Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law logoLink to Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law
. 2024 Mar 11;32(2):266–275. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2023.2296485

Police perceptions of alibi accounts: the role of intergroup bias

Nir Rozmann 1,✉
PMCID: PMC12096663  PMID: 40406385

Abstract

Research has revealed that ethnicity has a significant influence on police officers, potentially leading to discriminatory practices against suspects from different ethnic backgrounds. This study aimed to investigate the inclination to favor members of one’s own social group, as proposed by social identity theory, when evaluating the credibility of alibi statements by Israeli police officers. The research involved 205 police officers who evaluated the credibility of alibi statements provided by suspects belonging to either the Israeli-Jewish or Israeli-Arab ethnic groups. The findings indicate that police officers were more inclined to believe the alibi when it was presented by a suspect from their own social group, thus supporting the presence of intergroup bias in assessments of alibi credibility. The implications of these findings, both practical and theoretical, are discussed.

Keywords: credibility judgment, ethnicity, intergroup bias

Introduction

Alibi statements play a crucial role in criminal investigations as they allow suspects to present evidence that they were elsewhere at the time a crime was committed, aiming to convince police officers of their innocence (Charman et al., 2019; Olson & Wells, 2004). Consequently, the assessment of an alibi can significantly impact the belief in a suspect’s guilt or innocence, particularly during the initial stages of an investigation.

Extensive research has been dedicated to investigating numerous factors that influence the credibility of alibis (Allison & Brimacombe, 2010; Allison et al., 2012; Eastwood et al., 2020; Olson & Wells, 2012). Alibis supported by witnesses who are perceived to have a close relationship with the suspect are generally considered less credible than alibis corroborated by impartial strangers (Dahl & Price, 2012; Olson & Wells, 2004). Also, alibis corroborated by physical evidence, such as DNA evidence, are generally regarded as more credible than alibis supported solely by eyewitness accounts or those lacking accompanying corroborating evidence (Allison et al., 2023; Charman et al., 2016; Dysart & Strange, 2012). Other studies demonstrated that extra-legal factors, such as age, ethnicity and gender, play a crucial role in alibi evaluation (Dahl & Price, 2012; Eastwood et al., 2016, 2021). However, most of these studies have been conducted among laypersons and mock jurors’ samples. The current study aimed to explore the influence of ethnicity on alibi credibility assessment among police officers in Israel.

Intergroup bias in credibility judgment

According to social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1974) individuals are prone to engaging in discriminatory behavior towards members of out-groups, often forming negative judgments about them (Einat & Toys, 2023; Rozmann & Levy, 2021). This behavior is presumed to arise from a desire to bolster the positive perception of their own in-group. Research findings indicate that the ethnicity of defendants significantly influences legal decision-making, leading to a greater tendency for minority group defendants across various types of crimes to face more severe treatment than their majority group counterparts (Einat & Toys, 2023; Factor & Gur-Arye, 2020; Gazal-Ayal & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2005). Specifically, in the United States, defendants from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds face harsher judgments from white judges than do white defendants. This is evident in sentencing outcomes and the length of sentences imposed (Hauser & Peck, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2005). Additionally, studies have revealed the presence of ethnic bias in the assessment of credibility (Frumkin, 2007; Lindholm, 2008). Abshire and Bornstein reveal that black participants tended to rate a black eyewitness in a simulated murder trial as more credible than a white eyewitness, particularly in cases involving black defendants (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003). Similarly, Lindholm (2008) discovered that Swedish police officers displayed a tendency to perceive statements made by Swedish witnesses regarding perpetrator descriptions as more accurate than statements made by immigrants. Recently, Rozmann and Nahari (2022b) demonstrated that Israeli Arabs and Jews displayed a tendency to perceive alibi statements from in-group suspects as more credible than those from out-group suspects (Rozmann & Nahari, 2022b).

