Perceived Credibility of Social Media Data as a Collateral Source in Criminal Responsibility Evaluations Using an Experimental Design

Abstract

Perceived credibility of social media data (i.e., a Twitter post) was compared to more traditional collateral sources in criminal responsibility evaluations using independent samples of laypersons and forensic experts. Overall, results suggested greater skepticism toward social media relative to two other sources, particularly when information suggested a mental illness. Both samples, however, viewed the tweet as potentially useful. Notably, both studies were limited by the use of an experimental design that was intended to capture initial impressions rather than fully mimic standard assessment and courtroom processes. We advocate a cautious but open-minded approach when considering social media data as collateral.

Keywords:

• Social media
• forensic mental health assessment
• criminal responsibility
• NGRI

Author Note Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Notes

1 Of note, source stimulus materials differed in terms of their overall look and design because each source needed to be clearly distinguishable as the intended source type (e.g., the clinic note was designed to look like it was copied from a medical record); therefore, these differences should be considered part of the manipulation.

2 Research suggests that the majority of fraudulent and invalid data obtained via MTurk comes from outside the U.S., particularly Venezuela and India (see Kennedy, et al., 2020).

3 The sample size for these items varied as the number of missing responses was inconsistent across items.

4 Participants who selected “other” were asked to qualitatively specify their primarily vocational setting for conducting evaluations.