How Credible is Credibility Evidence in Refugee Status Determinations?

寻求庇护系统中法律决策、证人证据和可信度评估的跨学科研究第1部分-制度话语如何在庇护申请中呈现“可信度”？机构及其代理人如何定义和评估信誉？如何介绍社会行为者（寻求庇护者、决策者、代表、证人）？如何理解文化、语言、社会化、创伤——以及它们对行为的不同影响？制度文化是否会影响可信度指标的起草和应用？决策者如何克服可信度问题？决策者在评估可信度时，在多大程度上是统一和中立的？方法。该研究将使用批判性话语分析并借鉴至少三种类型的数据：IPAT可信度评估指南；出版的决定;以及与IPO人员和审裁处成员进行的半结构化定性访谈。第2部分-常用的可信度指标是否适用于难民身份的确定？世界各地的难民决策者使用了一套共同的可信度指标。例如，说实话的人被认为比欺骗的人表现出内在和外在的一致性，以及更高水平的可信性、细节性和连贯性。申请人的行为举止也被认为是欺骗的诊断。尽管一些可信度指标在法律文献中引起了仔细的研究，但考虑到最近关于证人记忆和欺骗的心理学研究取得了实质性进展，还没有研究系统地检验这些指标。该研究将包括对证人记忆和欺骗文献的系统回顾，重点关注关键领域和工作中的复杂过程，当个人寻求被承认为难民（包括情感，创伤，文化，社会化，语言）。第三部分-决策者是否对诚信、欺骗和人类行为持有正确的信念？外行人和受过训练的专业人士常常对证人记忆的作用和如何最好地识破欺骗持有错误的看法虽然难民地位决策者接受了培训，但培训很少以科学研究为指导，也没有考虑到文化、语言和创伤对寻求庇护者的认知和行为的复杂影响第3部分将考察法庭成员和IPO官员对证人记忆、发现欺骗的信念，以及解释为什么欺骗线索发生的潜在机制。调查和实验技术将用于从决策者和匹配控制的大样本中收集数据。该研究将调查不同职业群体持有的信念，并确定教育、专业培训和经验在影响这些信念方面的作用。

An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Legal Decision-Making, Witness Evidence and Credibility Assessments in Asylum-Seeking SystemsPart 1 - How does institutional discourse present "credibility" in asylum applications?How do institutions and their agents conceptualise and evaluate credibility? How are social actors (asylumseekers, decision-makers, representatives, witnesses) presented? How is culture, language, socialisation, trauma-and their varied influences on behaviour-understood? Does institutional culture affect how credibility indicators are drafted and applied? How do decision-makers overcome credibility concerns? To what extent are decision-makers uniform and neutral when evaluating credibility?Method. The study will use Critical Discourse Analysis and draw on at least three types of data: IPAT credibility assessment guidelines; published decisions; and semi-structured qualitative interviews with IPO personnel and Tribunal members.Part 2 - Are commonly used credibility indicators suitable for refugee status determinations?A common set of credibility indicators are used by refugee decision-makers around the globe. For instance, truth-tellers are thought to demonstrate internal and external consistency, along with higher levels of plausibility, detail, and coherence, than deceptive individuals. The demeanour of the applicant is also considered to be diagnostic of deception. Although some credibility indicators have attracted scrutiny in the legal literature,6 no research has systematically examined these indicators considering recent and substantial advances in psychological research on witness memory and deception.Method. The study will consist of a systematic review of the witness memory and deception literatures, focussing on key areas and the complex processes at work when individuals seek to be recognised as refugees (including emotion, trauma, culture, socialisation, language).Part 3 - Do decision-makers' hold accurate beliefs about credibility, deception and human behaviour?Laypeople and trained professionals often hold erroneous beliefs about the workings of witness memory and how best to detect deceit.7 Although refugee status decision-makers receive training, it is rarely guided by scientific research and does not take into account the complex influences of culture, language, and trauma on asylum-seekers' cognition and behaviour.8 Part 3 will examine Tribunal members' and IPO Officers' beliefs about witness memory, detecting deception, and the underlying mechanisms that explain why cues to deceit occur.Method. Both survey and experimental techniques will be used to gather data from large samples of decision-makers and matched controls. The research will investigate the beliefs held across different occupational groups, and determine the role of education, professional training, and experience in influencing those beliefs.