Police officers’ credibility judgment

Research on deception detection has revealed a bias among individuals towards perceiving others as truthful when judging whether they are lying or telling the truth (Levine et al., 1999). However, this inclination tends to be weaker or even reversed among police officers and other practitioners. In fact, police officers have often been found to exhibit a greater tendency to believe that the suspect is lying rather than telling the truth (Masip et al., 2016; Masip & Herrero, 2017; Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Nahari, 2012; Vrij, 2004). In a study conducted by Garrido et al. (2004), video clips featuring both honest and deceptive senders (i.e. individuals giving statements) were shown to both police officers and students. The study revealed that police officers made a higher number of deception judgments than the students (Garrido et al., 2004). Dysart and Strange’s (2012) findings suggest a prevailing skepticism among law enforcement officers towards alibi statements. The 'availability heuristic’ (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) forms the basis for understanding the context in which police officers judge credibility. Due to frequent exposure to unreliable statements in daily life, police officers often encounter situations that give rise to suspicions, leading them to be more inclined towards suspicion (Masip et al., 2016; Masip & Herrero, 2017).

The present study

Our comprehension of alibi evaluation has evolved significantly over the years; however, a majority of the research in this field has predominantly involved undergraduate students as participants (Allison et al., 2012; Dahl & Price, 2012; Rozmann & Nahari, 2022a). In real-world scenarios, the role of police detectives holds paramount significance in assessing alibis during criminal pre-trial investigations (see Nieuwkamp et al., 2018). Assessing alibis during the early stages of a criminal investigation can have a far-reaching influence on the subsequent evaluations and decisions made throughout the later stages of the criminal process (Charman et al., 2016; Charman et al., 2019). While previous studies suggest that people tend to discriminate against an out-group suspect’s alibi (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Lindholm, 2008), the impact of intergroup bias on police officers’ alibi evaluation is still unclear.

The objective of the present study was to address this gap by investigating how the ethnic intergroup bias influences credibility assessments of alibi accounts among police officers. Specifically, Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab officers were involved in assessing the credibility of an identical alibi statement provided by either an Israeli-Jewish or an Israeli-Arab suspect. The complex and deeply rooted conflict between Jews and Arabs in Israel has emerged as a prevailing element in social categorization, leading to negative and hostile attitudes towards the out-group (Ayer et al., 2017; Bar-Tal, 2007; Nir & Sophie, 2018; Rozmann & Yehuda, 2023). Specifically, regarding the Israeli police, the effect of intergroup bias is anticipated to be strong due the significant tensions between the police and the Arab communities (Hasisi & Weisburd, 2014; Hasisi & Weitzer, 2007). In accordance with SIT, and consistent with previous studies that demonstrated negative attitudes toward out-group members (Gazal-Ayal & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2010; Rozmann & Levy, 2021), it is hypothesized that Jewish police officers will perceive the alibis of Jewish suspects as more credible than those of Arab suspects, and Arab police officers to believe the alibis of Arab suspects more than those of Jewish suspects.

Method

Participants

To determine the number of participants to recruit for each study, we conducted a power analysis using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2007). This analysis indicated that a sample of 205 people would be sufficient to detect a medium effect size (f = 0.25) with power of 80%. We expected a medium effect size based on previous intergroup studies using the same paper-and-pencil methodology (Rozmann & Nahari, 2022a; Zvi & Bitton, 2020). Therefore, this study included 205 police officers, 96 males (46.8%) and 109 females (53.2%), between the ages of 19 to 55 years (M = 28.6, SD = 5.77, max = 55, min = 19). Most of the participants were Israeli-Arab (n = 112, 56.4%) and secular (n = 108, 52.7%) or traditional (n = 83, 40.5%). Most were single (n = 106, 51.7%) or married (n = 88, 42.9%). Police officer experience ranged up to 29 years (M = 3.53, SD = 3.58). No age differences were found for gender and experience. Likewise, no ethnic and family status differences were found for gender.

