Psychological assumptions underlying credibility assessments in Finnish asylum determinations
Assessing the credibility of asylum claims is a complex task. Researchers have investigated the assumptions underlying credibility assessments held by asylum decision-makers and questioned their validity.
The current study investigated the assumptions of Finnish Asylum Officials in credibility judgements and if they align with psychological science.
Determination letters from 56 asylum cases in Finland were analysed. The sample consisted largely of rejected applications, as officials are not required to provide written credibility judgements for granted cases.
Asylum officials held assumptions about asylum seekers’ reports that are not in line with psychological research on human behaviour and memory.
For example, officials believed that asylum seekers should apply for asylum with all relevant evidence as early as possible. However, delayed reporting is not always indicative of an invalid claim. Several factors, including differences in cultural background and negative life events may influence an asylum seekers’ reporting behaviour.
To improve the validity of asylum procedures, officials need more training in how memory works, and on the impact of culture and trauma on communication and decision making.
