By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
Here is a question of trust. You’re curious about a party, a witness, or a potential juror, so you log in to Facebook or some other social networking site to check them out. It might feel a little creepy to be peeking in on the public representations of your target’s private life, though as we’ve written in the past, as long as privacy walls aren’t breached or circumvented, public information is public information. Still, there may be one other reason for feeling quesy about the investigation: What if the information isn’t accurate? What if, instead of using social media to share real facts about themselves and their personalities, they’re using Facebook to fabricate idealized and distorted images of themselves?
There is the natural drive toward social desirability, the human tendency to shade shared information in the direction of what we believe society would favor. Is that a reason to doubt the information provided on Facebook? According to some new research, no, because individual online profiles are much more accurate than you would think. This post takes a look at the accuracy of social media, and provides some tips on the ways litigators can and should use that information.
Social Media Research For Litigators
Much of the attention toward Facebook in a court context has focused on “jurors behaving badly,” as an aptly named blog by Minnesota Judge Steve Halsey puts it, like the British juror recently jailed for contacting the defendant through Facebook, or the Detroit juror who declared the defendant guilty in a Facebook status update during trial. However, the other side of the story on Facebook use is coming from the attorneys, who increasingly use social media to gather information, or even to create a timeline that contradicts an opposing party’s.
One recent study (Back et al., 2010) aimed directly at the question of whether you can trust what you read on Facebook. That is, because individuals construct their own online “personality,” does the imperative for social desirability mean that everyone will be slim, smart, fun-loving, and easy-going? There is some of that to be sure, but the surprising answer is that you can trust information on Facebook more than you would think.
The psychologists compared the online personalities with the actual measured personalities of 236 students in the United States and Germany. Specifically, the researchers looked at participants’ real world extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience, using recognized psychological scales. Then they tested how effective independent observers would be in evaluating the participants’ actual personalities based upon their online social networking profiles.
The answer is that these observers were generally effective at getting the gist of the participants’ personality based on the Facebook page. In other words, the participants using Facebook were more likely to represent their actual selves than their idealized selves.
Recommendations:
So when you are assessing a party, a witness, or a potential juror based on their Facebook profile, what should you look for? The final list will depend on the needs of your case, but as a starter, I’d suggest looking at four aspects of the profile:
1. Look at the number of friends. Yes, it is true, Facebook is a little like the schoolyard popularity contest writ large and public. While we would be tempted to dismiss “friend level” as just a measure of someone’s persistence or technical savvy, there is some research (Rees & Kanai, 2011) to say that those with greater numbers of Facebook friends actually have more grey matter in the regions of the brain (e.g., amygdala) associated with processing memory and emotional response. They also have more real world friends, so it is tough to tease out which causes which. But in any case, the research provides support for the idea that greater numbers of online connections can be treated as a proxy for greater sociability. Sociability matters to litigators both because it can predict who might be the kind of “people person” who emerges as a leader, and because there is some evidence (Ray, 1980) to indicate that more extraverted and sociable individuals are less likely to be authoritarian personalities, prone to being pro-defense and pro-prosecution.
2. Look at the activity level. Is this person’s online presence a “set and forget” account, or is this person updating their status on a daily basis? The answer to that can tell you how reliable the Facebook information is. The more frequently it is updated, then the more likely it is that the online content will conform to the individual’s actual personality traits.
3. Look for activity during trial. As some of the examples above show, Facebook activities can occur (status updates, contacts, and comments) can occur during trial as well, which makes it a good idea to monitor social media until the verdict in the case, and maybe even a little bit longer. When it is a a juror providing information during trial, that can be a good reason for a mistrial, but when it is a party or a witness, then it can be illuminating, or even fodder for tomorrow’s cross-examination. Taking the idea of social media to the next level, Amy Singer, the consultant in the Casey Anthony defense, had a team monitoring scores of blogs and accounts during that trial and using the data as a continuous virtual focus group providing day to day feedback during the trial.
4. Look for attitudes on case relevant issues. Of all of the humorous, familial, and arcane content expressed on Facebook, the most important information will be those attitudes that bear on the issues of your case. For example, if you are defending a corporation, then comments expressing support or opposition toward the current “Occupy Wall Street” movement could provide relevant context. Anything that bears upon the high-risk juror profile that you’ve developed is worth your close attention when it appears in a target’s social media world.
One thing is for sure: The time has passed for treating Facebook and other social media as passing fads or fora that cater exclusively to the youngsters. Litigators have a responsibility to know as much as permissible and possible about witnesses, parties, and jurors, and that includes checking out their online selves as well.
_______
Related Posts:
- Conduct a Social Media Analysis on Your Potential Jurors (But Beware of False Expectations of Privacy)
- Take a Discovery Lesson From ‘The Social Network’
- In Jury Selection, Pay All Kinds of Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
_______
Back MD, Stopfer JM, Vazire S, Gaddis S, Schmukle SC, Egloff B, & Gosling SD (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological science, 21 (3), 372-4 PMID: 20424071
Photo Collage Credit: Dan Taylor, Flickr Creative Commons