One of the most uncomfortable realities of age assessment is that social workers are often expected to form a view on credibility. When documentary evidence is unavailable or disputed, practitioners are asked to assess the reliability of a young person’s account.
The courts expect us to undertake an assessment of credibility, yet there is a fundamental challenge at the heart of this task. Research[1] shows that human beings are generally poor at detecting deception and often perform little better than chance when attempting to distinguish truth from lies. This challenge is particularly important in age assessment, where credibility findings can have significant implications for a young person’s access to services, support and protection
Many of us have grown up believing that we can spot when someone is lying. We assume that nervousness signals dishonesty or that confidence signals truthfulness. That hesitation, avoidance of eye contact or inconsistencies in an account are good indicators that something is not quite right.
However, as social workers, we also understand that human behaviour is complex. People who are telling the truth may appear anxious, withdrawn or uncertain. Equally, people who are being deceptive may appear calm, confident and convincing. There is no universal behavioural pattern that reliably distinguishes truth from lies and this creates significant challenges within age assessment.
The problem with demeanour
It is well documented that observations about demeanour are regularly referenced in age assessments. A young person may be described as mature, confident, guarded, childlike, withdrawn or articulate. These observations can be useful in understanding how somebody presents in a particular moment. The problem arises when we move from observation to conclusion.
Our age assessment research[2] showed that demeanour (or body language as we interpreted it) was often referenced as a way to demonstrate someone was lying.
A young person who avoids eye contact was perceived as evasive. In reality, they may be frightened, traumatised, exhausted, culturally conditioned to avoid eye contact with authority figures or simply anxious about being assessed. Conversely, a young person who maintained direct eye contact was perceived as older because this is often associated with confidence and maturity.
Maturity in presentation does not necessarily equate to chronological age. A young person who appears unusually mature may be viewed as older than their claimed age, yet many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have experienced levels of responsibility, hardship and survival that most adults will never encounter.
When we place too much emphasis on demeanour, we risk confusing presentation with evidence.
There are many reasons why behaviour and presentation may not mean what we assume they mean. Two of the most significant in age assessment are trauma and culture.
Trauma complicates credibility
Many young people undergoing age assessments (and this includes young adults) have experienced significant trauma.
They may have experienced war, persecution, trafficking, exploitation, violence, bereavement or prolonged uncertainty. These experiences can affect memory, communication and emotional presentation.
It is well established in social work practice that trauma does not always produce a clear and coherent narrative. Some young people may struggle to recall dates and sequences of events. Others may remember certain experiences in vivid detail whilst being unable to recall seemingly important information. Some may provide accounts that evolve over time as trust develops and memories become easier to access.
If credibility is assessed without understanding the impact of trauma, there is a real risk that trauma responses will be misinterpreted as dishonesty.
Cultural differences are important
Communication is not culturally neutral. In some cultures, direct eye contact with authority figures is considered disrespectful. In others, modesty and restraint are highly valued. Emotional expression varies significantly across cultures, families and communities.
Our own culture and beliefs will also impact our interpretation. What one assessor interprets as confidence, another may see as arrogance. What one assessor perceives as evasiveness may be a culturally appropriate form of communication.
This is why credibility assessments require cultural humility. We must constantly question whether we are assessing the evidence before us or measuring somebody against our own expectations of how a truthful person should behave.
Moving beyond instinct
The reality is that credibility assessments should not be driven by instinct.
Professional intuition has a role in social work, but intuition alone is not evidence.
Instead, credibility assessments should focus on:
• Consistency within the account.
• Consistency over time.
• Corroborating or triangulating evidence where available.
• Information gathered from multiple sources.
• Contextual factors that may explain inconsistencies.
• The impact of trauma, culture and developmental needs.
This approach is not about deciding whether we “believe” someone; it is about evaluating evidence fairly, transparently and proportionately.
Professional humility
Perhaps the most important point is that credibility assessment requires humility.
Social workers are often placed in the difficult position of making decisions where certainty is impossible and the temptation can be to rely on gut feeling when the evidence is unclear.
Good practice requires us to acknowledge the limits of our own judgement.
The question should never be:
“Do I think this young person is telling the truth?”
Instead, we should ask:
“Have I fully considered all the reasons why this account may present in the way that it does?”
This shift in our questioning moves credibility assessment away from personal opinion and towards professional reasoning.
Interested in developing your age assessment practice?
The principles discussed in this article form part of the Social Work Age Estimation Framework (SAEF), a structured approach to age assessment that places evidence, trauma-informed practice and anti-discriminatory practice at its core.
ISWS delivers SAEF training to local authorities and professionals seeking to strengthen the quality, consistency and defensibility of their age assessments.
Whether you are new to age assessment practice or looking to refresh and enhance existing skills, SAEF training provides practical tools, evidence-informed guidance and a structured framework to support professional decision-making.
To learn more about SAEF training or to arrange a session for your team, get in touch here
[1] Some Evidence for Unconscious Lie Detection – Leanne ten Brinke, Dayna Stimson, Dana R. Carney, 2014
[2] ISWS | New Age Assessment Research – ISWS
