In attempts to identify and remove biased individuals from a pool of potential jurors, attorneys have resorted to real-time social media investigations, looking at the opinions and affiliations of candidates. Attorneys’ conclusions are based less on founded research and more on their own personal opinions and common-sense theories. This study investigated the relationship between self-reported Facebook “sharing”/“liking” behavior and victim blaming in a sexual assault scenario. Using an online questionnaire, participants indicated how they would interact with controversial memes and news articles on Facebook, gave a recommended verdict and sentencing length for a sexual assault vignette, as well as completed a rape myth acceptance scale. Logistic and linear regression analyses showed that both gender and liberal sharing behavior were significant predictors of verdict decision and sentencing length. Women were more likely to find a defendant guilty than men, and jurors who share more liberal-leaning posts on Facebook were more likely to give a longer sentencing length. Results suggest that Facebook post-sharing could be a useful gauge of jurors’ attitudes.

为了从一群潜在的陪审员中识别和消除有偏见的人，律师们诉诸于实时的社交媒体调查，着眼于候选人的意见和从属关系。律师的结论很少基于已有的研究，而更多地基于他们自己的个人见解和常识性理论。这项研究调查了自我报告的Facebook“分享” /“喜欢”行为与在性侵犯情景中责备受害者之间的关系。参与者使用在线调查表表明了他们将如何与Facebook上有争议的模因和新闻文章互动，给出了性侵犯小插图的推荐判决和量刑长度，并完成了强奸神话的接受量表。逻辑和线性回归分析表明，性别和自由分享行为都是判决决定和量刑时间的重要预测指标。女性比男性更有可能被告有罪，陪审员在Facebook上分享更多自由主义的职位时，判刑期更长。结果表明，Facebook的共享后评价可以有效评估陪审员的态度。