Using Internet and Social Media Data as Collateral ... - PsycNET

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Using Internet and Social Media Data as Collateral Sources of Information in Forensic Evaluations Gianni Pirelli, Randy K. Otto, and Ashley Estoup Online First Publication, January 11, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000061

CITATION Pirelli, G., Otto, R. K., & Estoup, A. (2016, January 11). Using Internet and Social Media Data as Collateral Sources of Information in Forensic Evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000061

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2016, Vol. 47, No. 1, 000

© 2016 American Psychological Association 0735-7028/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000061

Using Internet and Social Media Data as Collateral Sources of Information in Forensic Evaluations Gianni Pirelli

Randy K. Otto

Verona, New Jersey

University of South Florida

Ashley Estoup This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Fairleigh Dickinson University Increasing use of Internet search engines (e.g., Google), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), and commentary vehicles (e.g., Twitter) has prompted discussion regarding users’ privacy. Whereas there is a growing professional literature pertaining to the use of data drawn from social media sources in employment, university admissions, and health-care settings, few publications address the use of Internet data in forensic mental health assessment contexts. In this paper, we consider the appropriateness of professionals seeking and incorporating Internet and social media data when conducting forensic psychological evaluations, and we set forth a call for research and additional commentary. Keywords: forensic psychology, forensic evaluation, forensic mental health assessment, social media, Internet

have also been devoted to considering the use of data drawn from Internet sources in employment, university admissions, and healthcare settings.1 However, there is a dearth of literature devoted to the use of data professionals gather from the Internet during forensic mental health assessments. That which is published is relatively recent and has been authored by forensic psychiatrists (e.g., see the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law’s (AAPL) guideline, Glancy et al., 2015; Metzner & Ash, 2010; Neimark, Hurford, & DiGiacomo, 2006; Recupero, 2008, 2010). In this paper, we first review the literature that addresses use of Internet data sources in health-care settings; second, we focus on matters for forensic psychological practitioners to consider with respect to incorporating Internet and social media data in forensic evaluations; and last, we set forth a call for research and further commentary in the area. Some health-care professionals conduct online searches or access social networking sites to gain information about their patients that may be relevant to treatment and which they might otherwise be unwilling to disclose (e.g., lifestyle choices). Some commentators have expressed concerns about the ethics of this practice as well as the utility of the data gathered. For example, Brashler (2011) presented a case involving a nurse who conducted an Internet search to gather information about a child patient’s mother whose behavior was of concern. After finding information

People are using search engines (e.g., Google, Yahoo), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn), and commentary vehicles (e.g., Twitter, Snapchat) with increasing frequency. This use has prompted discussions in the social communications literature about ethical issues regarding use of online information, particularly as it relates to privacy (e.g., Fernback & Papacharissi, 2007; Lange, 2007; Light & McGrath, 2010). Professional discussions

GIANNI PIRELLI received his PhD in clinical-forensic psychology from The Graduate Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He is a licensed psychologist in New Jersey and New York. Dr. Pirelli maintains a private practice in clinical and forensic psychology, particularly in the area of forensic mental health assessment, whereby he conducts a wide range of clinical and clinical-forensic evaluations in various criminal and civil legal matters (www.gpirelli.com). His primary areas of research include forensic mental health assessment, firearm-related issues, and ethics and standards of practice in forensic psychology. RANDY K. OTTO received his PhD in clinical psychology from Florida State University, after which he completed an NIMH-funded fellowship in the College of Law and Department of Psychology at the University of Nebraska. He has served as President of the American Psychology-Law Society, the American Board of Forensic Psychology, and the American Board of Professional Psychology. He chaired the committee that revised the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology and he also served on the American Bar Association Task Force that revised the Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards. ASHLEY ESTOUP received her MA in forensic psychology at Fairleigh Dickinson University. She is currently a doctoral student in the clinical psychology program at Seattle Pacific University. Her primary areas of interest include adolescent psychopathology and delinquency, with an emphasis in substance use and other risky behaviors. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Gianni Pirelli, PhD, 80 Pompton Avenue, Suite 204, Verona, NJ 07044. E-mail: [email protected]

1 This issue has been addressed in other types of settings as well, including in law enforcement, other civil service contexts, and in the legal profession. For example, in 2012, New Jersey Senate Bill 199 was signed into law prohibiting first responders from disseminating photographs of accident victims and patients to the public without their consent (New Jersey, 2012). Furthermore, law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions have begun to use social networking sites as forums to disseminate and glean information from community members (Augenstein, 2013), and some legal professionals use such sites to generate evidence and to interact with others in the field (see Lakhani, 2013).

1

PIRELLI, OTTO, AND ESTOUP

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2

about the mother’s criminal history on a web log, the nurse shared the information with other treatment providers, prompting questions about the appropriateness of the search and what should be done with the information. After presenting arguments for and against conducting online searches for the purpose of gaining patient information, Brashler (2011) ultimately deferred to practitioners and professional organizations, and cautioned that a distinction should be made between information obtained from government databases and other data sources that may not have been screened or fact-checked. Similarly, Crigger and Wynia (2011) raised questions about the accuracy of online searches and the appropriateness of relying on data that suggest “suspicion and second guessing” (p. 375). They concluded that the “most effective channels for obtaining clinical data are already part of the faceto-face patient–physician relationship in the history and physical examination, results of diagnostic interventions, and records from other professional caregivers” (p. 374).

Mental Health Services The literature examining use of the Internet to provide mental health services—alternately referred to as teletherapy, telepsychology, e-therapy, online counseling, cybertherapy, web counseling, and computer-mediated psychotherapy— has grown considerably over the past decade (see, e.g., Alleman, 2002; Drum & Littleton, 2014; Grajales, Sheps, Ho, Novak-Lauscher, & Eysenbach, 2014; Heinlen, Welfel, Richmond, & O’Donnell, 2003; Manhal-Baugus, 2001; Midkiff & Wyatt, 2008; Wells, Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Becker-Blease, 2007; Zur, Williams, Lehavot, & Knapp, 2009). More recently, however, a number of articles have been published with a focus on mental health professionals’ use of the Internet to gather information about their clients (e.g., Asay & Lal, 2014; Clinton, Silverman, & Brendel, 2010; DiLillo & Gale, 2011; Harris, & Robinson Kurpius, 2014; Kaslow, Patterson, & Gottlieb, 2011; Kolmes & Taube, 2014; Lannin & Scott, 2013; Pham, 2014; Powell & Clarke, 2006). DiLillo and Gale (2011) surveyed 854 students enrolled in clinical, counseling, and school psychology doctoral programs in the United States and Canada. Of the respondents, 67% opined that it was never acceptable or usually not acceptable to seek information about a client via a search engine (e.g., Google), and 77% responded similarly with respect to accessing data about clients by searching networking sites (e.g., Facebook). However, there was a significant discrepancy between the attitudes and practices of these therapists in training. Specifically, of the 783 participants who reported having provided therapeutic services at some time in the past, 97% admitted that they had, at least once, sought information about their clients using an Internet search engine, and 94% acknowledged they had sought such information by searching social networking sites. In contrast, a much smaller percentage of the clinical psychology and counseling psychology graduate students Asay and Lal (2014) surveyed acknowledged seeking data about their clients via the Internet. Only 26% reported ever using the Internet to gather information about their clients. Yet 64% reported they had searched for information about colleagues online and 45% acknowledged searching for information about supervisors using the Internet. As is the case in health-care settings more generally, conducting Internet searches to gather information about clients receiving mental health services raises concerns around issues of informed

