How Credible is Credibility Evidence in Refugee Status Determinations?

寻求庇护系统中法律的决策、证人证据和可信度评估的跨学科调查第一部分-机构话语如何在庇护申请中呈现“可信度”？机构及其代理人如何概念化和评估可信度？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各种影响？机构文化是否影响到可信度指标的起草和应用？决策者如何克服对可信度的担忧？决策者在评估可信度时在多大程度上是统一和中立的？法这项研究将使用批评性话语分析，并借鉴至少三种类型的数据：IPAT可信度评估准则;公布的决定;和半结构化的定性采访IPO人员和法庭members.Part 2 - Are commonly used credibility indicators suitable for refugee status determination？地球仪的难民决策者使用一套共同的可信度指标。例如，人们认为说真话的人表现出内在和外在的一致性，沿着的是更高水平的可解释性、细节和连贯性，而不是欺骗性的人。申请人的行为举止也被认为是欺骗的诊断。虽然一些可信度指标在法律的文献中引起了仔细审查，6考虑到证人记忆和欺骗的心理学研究最近取得的重大进展，没有研究系统地审查这些指标。这项研究将包括证人记忆和欺骗文献的系统性审查，重点放在关键领域和复杂的工作过程中，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3部分-做决策者'持有关于可信度，欺骗和人类行为的准确信念？7虽然难民地位决策者接受培训，但很少以科学研究为指导，也没有考虑到文化、语言、宗教和文化的复杂影响。8第三部分将审查审裁处成员和国际保护局官员对证人记忆，发现欺骗，以及解释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的信念，并确定教育，专业培训和经验在影响这些信念中的作用。

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.