General Recommendations for Integrating Internet-Based Data in Forensic Mental Health Assessments and What We Still Need to Know

  • Ashley B. BatastiniEmail author
  • Michael J. Vitacco
  • Ashley R. Bozeman


The concluding chapter of this edited book summarizes the overall purpose of book and aggregates the take-away points from individual chapters. Based on common themes highlighted in the assessment-specific chapters, this chapter discusses broader implications of using SNS and Internet-based data in the field of psychology-law and provides a more comprehensive set of practice recommendations designed to capture the unique challenges presented by online collateral sources. Finally, we propose directions for continued research with forensic clinicians, legal decision-makers, and the general public to improve our understanding about the prevalence of SNS and Internet sources in expert psycho-legal evaluations for the courts, as well as perceptions of these types of data that may influence clinical or legal outcomes.


Forensic mental health assessment, Social media Internet Collateral data Research Practice guidelines 


  1. American Psychological Association (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. American Psychologist, 68(1) 7–19.
  2. American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from
  3. Bandes, S. A., & Salerno, J. M. (2014). Emotion, proof, and prejudice: The cognitive science of gruesome photos and victim impact statements. Arizona State Law Journal, 46(3), 1003–1056.Google Scholar
  4. Batastini, A. B., Vitacco, M. J., Jones, A. C. T., Davis, R. M. (2019). Perceived credibility of social media data as a collateral source in criminal responsibility assessment using an experimental design. Manuscript in prep.Google Scholar
  5. Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke, M. (2019). Perceptions and uses of internet-based data in forensic mental health assessment: A survey of forensic psychologists. (Unpublished dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. ProQuest Information & Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Cate, C. T. D., Schnurr, K., Stinson, J., & McPherson, A. C. (2019). Connected for health: Examining the use of a health-related social media platform for children with chronic medical conditions. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(4), 585–591.Google Scholar
  8. Coffey, C. A., Batastini, A. B., & Vitacco, M. J. (2018). Clues from the digital world: A survey of clinicians’ reliance on social media as collateral data in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(5–6), 345–354. doi: 10.1037/pro0000206Google Scholar
  9. DeMier, R. L. (2013). Forensic report writing. In R. K. Otto & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (pp. 75–98). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..Google Scholar
  10. Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Dror, I. E. (2015). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability and Risk, 14(1), 1–25. Scholar
  11. Keller, M. S., Park, H. J., Cunningham, M. E., Fouladian, J. E., Chen, M., & Spiegel, B. M. R. (2017). Public perceptions regarding use of virtual reality in health care: A social media content analysis using Facebook. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(12), e419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2014). Seeking and finding our clients on the internet: Boundary considerations in cyberspace. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lim, Y., & An, S. (2018). Effects of attributions and social media exposure on obesity stigma among Korean adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 46(12), 2049–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Linquist, L. A., & Ramirez, Z. V. (2019). Visual abstracts to disseminate geriatrics research through social media. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67(6), 1128–1131.Google Scholar
  15. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2015). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 1–17. Scholar
  17. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pirelli, G., Hartigan, S., & Zapf, P. A. (2018). Using the internet for collateral information in forensic mental health evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 157–169. Scholar
  20. Pirelli, G., Otto, R. K., & Estoup, A. (2016). Using internet and social media data as collateral sources of information in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O’Donnell, P., & Lambert, M. J. (2012). An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 639–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashley B. Batastini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael J. Vitacco
    • 2
  • Ashley R. Bozeman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  2. 2.Augusta UniversityAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations