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

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY International Journal of Forensic Mental Health Pub Date : 2021-02-08 DOI:10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504
Ashley B. Batastini, M. Vitacco, Ashley C. T. Jones, R. Davis
{"title":"Perceived Credibility of Social Media Data as a Collateral Source in Criminal Responsibility Evaluations Using an Experimental Design","authors":"Ashley B. Batastini, M. Vitacco, Ashley C. T. Jones, R. Davis","doi":"10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":14052,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","volume":"20 1","pages":"317 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用实验设计的社会媒体数据作为刑事责任评估附带来源的感知可信度
在刑事责任评估中,使用外行和法医专家的独立样本,将社交媒体数据(即Twitter帖子)的感知可信度与更传统的附带来源进行了比较。总的来说,结果表明,相对于其他两种来源,人们对社交媒体的怀疑程度更高,尤其是当信息显示出精神疾病时。然而,这两个样本都认为这条推文可能有用。值得注意的是,这两项研究都受到实验设计的限制,实验设计旨在捕捉初步印象,而不是完全模仿标准评估和法庭程序。在将社交媒体数据作为抵押品时,我们提倡谨慎但开放的态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Participant and Facilitator Experiences of Restorative Justice Interventions in the Forensic Secure Estate Exploring Cognitive Functioning among Forensic Mental Health Inpatients Patterns of Mental Health Service Contacts for Young People Deemed Eligible for Court Diversion Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Forensic Mental Health: An Introduction to the Special Issue Caring for Male Prisoners Who Self-Harm: Perceptions, Attitudes and Experiences of Custodial Prison Staff and Male Prisoners in England
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1