Design

We employed a 2 (participant ethnicity: Israeli-Jewish vs. Israeli-Arab) × 2 (suspect ethnicity: Israeli-Jewish vs. Israeli-Arab) between-subjects design, wherein participants of Jewish and Arab backgrounds were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (a) an alibi statement provided by an Israeli-Jewish suspect, and (b) an alibi statement provided by an Israeli-Arab suspect.

Materials and procedure

Alibi statement

To ensure the appropriateness of the alibi statement for both Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab participants, as well as to prevent any floor or ceiling effects, a previous preliminary study was conducted (Rozmann & Nahari, 2020) for its selection. The chosen statement stated that the suspect was present alone at the local promenade during the time of the crime. Importantly, the alibi deliberately omitted any mention of physical or eyewitness evidence (see the Appendix). Therefore, based on previous studies (Olson & Wells, 2004, 2012), the alibi employed in the study could be considered relatively weak. It is worth noting that the same alibi was utilized consistently across the experimental conditions.

Suspect ethnicity manipulation

The manipulation of suspect ethnicity involved the use of culturally-typical (yet stereotypical) names for Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab populations. For the Israeli-Jewish suspect, the name ‘Moshe’ (a biblical Jewish leader) was reported. Similarly, for the Israeli-Arab suspect, the name ‘Yusuf’ was used, pronounced in line with Arabic diction. These names align with the ethnic identities of Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab individuals, as indicated by previous studies (Rozmann & Nahari, 2020, 2022a). Hence, in Israel, these names serve as direct indicators of ethnic identity.

Credibility judgment

The dependent measure, credibility assessment, was determined by two factors: (a) veracity judgment, indicating whether the suspect was deemed deceptive or truthful, and (b) confidence level, reflecting the participant’s confidence in the veracity judgment on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (not confident) to 6 (very confident). Following the approach of previous studies (Rozmann & Nahari, 2020, 2022a), we combined the veracity judgment and confidence rating into a single measure. To accomplish this, we multiplied the confidence rating by −1 when the participant judged the suspect as deceptive, or by 1 when the participant judged the suspect as truthful. Consequently, the combined measure, credibility assessment, ranged from −6 (indicating a perception of high deception) to 6 (indicating a perception of high truthfulness).

The quantitative convenience study was conducted by administering an online questionnaire distributed through popular social networking sites in 2023 – namely, Facebook groups where a membership was requested. An effort was made not to distribute the survey among Facebook groups focusing on aspects that may bias the research results. Participants were explicitly informed that the answers would be processed in an anonymous matter. They were reassured that they could discontinue their participation at any point during the questionnaire. It was emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers, as participants were solely encouraged to express their personal opinions. Furthermore, it was made clear that no compensation or payment would be provided to participants for their involvement in the study. Participants were assigned at random to read one of two crime transcripts, accompanied by an alibi statement from either an Israeli-Jewish or an Israeli-Arab suspect. The transcript read as follows: ‘On 14 May 2016, at 23:00, a premium jewelry store in Tel Aviv was robbed. The police arrested Moshe/Yusuf as a suspect. Moshe/Yusuf denied his involvement, and claimed to have an alibi. The following is a verbatim transcript of his alibi, as documented in his investigation. You are asked to assess the veracity of the suspect’s alibi statement. Please read the alibi carefully’. Subsequently, participants were tasked with evaluating the credibility of the suspect’s alibi, indicating whether they believed it to be truthful or deceptive, and providing a corresponding confidence rating. Additionally, participants were asked to provide demographic information, including age, gender and occupation. The entire session lasted less than 15 minutes. The study obtained ethical approval from the departmental ethics committee.

Results

In order to test the hypothesis, first, we compared the veracity judgments of participants who assessed the credibility (truthfulness or dishonesty) of suspects from their own social group (Jewish participants assessing a Jewish suspect or Arab participants assessing an Arab suspect) with those of participants who evaluated suspects from a different social group (out-group suspect). Chi-square analysis provided support to the hypothesis. Participants who assessed an out-group suspect were more inclined to express disbelief towards that suspect (74%) than those who evaluated an in-group suspect (49.5%), χ2(1) = 13.84, p < .01, V = 0.25. A detailed breakdown of veracity judgments by target group can be found in Table 1.

Next, a between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a 2 (participant ethnicity: Israeli-Jewish/Israeli-Arab) × 2 (suspect ethnicity: Israeli-Jewish/Israeli-Arab) design was conducted. The dependent variable in this analysis was the assessment of credibility, which ranged between +6 and −6. The main effect of suspect ethnicity was significant, F(1, 205) = 15.04, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.5. Israeli-Arab suspects were judged as liars (M = –2.1, SD = 3.79), compared to Israeli-Jewish suspects (M = –0.12, SD = 4.57). The effect of participant ethnicity was non-significant, F < 1. In accordance with the intergroup bias hypothesis, the analysis revealed a significant Participant Ethnicity × Suspect Ethnicity interaction, F(1, 205) = 18.85, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.5. Specifically, as can be seen in Figure 1, Israeli-Jewish police officers perceived Israeli-Jewish suspects as more credible (M = 1.19, SD = 4.26) than Israeli-Arab suspects (M = −1.18, SD = 4.58), F(1, 201) = 8.9, η2 = .04, p < .01. Conversely, Israeli-Arab police officers perceived Israeli-Arab suspects as more credible (M = −0.92, SD = 4.08) than Israeli-Jewish participants (M = −3.47, SD = 2.89), F(1, 201) = 9.87, η2 = .04, p < .01. Simple effects analyses were conducted to test the perception of each group of police officers separately comparing their judgment of the suspects. This indicates that Israeli-Arab police officers gave similar credibility assessments for both Israeli-Jewish (M = 1.18, SD = 4.58), and Israeli-Arab suspects (M = –0.92, SD = 4.08), t(110) = –3.21, p > .05. Israeli-Jewish police officers perceived Israeli-Jewish suspects as more credible (M = 1.19, SD = 4.26), than Israeli-Arab suspects (M = –3.47, SD = 2.89), t(91) = 6.19, p < .01.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine whether intergroup bias in alibi credibility exists among Israeli police officers. Based on SIT (Tajfel, 1982), the results of the present study show that ethnicity has a crucial role in credibility assessment, as both Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab police officers tended to believe the alibi statement when it was provided by an in-group suspect, rather than by an out-group suspect. Contrary to previous studies that examined laypersons’ alibi credibility assessment (Eastwood et al., 2020; Keeping et al., 2017; Olson & Wells, 2012; Warren et al., 2022), the present experiment specifically centered on the forensic context within the Israeli context. The Israeli sociopolitical context provides a coherent framework for understanding these findings. Previous research has indicated that deep-rooted tensions stemming from historic Jewish-Arab relations have created an atmosphere where the police and the judicial system exhibit discriminatory practices against Arabs in terms of arrests and sentencing (Gazal-Ayal & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2010; Hasisi & Weitzer, 2007). Gazal-Ayal and Sulitzeanu-Kenan (2010) indicated that Israeli-Arab citizens faced higher rates of arrest than Jewish citizens, and Einat and Toys (2023) found that the Israeli judicial and punitive system discriminates against Arab compared with Jewish defendants. Recent studies also found systematic evidence of intergroup bias among police officers in Israel. Harpaz and Herzog (2013) conducted a survey among 643 police officers and police managers in Israel, and found that police officers perceived Israeli-Arab citizens as law breakers, and as enemies (Harpaz & Herzog, 2013). Conversely, officers from minority backgrounds, specifically the Druze and Arab communities, demonstrated greater support for procedurally fair policing than Israel-Jewish officers (Jonathan-Zamir & Harpaz, 2018). The intergroup bias obtained in the current study may have coincided with the general feeling of threat by the Jewish population in Israel and characterized Arabs by suspicions of disloyalty, labeling them as a potential ‘fifth column’ and associating them with adversaries of the Jewish state (Metcalfe & Cann, 2020; Nir & Sophie, 2018; Rozmann & Yehuda, 2023).

Regarding the police, the in-group favoritism is expected to be particularly prominent due to the influence of police culture on officers’ behavior and its impact on individuals involved with the legal system (see Ingram et al., 2018). Paoline III (2003) defines police culture as a collection of widely shared attitudes that develop as a response to the demands of a working environment characterized by coercive authority, danger and uncertainty. This culture may serve as a coping mechanism for the challenges inherent in their profession. While it is acknowledged that police culture is a complex and multifaceted concept (Paoline III, 2003; Paoline & Terrill, 2005), with individual differences among officers in how they internalize it, it nevertheless fosters strong connections within the police ranks.

This study has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, our sample consisted of Israeli police officers and may not be representative of the entire Israeli police population. This limited external validity, and it is recommended that future research investigates these findings using a random and representative sample. Secondly, this study primarily focused on the comparison between in-group and out-group perceptions, thus not examining participants’ extent of situational and personal similarity to the suspects. Further exploration is necessary to understand the degree to which individuals identify with and relate to the suspects in different scenarios. Third, since perceptions of offenders and crimes are influenced by cultural context (Rozmann & Nahari, 2022a), it is recommended that future research investigates our hypotheses in alternative cultural contexts or adopts a cross-cultural design. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing these perceptions across diverse cultural settings. Future studies should also consider other factors related to the SIT. High levels of threat perceptions and social distance might be linked with discrimination toward out-group members.

While our understanding of alibi evaluation has advanced over time, a significant portion of the research has primarily focused on undergraduate students as participants (see Warren et al., 2022). As such, the present findings hold significant implications, considering that police officers play a critical role in legal proceedings. They are extensively involved in evidence collection, including alibi statements, and their initial decisions during an investigation can significantly influence the outcomes of a subsequent prosecution (Ask et al., 2008; Charman et al., 2017). Training programs should prioritize raising awareness about potential biases and the impact of ethnicity on the attitudes and reactions of police officers. Additionally, educational programs aimed at increasing awareness of ethnic biases have the potential to foster greater mutual acceptance and facilitate contact between majority and minority groups (see Machado & Lugo, 2021).

The application of the current study within Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions provides a nuanced lens through which to examine social dynamics and legal processes. Both countries, characterized by diverse populations, grapple with issues of identity, ethnicity and cultural diversity. The interplay of historical factors, such as colonization and migration, has contributed to the formation of distinct social groups, each with its own set of cultural values and norms. Within legal frameworks, intergroup bias may manifest in various ways, impacting law enforcement, judicial decision-making and legislative policies. Understanding the influence of intergroup bias is essential for fostering fair and equitable legal systems. Moreover, acknowledging and addressing these biases is crucial for the promotion of social cohesion and the development of inclusive legal practices that uphold the principles of justice for all members of society.

Appendix.

The suspect’s alibi.

On that day, at 9:30 PM, I arranged to meet my brother for coffee at the Jaffa promenade. I was ten minutes early; I thought there would be traffic jams so I left earlier than usual, but luckily there were not. In the meantime, I waited at the promenade for him to arrive. After a few minutes, I got tired of waiting, so I tried to call him, but my battery ran out, and just as I was dialing, my phone went dead. I waited for another ten or fifteen minutes for him to arrive. I was angry at the fact that he didn’t show up, but I didn’t want to go back home, so I decided to walk around in the promenade. I went into the food market, which was crowded, and bought a huge pizza and a large coffee. It wasn’t too pleasant to sit there, so I ate and drank quickly. The weather was great, so I walked toward HaPisga Garden, where I had parked. I got back to my car and drove home around 11:30 PM. There was a little traffic, so I got home around 1:00 AM. Suddenly, I felt exhausted, so I went to sleep.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interaction between participant ethnicity and suspect ethnicity.

Table 1.

Veracity judgment as a function of target group.

Target group Veracity judgment
  
Lie teller
 Truth teller
 Total
n % n % n
Out-group 77 74 27 26 104 χ2(1) = 13.84**
In-group 50 49.5 51 50.5 101  
Total 127   78   205  
Open in a new tab

**p < .01.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nir Rozmann has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abshire, J., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 471–480. 10.1023/a:1025481905861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allison, M., & Brimacombe, C. E. (2010). Alibi believability: The effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1054–1084. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00610.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allison, M., Jung, S., & Culhane, S. E. (2023). Assessing alibi believability: The alibi story, presence of physical evidence and timing of disclosure. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2023, 1–12. 10.1080/13218719.2023.2206869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Allison, M., Mathews, K. R., & Michael, S. W. (2012). Alibi believability: The impact of salacious alibi activities. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(4), 605–612. 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.605 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The ?elasticity? Of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1245–1259. 10.1002/acp.1432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayer, L., Venkatesh, B., Stewart, R., Mandel, D., Stein, B., & Schoenbaum, M. (2017). Psychological Aspects of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(3), 322–338. 10.1177/1524838015613774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430–1453. 10.1177/0002764207302462 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Charman, S. D., Carbone, J., Kekessie, S., & Villalba, D. K. (2016). Evidence evaluation and evidence integration in legal decision-making: Order of evidence presentation as a moderator of context effects: context effects in legal decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 214–225. 10.1002/acp.3181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Charman, S. D., Kavetski, M., & Mueller, D. H. (2017). Cognitive bias in the legal system: Police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief-consistent manner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 193–202. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Charman, S., Matuku, K., & Mosser, A. (2019). The psychology of alibis. Advances in Psychology and Law, 4, 41–72. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dahl, L. C., & Price, H. L. (2012). He couldn’t have done it, he was with me!: The impact of alibi witness age and relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 475–481. 10.1002/acp.2821 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dysart, J. E., & Strange, D. (2012). Beliefs about alibis and alibi investigations: A survey of law enforcement. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1), 11–25. 10.1080/1068316X.2011.562867 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eastwood, J., Lively, C. J., Snook, B., & Snow, M. D. (2020). Quality vs. quantity: The effect of relationship and number of corroborators on alibi assessments. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 27(6), 973–988. 10.1080/13218719.2020.1754956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Au, D. (2016). Safety in numbers: A policy-capturing study of the alibi assessment process. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 260–269. 10.1002/acp.3200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eastwood, J., Snow, M. D., & Freedman, S. (2021). That’s the way my Wednesdays always go: Reverse-order instructions insufficient to mitigate schema-consistent errors in alibi generation. The Journal of Forensic Practice, 23(3), 213–229. 10.1108/JFP-02-2021-0004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Einat, T., & Toys, S. (2023). The effects of wartime on discrimination in the punishment of Arab vs. Jewish Defendants in the Israeli Criminal Law System. Asian Journal of Criminology, 18(1), 43–60. 10.1007/s11417-023-09395-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Factor, R., & Gur-Arye, M. (2020). Social solidarity and sentencing disparities between ethnic groups: The case of hit-and-run traffic offenses. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(1), 164–185. 10.1111/jels.12245 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frumkin, L. (2007). Influences of accent and ethnic background on perceptions of eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(3), 317–331. 10.1080/10683160600822246 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 254–275. 10.1080/00207590344000411 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gazal-Ayal, O., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Let my people go: Ethnic In-group bias in judicial decisions – Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(3), 403–428. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harpaz, A., & Herzog, S. (2013). Police officers’ acceptance of community policing strategy in Israel and their attitudes towards the Arab minority. Israel Affairs, 19(1), 191–213. 10.1080/13537121.2013.748294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasisi, B., & Weisburd, D. (2014). Policing terrorism and police–community relations: Views of the Arab minority in Israel. Police Practice and Research, 15(2), 158–172. 10.1080/15614263.2013.874173 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hasisi, B., & Weitzer, R. (2007). Police relations with Arabs and Jews in Israel. British Journal of Criminology, 47(5), 728–745. 10.1093/bjc/azm027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hauser, W., & Peck, J. H. (2017). The intersection of crime seriousness, discretion, and race: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 166–192. 10.1080/07418825.2015.1121284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ingram, J. R., Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. III. (2018). Police culture and officer behavior: Application of a multilevel framework. Criminology, 56(4), 780–811. 10.1111/1745-9125.12192 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Harpaz, A. (2018). Predicting support for procedurally just treatment: The case of the Israel National Police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 840–862. 10.1177/0093854818763230 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Keeping, Z., Eastwood, J., Lively, C. J., & Snook, B. (2017). Don’t stop believing: The relative impact of internal alibi details on judgments of veracity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(9), 899–913. 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1338700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the veracity effect. Communication Monographs, 66(2), 125–144. 10.1080/03637759909376468 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lindholm, T. (2008). Validity in judgments of high- and low-accurate witnesses of own and other ethnic groups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 107–121. 10.1348/135532506X152949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Machado, M., & Lugo, A. (2021). A behavioral analysis of two strategies to eliminate racial bias in police use of force. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1221–1231. 10.1007/s40617-021-00551-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Masip, J., Alonso, H., Herrero, C., & Garrido, E. (2016). Experienced and novice officers? Generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 40(2), 169–181. 10.1037/lhb0000169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2017). Examining police officers’ response bias in judging veracity. Psicothema, 29(4), 490–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 469–480. 10.1023/a:1020278620751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Metcalfe, C., & Cann, D. (2020). Arab threat and social control: An exploration of the relationship between ethnic attitudes and punitiveness among Israeli Jews. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(5), 498–521. 10.1177/0306624X19895973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 621–637. 10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nahari, G. (2012). Elaborations on credibility judgments by professional lie detectors and laypersons: Strategies of judgment and justification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(6), 567–577. 10.1080/1068316X.2010.511222 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nieuwkamp, R., Horselenberg, R., & van Koppen, P. (2018). True and false alibis among prisoners and their detection by police detectives. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 25(6), 902–921. 10.1080/13218719.2018.1482570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nir, R., & Sophie, D. W. (2018). Perceived threat, blaming attribution, victim ethnicity and punishment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 34–40. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 157–176. 10.1023/b:lahu.0000022320.47112.d3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2012). The alibi-generation effect: Alibi-generation experience influences alibi evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 151–164. 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2010.02003.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2005). The impact of police culture on traffic stop searches: An analysis of attitudes and behavior. An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(3), 455–472. 10.1108/13639510510614555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Paoline, E. A. III. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 199–214. 10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00002-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rozmann, N., & Levy, I. (2021). Attribution of blame toward offenders: Victim and offender ethnicity, and observer ethnic and religious background. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), 10638–10659. 10.1177/0886260519885914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rozmann, N., & Nahari, G. (2020). The influence of suspect ethnicity and evidence direction on alibi credibility assessment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(6), 1516–1521. 10.1002/acp.3715 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rozmann, N., & Nahari, G. (2022a). Credibility assessment in context: The influence of intergroup bias and the context of the crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(5), 454–469. 10.1080/1068316X.2021.1909021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rozmann, N., & Nahari, G. (2022b). Credibility assessments of alibi accounts: The role of cultural intergroup bias. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 29(4), 535–548. 10.1080/13218719.2021.1938274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rozmann, N., & Yehuda, L. (2023). Justification of intergroup violence: An exploratory study within the Israeli-Arab Society. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 15(3), 1. 10.5539/ijps.v15n3p1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. 10.1177/053901847401300204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39. 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 159–181. 10.1348/1355325041719356 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Warren, K., Snow, M., & Abbott, H. (2022). Alibi corroboration: An examination of laypersons’ expectations. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 12(3), 33–45. 10.1108/JCP-07-2021-0030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zvi, L., & Bitton, M. S. (2020). Perceptions of victim and offender culpability in non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES