Search

Police investigators, judges, and jurors are often very skeptical of alibi witness testimony. To investigate when and why individuals lie for one another, we conducted two studies in which witnesses' support of a false alibi was observed. We varied the level of social pressure exerted on witnesses and the level of affinity between suspect-witness pairs. During a study session purportedly intended to investigate dyadic problem-solving ability, a mock theft was staged. When questioned, participants were provided the opportunity to either corroborate or refute a confederate's false alibi that the latter was with them when the theft occurred. Participants were more likely to lie for the confederate when the latter explicitly asked participants to conceal his/her whereabouts during the time of the theft (Study 1). How much participants liked the suspect did not impact lying; however, participants lied for a confederate more often when the latter was a friend rather than a stranger (Study 2). Results show that alibi witnesses often lie and that investigators and jurors may not accurately estimate the likelihood that such witnesses will lie for one another. Witnesses who lied also reported doing so more often because they believed that the suspect was innocent rather than guilty. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

BACKGROUND The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect on response assessment classification in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using unidimensional (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and bidimensional (World Health Organization) criteria, including or excluding measurements of the primary renal tumor and using a new index to compensate for the disproportionate effect of large renal tumors relative to their metastases. METHODS Fifty-three imaging studies involving a total of 44 patients with metastatic RCC who were treated on clinical trials of interferon-α analogue and/or thalidomide were reviewed retrospectively. The best overall response assessment and progression free survival were calculated with both unidimensional and bidimensional tumor measurements. Patients were then stratified into two groups: patients with primary renal tumors in situ and patients who underwent resection of their primary renal tumors. The best overall response and the time to disease progression were calculated based on the sum of measurements (conventional methodology), both including and excluding the primary tumor. A new method of response assessment, the ‘normalized lesion index’, which equalizes the differences in tumor size for an individual patient, was evaluated and compared with the conventional response assessment. RESULTS There was an 11% disagreement rate in the best overall response assessment between unidimensional and bidimensional measurements. The time to progression was 9.2 months measured unidimensionally, compared with 6.4 months assessed bidimensionally. In the group of patients who had primary renal tumors in situ, using the conventional sum of measurements method, the apparent time to progression was an average of 4.2 months longer compared with measurements that did not include the primary renal tumor. The use of the normalized lesion index method resulted in an improved concordance in best overall response assessments and similar time to progression assessments when the primary renal tumor was included compared with patients who did not have primary renal tumors in situ. CONCLUSIONS The use of unidimensional measurements in RCC therapy assessment results in significantly different time to progression classification compared with the use of bidimensional measurements. Response assessment classification in patients with RCC is affected by the exclusion or inclusion of measurements of the primary renal tumor. The normalized lesion index warrants further study in assessing response in patients with metastatic RCC and other solid tumor malignancies that often show substantial differences in sizes of measurable lesions. Cancer 2003. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11712