consent and privacy, as well as how such actions might impact development and maintenance of a trusting, therapeutic relationship. In therapeutic contexts, clients typically reveal personal information when they feel comfortable doing so. Kaslow and her colleagues (2011) suggested that psychologists who search for information about clients in this way are adopting an investigative role, which communicates a lack of trust and can damage the therapeutic relationship. Clinton et al. (2010) contended that this behavior was particularly complicated when mental health professionals engage in it, given the unique dynamics of psychotherapist– client relationships. Kolmes and Taube (2014) surveyed 227 psychotherapists (psychologists–59%, professional counselors–16%, clinical social workers–12%, marriage and family therapists–10%, psychiatrists– 2%). Of the 227 respondents, 63 (28%) reported “accidently” coming across client information while online, with the majority of such incidents occurring on Facebook (70%). Approximately half the participants (48%) reported using the Internet to search for information about their clients in noncrisis situations and without their clients’ knowledge. Only 4% of the respondents reported that learning the information had a negative effect on treatment, whereas the vast majority thought that it had no impact (56%) or a positive impact (40%). Most of the respondents (72%) indicated that their objectivity had not been compromised by having access to the information, and nearly all (90%) believed that it did not affect their ability to maintain a professional role or provide treatment. Some commentators have developed frameworks to guide health-care professionals’ decision making around this issue. Clinton et al. (2010) suggested that, when contemplating searching the Internet for client information, health-care professionals consider their motivations along with the associated risks and benefits. They provided six questions for health-care professionals to ask themselves before searching the Internet for information about their clients: (a) “Why do I want to conduct this search?” (b) “Would my search advance or compromise treatment?” (c) “Should I obtain informed consent from the patient?” (d) “Should I share the search results with the patient?” (e) “Should I document the search findings in the health-care record?” and (f) “How do I monitor my motivations and the ongoing risk– benefit profile of searching?” Lannin and Scott (2013) identified similarities between ethical challenges faced by practitioners in the online world and those who practice in rural and other “small-world” settings. They observed that, despite the obvious differences, both online and rural environments can result in “pervasive incidental contact, inevitable self-disclosure, and unavoidable multiple relationships” (p. 136). They suggested that the analyses practitioners in rural and other small-world settings employ could inform practitioners in online contexts, and they recommended that the American Psychological Association (APA) develop specific guidelines addressing issues of boundary management, technological competence, and professional and personal liability around these matters.

Forensic Mental Health Assessment In their discussion of the appropriateness of therapists searching for information about their clients using the Internet, Kaslow and her colleagues (2011) wrote, “When a psychologist turns investigator, one’s professional integrity and motivation may be called

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

INTERNET DATA AND FORENSIC EVALUATIONS

into question, and suspicion and discomfort about intrusions into one’s personal life may seriously erode the therapeutic, supervisory, or employment relationship” (p. 111). However, therapeutic and forensic activities differ in many ways, including how and in what ways the examiner goes about learning information about the examinee (Greenberg & Shuman, 1997, 2007). Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) involves evaluation of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive functioning of someone whose mental state is at issue in a legal proceeding (Heilbrun, 2001). Although mental health professionals have conducted these types of evaluations for over 100 years, significant advances in forensic mental health practice have occurred within the past 30 years, including publication of seminal texts (e.g., Grisso, 1986, 2003; Heilbrun, 2001; Heilbrun, DeMatteo, Brooks Holliday, & LaDuke, 2014; Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, 2009; Melton et al., 2007) and various ethics codes and forensic practice guidelines (e.g., APA, 2002/2010, 2013). Despite significant advancements in forensic psychology practice, use of Internet data in forensic evaluations has yet to receive attention in the professional literature. In contrast, forensic psychiatry has already begun to address these issues (e.g., see the AAPL guideline, Glancy et al., 2015; Metzner & Ash, 2010; Neimark et al., 2006; Recupero, 2008, 2010), which we discuss in more detail below. There is no equivalent forensic psychology literature. The one published study examining the use of Internet searches in forensic practice has little relevance to forensic psychological evaluation. Neal, Cramer, Ziemke, and Brodsky (2013) investigated the use of Internet-based searches when selecting juries. Specifically, the authors discussed the feasibility and ethical implications of using the Internet to acquire information about potential jurors. The APA’s “Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (APA, 2002, 2010, hereinafter EPPCC) and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013; hereinafter SGFP) provide some direction around these matters with respect to issues of privacy and opinion formation. When conducting forensic evaluations, psychologists are obligated to comply with the EPPCC. And, although the APA considers all of its published guidelines to be aspirational, psychologists should act in ways consistent with them. However, because the EPPCC and SGFP do not directly address issues related to the use of the Internet to gather data about forensic examinees, we offer the following considerations for practitioners.

