Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The Effect of an ‘Appearance, Presentation and Demeanour’ Instruction on Credibility and Deception Judgments in Mock Refugee Status Decisions

Bibliographic Data

ID21571676
AuthorsHilary Evans Cameron, Sean Rehaag (0000-0002-4432-9217, Metropolitan University), Katrina Friesen
Year2025
Volume37
Issue1
Pages93-129
Publication date2025-03-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0829-3929 • E-ISSN: 0829-3929
PublisherOsgoode Hall Law School, York University (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.60082/0829-3929.1492
OpenAlexW4409081131
LanguageEN
References cited5

Can a written instruction convince refugee status decision-makers not to rely on a claimant’s ‘appearance, presentation, and demeanour’ in judging the claimant’s credibility? How else might such an instruction affect the decision-makers’ deception judgments? This study explored the effects of an APD instruction on the judgments of lay decision-makers making credibility judgments in a simulated refugee hearing (n=275). It sought, by means of an experiment, to quantify the instruction’s effects both on decision- making outcomes and on the written reasons that the decision-makers offered to justify their conclusions. The APD instruction in our study had no significant effect on whether participants judged the claimant to be credible or deceptive, how confidently they reached either kind of conclusion, or how thoroughly they justified their reasoning. Those who received the instruction, however, cited APD factors significantly less often in supporting their judgments. Under this study’s simplified experimental conditions, the APD instruction may have caused decision-makers, consciously or otherwise, to suppress the fact that APD factors had influenced their thinking, driving these factors underground. In real life, this kind of suppression would have serious consequences for the rule of law, as it would immunize flawed reasoning from appeal or review. This study’s findings, which have implications for credibility assessment in other legal settings, call into question the received wisdom that written instructions are an effective way to dissuade decision-makers from relying on unsound deception inferences

Credibility · Deception · Political science · Refugee · Law · Medicine · Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts · Psychology · Social Psychology

  • Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn

    John Sweller, Paul Chandler•Cognition and Instruction•1994

  • What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process

    Joel D Lieberman, Bruce D Sales•Psychology Public Policy and Law•1997

  • Understanding the limits of limiting instructions

    Joel D Lieberman, Jamie Arndt•Psychology Public Policy and Law•2000

  • Commonsense justice and jury instructions

    Norman J Finkel•Psychology Public Policy and Law•2000

  • The subtle effects of implicit bias instructions

    Open Access•Mona Lynch, Taylor Kidd et al.•Law & Policy•2022

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae