The Internet is a scary place: How does evidence source and examinee race or ethnicity influence determinations of threat?

Violent rhetoric online is becoming increasingly relevant to the practice of forensic mental health assessment as examinee's virtual lives may transform into real-world acts of violence. With the rise of a diverse subculture of violent online communities, the aim of the present study was to inform how concerns with online sources of collateral data and racial/ethnic biases may influence determinations of violence potential. Using an experimental design, jury-eligible participants (N = 278) and forensic mental health experts (N = 78) were presented with mock Twitter (now referred to as X) posts that varied by data source (i.e., how information was accessed) and the examinee's race/ethnicity. Results showed no differences in participants' ratings of data credibility, how much weight they would place on the posts in a threat assessment, or how likely the examinee was to act violently against his intended target. Implications regarding the interpretation of social media evidence, relevant limitations, and future research are discussed.