Considerations for Incorporating Internet Data in Forensic Evaluations 1. Forensic practitioners who use Internet data should conceptualize them as a type of collateral information. Insofar as data gathered on the Internet comprise one type of collateral information, decisions about the use of such information should be made in the same way as decisions about use and access of other collateral data sources (e.g., interviews with friends, family, and other professionals; educational, health-care, employment, and military records). Furthermore, because data acquired via the Internet represent simply one type of collateral data, even examinees’ own words from blogs or other online postings should not be considered self-report data in the context of a forensic assessment. Evaluators must distinguish between information collected during the forensic examination and that which is attributed to the exam-

3

inee from an external source. This is akin to examinees’ statements in collateral documents, such as police reports. Like any data obtained as part of a forensic examination, Internet data should be weighed with respect to its level of utility (i.e., as having more or less weight), rather than as valid or invalid. Therefore, evaluators must consider the source of the data, its characteristics (e.g., the date and context in which it was written), and, ultimately, its convergence or divergence with other available data. 2. Although searching for and using internet-based data is not prohibited by the EPPCC or forensic practice guidelines, forensic practitioners should consider conducting Internet searches in evaluations on a case-by-case basis, weighing the potential utility versus the potentially prejudicial effects of such data. Countless unforeseeable scenarios arise in forensic work, thereby rendering many inflexible rules inappropriate. Forensic evaluators should distinguish between practices that are required, permitted, or prohibited (Otto, 2015). Professional actions that are required or prohibited do not lend themselves to much discretion, whereas actions that are permissible may present the most challenging ethical dilemmas for forensic practitioners. Given the lack of direction at this time regarding psychologists’ accessing and relying on data gathered on the Internet when they conduct forensic evaluations, and the resulting potential for complications, psychologists should act cautiously when they consider how they might use such data. And so no standards or guidelines can be interpreted as prohibiting examiners from seeking this information, but nor can any be interpreted as requiring collection of such data. As such, the primary question for practitioners relates to the advisability of doing so. Put differently, are Internet searches permitted and inadvisable or permitted and advisable? We look to our forensic psychiatry colleagues for some perspective. While focusing on problematic use of the Internet by forensic examinees, Recupero (2008, 2010) noted that information about examinees’ “Internet presence” or “digital footprint” can be gleaned from review of Internet-based data (2010, p. 17). She contended that reviewing Internet data—whether provided by the referral source or accessed independently by the examiner— can provide a more complete picture of the examinee and inform judgments about response styles, as well. However, Recupero (2010) acknowledged the questionable validity of much of what is online and directed that, “The psychiatrist should consider the credibility or reliability of the source for Internet-based collateral information” (p. 21). Metzner and Ash (2010) also identified the potential value of Internet searches, but raised concerns about examiners’ abilities to understand and interpret such information. Most recently, the AAPL addressed Internet searches in its “Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment” (Glancy et al., 2015). Internet searches regarding the evaluee can also provide useful information. Social networking sites and other Internet social forums may contain information about the evaluee that conflicts with data provided by the evaluee or others, warranting further examination to contextualize this apparent conflict. An evaluee’s online persona may constitute impression management or posturing, as people often behave or present themselves differently online than in person. It is also possible that the online information is more accurate than what the evaluee is telling the police and experts (p. S10).

The “AAPL Practice Guideline” (Glancy et al., 2015) suggests that it is permissible to use the Internet to gain information about

