View in EDS

Investigating deception findings in Canadian refugee status rejections: legal inferences and psychological assumptions.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating deception findings in Canadian refugee status rejections: legal inferences and psychological assumptions.
Authors: Evans Cameron, Hilary, Herlihy, Jane, Hynie, Michaela
Source: Psychiatry, Psychology & Law; Dec2025, Vol. 32 Issue 6, p949-975, 27p
Subject Terms: DECEPTION, METACOGNITION, LEGAL status of refugees, SOCIAL science research, COGNITIVE psychology, LEGAL reasoning, CONSTRUCTIVISM (Psychology), CANADIAN history
Abstract: This study uses a novel methodology that combines legal and psychological approaches to analyse a large set of Canadian refugee status rejections (n = 120). It distinguishes legal inferences from their underlying psychological assumptions and quantifies both inferences and assumptions in a set of 89 written decisions. Its findings yield new insights that inform the use of social science in the evaluation of deception findings in this field: it identifies the most important categories of legal inference that support these findings (inferences drawn from observations of 'inconsistency', 'non-probative supporting evidence' and 'risk response'), and it is the first study to identify the most significant kinds of assumption that underlie the finding that a refugee claimant is lying. These include assumptions that have been observed in previous studies: assumptions about the consistency of truthful and deceptive accounts and about how people act when they are at risk. Perhaps most importantly, this study has identified a new and significant category of psychological assumption operating in these decisions: assumptions about the robustness of a claimant's metacognition, their ability to understand and explain their own cognitive processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychiatry, Psychology & Law is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:This study uses a novel methodology that combines legal and psychological approaches to analyse a large set of Canadian refugee status rejections (n = 120). It distinguishes legal inferences from their underlying psychological assumptions and quantifies both inferences and assumptions in a set of 89 written decisions. Its findings yield new insights that inform the use of social science in the evaluation of deception findings in this field: it identifies the most important categories of legal inference that support these findings (inferences drawn from observations of 'inconsistency', 'non-probative supporting evidence' and 'risk response'), and it is the first study to identify the most significant kinds of assumption that underlie the finding that a refugee claimant is lying. These include assumptions that have been observed in previous studies: assumptions about the consistency of truthful and deceptive accounts and about how people act when they are at risk. Perhaps most importantly, this study has identified a new and significant category of psychological assumption operating in these decisions: assumptions about the robustness of a claimant's metacognition, their ability to understand and explain their own cognitive processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:13218719
DOI:10.1080/13218719.2024.2404862