1. Deception judgements in courts and asylum procedures
Rebecca M. Willén, MSc
University of Gothenburg
Sweden
NNPL Joint Nordic PhD course 2010,
Reykjavik, Iceland

2. This presentation
Bond & DePaulo (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments.
Kagan (2003). Is the truth in the eye of the beholder? Objective credibility assessment in refugee status determination.
”Assessing reliability by analyzing the verbal content: The case of Sweden”. Strömwall, Nordic Lights, Chapter 13.

3. Introduction: Credibility assessments in courts and asylum procedures
Deception detection is not fiction
Credibility assessments are common procedures in legal cases where other type of evidence often is lacking
Sexual assaults and domestic violence (Schelin, 2006)
International criminal courts (May & Wierda, 2002)
Asylum procedures (Kagan, 2003)

4. Introduction
”Lie detecting is what our juries do best” (Fisher, in Bond & DePaulo, 2006)
No tools – only their common sense and ”gut feelings”
A list of criteria for content analysis
(Kagan, 2003; May & Wierda, 2002; Schelin, 2006)
Purpose: Objective credibility assessments

5. Accuracy of deception judgments (Bond & DePaulo, 2006)
206 studies
Over 24’000 participants (”receivers”)
Adults
No training, no tools
6 main independent variables - All with implications for deception detection in courts and asylum procedures
Medium (video, audio, video & audio)
Sender’s motivation
Sender’s preparation
Baseline of the sender
Interaction
Expertise

6. Main results Overall accuracy: 53.98% Highest mean: 73%
Lowest mean: 31%
Medium
Audio was the winner
Motivation
Higher accuracy when the sender was highly motivated
However, neither were highly motivated truthful senders believed (not in audio condition though)
Preparation
Prepared statements were more difficult to evaluate
Baseline
A baseline exposure improved accuracy
Interaction
Not significant in this study
Expertise
No difference between experts and nonexperts

7. Conclusions: Accuracy of deception judgments
People are not very skilled in detecting deception
Not even when they are supposed to be...
Implications for law practitioners
Medium: Often live
Motivation: Likely, the senders are often highly motivated (i.e. putting also truthful senders at risk of not being believed)
Preparation: Likely, the statements are prepared
Baseline: No baseline exposure
The bottom line: Law practitioners will probably have a really hard time coming to a correct conclusion about the veracity of a statement

8. Introduction
”Lie detecting is what our juries do best” (Fisher, in Bond & DePaulo, 2006)
No tools – only their common sense and ”gut feelings”
A list of criteria for content analysis
(Kagan, 2003; May & Wierda, 2002; Schelin, 2006)
Purpose: Objective credibility assessments

9. Objective credibility assessment in refugee status determination (Kagan, 2003)
Refugee status determination (RSD) is a unique legal matter in several ways:
Assessments of risks in the future
Culture & language
Incomplete information
Very extreme consequences of wrongful decisions

10. Introduction: Asylum cases (Page 2 of 3)
Credibility assessments are made to determine whether the statement should be accepted as evidence or not (both in criminal & in asylum cases)
The statement alone is enough as evidence in the asylum procedure
Most of the rejections of asylum applications are made due to a ”lack of credibility” (77%, UNHCR in Cairo)

11. Introduction: Asylum cases (Page 3 of 3)
Despite the extraordinary importance of the credibility decisions in asylum cases:
Subjective decisions
Decisions influenced by cultural misunderstandings (and interpretation)
Unreviewable decisions
The purpose of Kagans article is to suggest new principles for credibility assesments in order to...
Increase the objectivity
Increase the accuracy
Make the credibility findings reviewable

12. Criteria for content analysis (Kagan, 2003)
Positive factors
Detail & specificity
Consistency
Providing all facts early
Plausibility
Chronological order
Fulfillment of burden of explanation
Non-verbal cues
Negative factors
Vagueness
Contradictions
Delayed revelation of key facts
Implausibility
Non-chronological order
Cannot explain discrepancies and omission
Non-verbal cues

13. Limitations The list of criteria is a good start...
... But how to weigh them in the individual case?

14. Framework for an objective assessment of credibility
Presume truthfulness
Look for negative factors in the key parts of the statement
If negative factors are not found – accept credibility
If negative factors are found:
Only in parts or in the whole account?
Look for positive factors in the problematic parts
If the negative factors are minor or peripheral – accept credibility
Give the applicant a chance to explain (burden of explanation)
Is it possible to believe the problematic parts? – accept credibility

15. Fulfillment of burden of explanation
Potential reasons for accepting a flawed statement (Kagan, 2003):
Trauma
Fear of authority
Lack of gender sensitivity during the interview
Cultural or linguistic misunderstandings
Memory failures

16. Conclusions
In the present system credibility assessments are a necessary evil in asylum procedures
”If refugee protection is to have any meaning... refugees must be distinguishable from other migrants” (Kagan, 2003)
Practitioners and researchers within law have taken some steps with the intention to increase the objectivity in these assessments, as well as the accuracy in the judgements
These steps towards objectivity mainly consists of a list of quite vaguely defined criteria

17. Some concerns
Law practitioners are applying a complex psychological technique without proper training (Diesen, 2008)
Presently, the technique lacks scientific support (Willén & Strömwall, manuscript submitted for publication)

18. Coda Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The implications of statement analysis are rarely more serious than in asylum procedures

19. Thank you for listening!