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

4

PIRELLI, OTTO, AND ESTOUP

examinees, at least insofar as it notes that Internet searches can provide “useful information;” social networking sites and online social forms “may contain information about the evaluee that conflicts with data provided by the evaluee . . .” (p. S10). This guideline, however, neither obligates nor encourages forensic psychiatric examiners to seek such information. Commentary in the forensic psychiatry literature reflects a similar sentiment. Namely, Recupero (2010) noted that an examinee’s Internet use “can be relevant” and “may help to confirm, corroborate, refute or elaborate on the psychiatrist’s general impression of the person” (p. 23). Moreover, she suggested that Internet-based information may reveal “difficulties in mood or affect regulation, problems with thought process or content, and impaired impulse control . . . [and] can help the psychiatrist to assess for impaired insight and judgment.” She also noted that “digital evidence can be especially useful in assessments of impairment, credibility, and dangerousness or risk, particularly when the evaluee is uncooperative or unreliable in the face-to-face psychiatric examination” (p. 15). Metzner and Ash (2010) wrote largely in support of Recupero’s positions, but identified three complications that can arise when using such data: (a) The coding of the message itself may be difficult for the expert to understand (e.g., deciphering a text message); (b) because people present themselves on the Internet differently than they do in face-to-face contexts, it is not always clear how to interpret their digital communications; and (c) generational differences surrounding use of the Internet may be at work, so that many forensic psychiatrists may not have a clear sense of what constitutes “normal” Internet use and communication. Taken together, we can say with certainty that (a) neither ethical standards nor professional guidelines in forensic psychology directly speak to the appropriateness of searching for and using examinees’ Internet-based data; (b) there is no empirical research or published professional commentary discussing the appropriateness of searching for and using Internet data when conducting forensic psychological evaluations; and (c) forensic psychiatric practice guidelines and literature surrounding the issue indicate that Internet searches are permissible, but not required, and may provide insight into an examinee’s emotional, behavioral, and cognitive functioning. Undoubtedly, some data gathered from the Internet can inform forensic psychological evaluations. However, at the current time, prudent psychologists may choose to forgo searching the Internet to gather data about examinees. Prudent practitioners may wait until data about examiners’ practices, professional guidelines, and more commentary become available. In contrast, with the caveats discussed below, even prudent examiners might rely on Internetbased data that have been gathered by others because such is not appreciably different from considering other types of collateral data that are sometimes gathered about examinees without their consent or knowledge (e.g., surveillance videos). 3. With rare exceptions, forensic practitioners who gather and/or rely on Internet-based data should discuss this practice during the retention and informed-consent processes. Psychologists who have gathered or been provided Internet-based data, or anticipate such, should disclose this to the examinee during the informed-consent process. Specifically, examiners should instruct examinees about the manner in which these data have been or will be collected, integrated, and disseminated. Standard 9.03 of the EPPCC (APA, 2010) requires that psychologists,

with rare exceptions, obtain informed consent from examinees, and the SGFP directs that direct forensic practitioners “inform service recipients about the nature and parameters of the services to be provided” (APA, 2013, Guideline 6, p. 12). Forensic practitioners typically inform examinees of the data sources included in an evaluation, such as the clinical-forensic interview, psychological testing, interview of collateral informants, and review of records. Given what is likely to be uncommon use at this time, evaluators should specifically inform examinees and those who retain them (e.g., attorneys, disability insurers) if they intend to search and/or rely upon data gathered from the Internet when conducting evaluations. There may be times, however, when examinees should not be informed about a potential Internet search. For example, psychologists might choose not to inform examinees about a potential Internet search if they fear they may be combative, or if their mental state is otherwise compromised, such that providing them with this information would result in an unacceptable risk of some sort (e.g., actively paranoid, delusional, or otherwise psychotic). 4. With rare exceptions, forensic practitioners should provide examinees with data gathered via the Internet and allow them to address it. Just as they would with other types of collateral data (e.g., police reports, witness and/or victim statements, treatment records, employment records, military records), psychologists should provide examinees the opportunity to respond to all collateral with which they are provided, including data gathered using the Internet. Doing so would allow examinees to challenge the content of what was yielded, or explain its context, which is critical to considering the weight the examiner should provide it. Examiners who fail to discuss collateral data with examinees are likely to be challenged on cross-examination, particularly if the Internet data were purported to represent an examinee’s own words (e.g., tweets from a Twitter account). There may be, however, rare situations in which such information is contraindicated. For instance, a forensic examiner might not discuss Internet data with an examinee if doing so posed a potentially serious risk to someone’s health or safety. 5. Forensic practitioners should be explicit about their use of and reliance upon any data gathered via the Internet in their reports and testimony. Given the professional obligation of transparency when conducting evaluations (see, e.g., EPPCC Standard 9.01 and SGFP Guidelines 9.02, 10.06, and 11.03; APA, 2010, APA, 2013, Guideline 6, p. 12, respectively), forensic examiners should identify in their reports and testimony any Internet data they considered, and whether the examinee was provided the opportunity to respond to them. And, when providing testimony, psychologists should disclose Internet-based data thy relied upon in drawing important opinions, along with whether the examinee was provided the opportunity to discuss the information. Forensic examiners should always be prepared to discuss with fact finders their methods and the data they considered, regardless of the weight they placed on it. Specifically, Section 9.01 of the EPPCC directs that, “Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings” (APA, 2010, p. 12). This standard makes clear that psychologists can only offer opinions for which they have an adequate database. Similarly, SGFP Guideline 9.02 (APA, 2013) stresses the importance of relying on

