Right place, wrong time: the limitations of mental reinstatement of context on alibi-elicitation

Abstract

Although research has focused on how inconsistencies in alibi statements are perceived by law enforcement and legal decision-makers, less attention has been paid to the cognitive factors that may mitigate such inconsistencies. Using a novel, ecologically-valid paradigm, across two experiments (507 events for N=134), we examined the accuracy, level of detail, and memory characteristics of participant-generated alibis for schema-consistent and-inconsistent events, and whether mental reinstatement of context (MRC) led to improved alibis compared to time-cueing. Participants reported their typical weekly activities, provided real-time reports of their activities during a two-week period, and reported participant-specific schema-consistent and-inconsistent events using time-cues and MRC. Our results suggest schema-consistent events are reported more accurately than inconsistent events, and that MRC does not improve alibi accuracy over timecueing. When reporting atypical events, participants provided alibis by reporting what they thought they would normally be doing during that time. Together, these findings quantify how difficult remembering an alibi can be, reinforce that people often rely on schemas, and that mnemonic strategies to increase alibi accuracy are likely to fail, even if they work in other domains. We discuss how the current research adds to recent work on boundary conditions for the efficacy of MRC.

“That’s the way my Wednesdays always go”: reverse-order instructions insufficient to mitigate schema-consistent errors in alibi generation

“…Although the confidence-accuracy relationship has been somewhat inconsistent across previous alibi generation studies (Cardenas et al, 2020;Leins and Charman, 2016), confidence ratings in the current study were not related strongly to the accuracy of the alibi. Thus, our findings suggest that legal personnel should be careful not to overstate the informativeness of an alibi provider's confidence, echoing similar concerns from the eyewitness context (Berkowitz et al, 2020).…”

“…The usage of schemas also appeared to increase as the delay between target event and recall increased, as those in the non-schema group produced less accurate alibis in the long delay conditionwhich supports H2. These findings dovetail with an emerging trend in alibi generation research (Cardenas et al, 2020;Leins and Charman, 2016) such that alibi providers tended to show greater accuracy for schema-consistent events but greater inaccuracy for schema-inconsistent events and this trend became more pronounced over time.…”

“…In Study 1, we examined the tendency of alibi providers to use schemas to structure their accounts under varying lengths of time delay between the target event and recall (which would also serve as a conceptual replication of past research in the alibi area; Cardenas et al, 2020;Leins and Charman, 2016). In Study 2, we used a cognitive interviewing technique in an attempt to disrupt schema usage by participants and therefore produce more accurate alibis.…”

“…Several researchers have also used alibi generation paradigms in which ground truth is known (Cardenas et al, 2020;Leins and Charman, 2016;Portnoy et al, 2019). Following an initial study in which many participants reported schema-consistent but inaccurate alibis, Leins and Charman (2016) conducted a follow-up study in which they directly manipulated the schema-consistency of the target event.…”

“…These studies suggest that innocent alibi providers may be capable of providing accurate alibis for schema-consistent events but considerably less so for non-schematic events. Whether this pattern of findings varies as a function of the time delay between the target event and alibi generation requires further study (see Cardenas et al, 2020 for an initial within-subjects examination). Although there is some evidence of increased schema reliance at longer delays (Eldridge et al, 1994), given the potentially nontrivial delays that may occur in criminal investigations, this question may have practical consequences if, for example, innocent alibi providers are at greater risk of schema-consistent reporting errors after longer (and perhaps, more realistic) delays.…”