Search results

This article explores the changing nature of social media use as a public engagement tool by police services.

A comprehensive review is conducted of academic studies from criminology and policing journals. Sources are identified from key academic databases and are analysed in relation to three decades (2000–2009, 2010–2019 and 2020 to present) to show how the use of social media has changed over time.

The way in which social media is used in policing has changed considerably over time. From initial enthusiasm, it is found that there is growing scepticism in the use of social media as a public engagement tool. After an initial proliferation in use, there is then increasing consolidation and control in response to concerns about reputational risk.

The research highlights underlying dynamics of engagement and retrenchment, which offer important insights for how we understand public engagement and value creation in policing and emergency services more generally. We draw on academic research from English-language academic journals, but we have endeavoured to include research from the broadest possible range of countries.

This study demonstrates how the police and other public services must respond to the growing use of social media by the public to maximise value creation whilst minimising the threats that come from potential value destruction.

This study is the first to comprehensively review the policing and criminology literature related to social media and to apply a public engagement lens to this analysis.

Post-event information (PEI) may distort eyewitness memory and lead to erroneous eyewitness testimonies. This paper aims to explore whether factors such as volitional engagement with PEI (e.g. choice to engage with a co-witness) and memory distrust influence misinformation acceptance and the perceived credibility of a co-witness.

Participants (n = 223) completed the Memory Distrust Scale and then watched a short mock crime video. Thereafter, two-thirds of the participants were asked whether they would prefer or not to listen to a co-witness’ account of the witnessed event (choice condition), and one-third of the participants did not have the choice (control condition). Every participant listened to the co-witness account (which contained items of misinformation); thus, those who preferred to listen to the testimony were in the choice-yes (i.e., volition) condition and those who preferred not to listen were in the choice-no (i.e., non-volition) condition. Finally, participants completed a cued recall task assessing their memory of the video and acceptance of misinformation. They also provided ratings to establish the perceived credibility of the co-witness.

The results indicated that neither volition nor memory distrust influenced misinformation acceptance. However, those who preferred to listen to the testimony (i.e., the choice-yes condition) perceived the co-witness as more credible than those in the choice-no or control conditions.

The findings suggest that witnesses are susceptible to misinformation regardless of their willingness to engage with or avoid PEI. Further implications and future research directions are discussed.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the role of volition and memory distrust as a trait in eyewitnesses tendency to engage with or avoid post-event information. The research explores whether these mechanisms impact upon memory conformity and perceived co-witness credibility.