INTERNET DATA AND FORENSIC EVALUATIONS

multiple sources of information when conducting forensic evaluations, and Guideline 10.06 directs forensic practitioners to document “all data they consider with enough detail and quality to allow for reasonable judicial scrutiny and adequate discovery by all parties” (p. 16). Guideline 11.03 encourages practitioners to disclose all sources of information obtained and to “identify the source of each piece of information that was considered and relied upon in formulating a particular conclusion, opinion, or other professional product” (p. 17).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Future Research and Commentary There is no published literature addressing the use of Internet data in forensic psychological evaluations. This is not surprising, as technology often outpaces professionals’ decision making about its appropriate use. It is important that the profession consider these matters and provide practitioners with guidance. We can begin this analysis by looking to the EPPCC, SGFP, (APA, 2010, 2013) and the forensic psychiatry literature. Worthy areas of inquiry include, but are not limited to, surveying the attitudes of forensic psychologists, judges, attorneys, and other referral sources about use of these data; investigating psychologists’ practices via review of reports summarizing forensic evaluations; searching state and federal statutes for prohibitions against the use of and reliance on these types of data when conducting forensic evaluations; and offering commentary and presenting cases demonstrating appropriate and inappropriate use of these data. An important first step is to survey the attitudes and practices of forensic psychologists, attorneys, judges, and other service recipients. It will be beneficial to survey psychologists about the frequency with which they use the Internet to gather data about forensic examinees, as well as the frequency with which they consider Internet-based data they are provided by referral sources. Also important is assessing practitioners’ attitudes about searching the Internet and using any data gathered when performing forensic evaluations. Second, we should investigate the practices of forensic psychological examiners. Survey research can be useful in gaining a sense of attitudes and practices, but it is susceptible to self-report limitations (e.g., impression management, socially desirable responding, rounding errors, inattentive responding, and missing data). Coding reports summarizing forensic evaluations can circumvent some of these issues. Nevertheless, this approach also has limitations because practitioners may not identify Internet sites or search engines as specific data sources. Third, we should determine whether there are any legal roadblocks to these practices. Researchers should search state and federal statutes and rules for prohibitions against the use of and reliance on Internet-based data by forensic examiners. Last, professional commentary and case studies considering the appropriate and inappropriate use of Internet data are sorely needed. We have offered some recommendations that are conservative and preliminary. We hope to encourage research and additional commentary so that appropriate and inappropriate uses of this technology will be identified for forensic psychological examiners and the recipients of their services.

5 References

Alleman, J. R. (2002). Online counseling: The Internet and mental health treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39, 199 –209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.39.2.199 American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060 –1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060 American Psychological Association. (2010). 2010 Amendments to the 2002 “Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.” American Psychologist, 65, 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020168 American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0029889 Asay, P. A., & Lal, A. (2014). Who’s Googled whom? Trainees’ Internet and online social networking experiences, behaviors, and attitudes with clients and supervisors. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8, 105–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000035 Augenstein, S. (2013, September). Police on Facebook: Law enforcement using social media to connect with public. Retrieved from http://www .nj.com/sussexcounty/index.ssf/2013/09/to_like_leads_and_share_ tips_facebook_police_pages_help_investigation_prompt_debate.html Brashler, R. (2011). Ethics legal feature: Should health care professionals Google patients or family members? Column introduction. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 3, 372–374. Clinton, B. K., Silverman, B. C., & Brendel, D. H. (2010). Patient-targeted Googling: The ethics of searching online for patient information. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18, 103–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/ 10673221003683861 Crigger, B. J., & Wynia, M. K. (2011). Googling patients and surrogates: Not for health care professionals. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 3, 374 –375. DiLillo, D., & Gale, E. B. (2011). To Google or not to Google: Graduate students’ use of the Internet to access personal information about clients. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 5, 160 –166. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024441 Drum, K. B., & Littleton, H. L. (2014). Therapeutic boundaries in telepsychology: Unique issues and best practice recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 309 –315. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0036127 Fernback, J., & Papacharissi, Z. (2007). Online privacy as legal safeguard: The relationship among consumer, online portal, and privacy policies. New Media & Society, 9, 715–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444807080336 Glancy, G. D., Ash, P., Bath, E. P., Buchanan, A., Fedoroff, P., Frierson, R. L., . . . Zonana, H. V. (2015). “AAPL Practice Guideline” for the Forensic Assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, S3–S53. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/content/ 43/2_Supplement/S3.full Grajales, F. J., III, Sheps, S., Ho, K., Novak-Lauscher, H., & Eysenbach, G. (2014). Social media: A review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2912 Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50 –57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.50 Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 129 –132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.2.129 Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessment and instruments. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum. Original published 1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5046-8 Harris, S. E., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2014). Social networking and professional ethics: Client searches, informed consent, and disclosure.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

