Psychological Assumptions Underlying Credibility Assessments in Finnish Asylum Determinations

Abstract

Current best-practice guidelines for credibility assessments in asylum procedures have been criticized for their susceptibility to subjectivity and bias. The current study investigated assumptions underlying credibility assessments in Finnish first-instance asylum procedures and how these assumptions fit with widely accepted psychological science. Following previous research, we categorized assumptions in 56 real-life asylum cases from the Finnish Immigration Service. We found that asylum officials held assumptions about how truthful applicants present their claims, the plausibility of individuals’ behavior in their home countries, and applicants’ knowledge about asylum procedures. The assumptions were only partially in line with psychological science on memory, trauma, intercultural communication, and decision-making. To improve decision-making, training programs for asylum officials should include relevant findings from psychological science. To increase the transparency and combat bias, the written determination letters should also include explicit information about the decision-makers reasoning processes.