Behaviours
such as averting one’s gaze, fidgeting, and hesitant speech are commonly interpreted
as signs of dishonesty, yet they are also symptoms of PTSD. What, if any, are
the effects of this overlap on credibility assessment in the asylum process?
Associate Researchers Hannah
Rogers and Simone Fox, and CSEL Director Jane Herlihy have recently published a
new study in Psychology, Crime and Law,
investigating whether observable symptoms of PTSD can be confused with
perceived cues to deception, and how such confusion, where it arises, affects
the assessment of an individual’s credibility in the context of a mock asylum
interview. You can read through our digest below. If you would like more detail or to cite the paper in the future, click here to
access the full paper (£), or here for a pre-print copy. (Image credit: Tori Rector)
It is widely recognised that
PTSD is common in refugees and asylum seekers. The scientists behind this study
realised, however, that the effects of observable PTSD symptoms on credibility
assessment in the asylum process have rarely been empirically investigated. At
the same time, scientific studies have shown that PTSD symptoms and visible
signs that someone might be lying, also known as ‘cues to deception’, can often
overlap. The researchers therefore set out to investigate how a person’s
credibility is perceived in four simulated asylum interview scenarios:
- when only trauma-specific behaviours are exhibited;
- when only deception-specific behaviours are exhibited;
- when neither kind of behaviour is exhibited;
- when both kinds of behaviour are exhibited.
Credibility in each scenario
was assessed by four groups of students (118 in total), and quantitative and
qualitative data on their decisions were analysed.
Generally, the
trauma-related behaviours were easily identified in scenario 1, with a positive
credibility assessment given accordingly. However, contrary to expectations, scenario
2 was not the one given the lowest credibility rating, as might be hoped. It
was the mixture of trauma and deception-related behaviours described in
scenario 4 that was interpreted primarily as evidence of dishonesty, rather
than as the co-existence of trauma and dishonesty. Where the actor’s
presentation was confusing, rather than clearly traumatised, the students
tended to recognise only cues to deception, rather than potential trauma
symptoms too, giving a negative credibility assessment as a result.
Of particular interest was
the researchers’ finding in their analysis of the qualitative data that
behaviours common to PTSD and deception were not systematically interpreted in the
same way. What appeared to be key in the students’ decision-making was emotional congruence: whether the
actor’s observable behaviours matched up, in the students’ view, with the story
he was telling. In scenario 1 for example, the actor’s hesitant speech was
cited in support of a positive credibility assessment; in scenario 4 the same
hesitant speech was cited to support a negative credibility assessment.
This is a pilot study that
would benefit from being replicated in more lifelike conditions; for example
with real asylum decision-makers, and real asylum claimants. The researchers
therefore recognise that it is difficult to generalise the results.
Nevertheless, the findings
can be interpreted as a preliminary indication that people with less easily
recognised PTSD symptoms such as dissociation and numbing may be less likely to
be believed by asylum decision-makers. This might include, for example,
survivors of sexual assault who may have less obvious anxiety-like symptoms. Similarly,
traumatised people with legitimate reasons for lying; people who have been
trafficked, for example, who present in a ‘confusing’ manner, may also be
disbelieved. These vulnerable groups may have as legitimate a claim to
protection, however, as people displaying behaviours associated with fear,
desperation and distress that are perceived by a lay audience to be more
emotionally congruent with trauma.