6

PIRELLI, OTTO, AND ESTOUP

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 11–19. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0033478 Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum. Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Brooks Holliday, S., & LaDuke, C. (Eds.). (2014). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heilbrun, K., Grisso, T., & Goldstein, A. M. (2009). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heinlen, K. T., Welfel, E. R., Richmond, E. N., & O’Donnell, M. S. (2003). The nature, scope, and ethics of psychologists’ e-therapy Web sites: What consumers find when surfing the Web. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 40, 112–124. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0033-3204.40.1-2.112 Kaslow, F. W., Patterson, T., & Gottlieb, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing Internet data: Is it justified? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0022002 Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2014). Seeking and finding our clients on the Internet: Boundary considerations in cyberspace. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0029958 Lakhani, A. (2013). Social networking sites and the legal profession: Balancing benefits with navigating minefields. Computer Law & Security Review, 29, 164 –174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.01.008 Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 361–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00400.x Lannin, D. G., & Scott, N. A. (2013). Social networking ethics: Developing best practices for the new small world. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44, 135–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031794 Light, B., & McGrath, K. (2010). Ethics and social networking sites: A disclosive analysis of Facebook. Information Technology & People, 23, 290 –311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593841011087770 Manhal-Baugus, M. (2001). E-therapy: Practical, ethical, and legal issues. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 551–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ 109493101753235142 Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Metzner, J. L., & Ash, P. (2010). Commentary: The Mental Status Examination in the age of the Internet. Challenges and opportunities. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 27–31. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/1/27.full Midkiff, D. M., & Wyatt, W. J. (2008). Ethical issues in the provision of online mental health services (etherapy). Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26, 310 –332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228830802096994 Neal, T. M. S., Cramer, R. J., Ziemke, M. H., & Brodsky, S. L. (2013). Online searches for jury selection. Criminal Law Bulletin, 49, 305–318. Neimark, G., Hurford, M. O., & DiGiacomo, J. (2006). The Internet as collateral informant. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.10.1842 New Jersey, P.L. 2012 c.75, C.18A:3-29 –32, §§1– 4. Otto, R. K. (2015, March). Ethical challenges in forensic psychological assessment. Annual Meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society (AP-LS), San Diego, CA. Pham, A. V. (2014). Navigating social networking and social media in school psychology: Ethical and professional considerations in training programs. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 767–778. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1002/pits.21774 Powell, J., & Clarke, A. (2006). Internet information-seeking in mental health: Population survey. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 273– 277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.105.017319 Recupero, P. R. (2008). Forensic evaluation of problematic Internet use. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 505–514. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/4/505 .full?cited-by⫽yes&related-urls⫽yes&legid⫽jaapl;36/4/505 Recupero, P. R. (2010). The mental status examination in the age of the Internet. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 15–26. Wells, M., Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Becker-Blease, K. A. (2007). Online mental health treatment: Concerns and considerations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 453– 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb .2006.9933 Zur, O., Williams, M. H., Lehavot, K., & Knapp, S. (2009). Psychotherapist self-disclosure and transparency in the Internet age. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0014745

Received April 25, 2015 Revision received September 1, 2015 Accepted October 25, 2015 䡲