evidence that can be presented by laypeople depends upon the day and the timeframe wherein the crime has been committed. The results of the study therefore imply that determining alibi believability solely on the strength of the supportive evidence is not a fair measure.We suggest that the believability should also be based on the base rate of alibis and its supportive evidence. KEYWORDS alibi, base rate, supportive evidence, taxonomy

The present study was designed to assess whether or not the presentation method and the salaciousness of an alibi affect its evaluation. Community participants (n D 150) were asked to evaluate the salacious or non-salacious alibi of a crime suspect. The alibi was either presented immediately after arrest by the suspect or was changed after the initial alibi turned out to be incorrect. The incorrect alibi was due to either a misrecollection or a deliberate lie. We found that when the initial alibi was changed into a salacious one, the believability increased. This effect was larger when the initial alibi was a lie than when it was a misrecollection. The results of the present study demonstrate that, contrary to common belief, a changed salacious alibi can lead to an increase in alibi believability.

The present study investigated the persuasiveness of gain-and loss-framed information recommending healthier choices in fast-food restaurants. Visitors of two fast-food restaurants (N = 235) filled in a questionnaire concerning their fast food choices and received gain-or loss-framed nutrition information. The data revealed that gain-and loss-framed nutrition information were not differently persuasive, but that participants' self-efficacy to choose healthy products influenced the effect of framing. Specifically, for participants high in selfefficacy, the gain-framed message resulted in more positive attitudes towards healthy eating and stronger healthy eating intentions than the loss-framed message. However, for participants low in self-efficacy, the loss framed message resulted in stronger intentions than the gain-framed message. The study thus provides evidence for the role of self-efficacy as a potential moderator of the effects of framed nutrition information in a field setting.

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.

No abstract