Previous studies have shown that mock jurors are skeptical of alibi witnesses who are related to or even have a close social relationship with a defendant. The present project tested respondents' ability to recall their whereabouts for a particular date and time. It also provided the first descriptive data on a variety of alibi topics. The majority of individuals claimed to have an alibi witness for a given time and the majority of alibi witnesses were friends or family members. Hispanic participants relied more heavily on family to serve in an alibi witness capacity whereas non-Hispanic Whites relied more heavily on friends.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Undergraduate rape disclosure recipients and nonrecipients’ sociodemographic and life experience variables, attitudes towards rape and responses to a hypothetical rape disclosure were compared to determine differences between them. Participants One-hundred-ninety-two undergraduates at three universities participated in this online survey between November 2011 – April 2012. Methods Participants reported on their rape myth acceptance (RMA) and personal direct and indirect (i.e., disclosure receipt) experiences with sexual assault. Participants also responded to a hypothetical rape disclosure. Results Disclosure recipients were more likely to report a victimization history, and less confusion and perceived ineffectiveness in helping the hypothetical victim. RMA and nonrecipient status predicted perceived victim responsibility; these variables and childhood victimization predicted confusion about helping. RMA also predicted perceived ineffectiveness of one’s helping behaviors. Victimization history and female gender predicted victim empathy. Conclusions These findings can inform sexual assault-related programming for undergraduates through the provision of targeted assistance and corrective information.

Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.