Legal and Criminological Psychology

Legal and Criminological Psychology

The post is of two assignments

1:Problem solving and ethics

Paper details:

Decision Making, Problem Solving and Ethics” by Mosley, Pietri and Mosley,

Explain the role of personal, professional and organizational ethics in the supervisor’s decision-making process. Please give two examples and speak about the effects…

2:Concealed information under stress: A test of the orienting theory in real-life police interrogations. Published in: Legal and Criminological Psychology in 2011. Authors: B. Verschuere, E. Meijer, and A De Clercq.

Paper details:

Critical Review of an Empirical Research Article

Empirical studies report data and should have sections describing the methods and results of the research. A review paper does not qualify as empirical research.

You must use the following template to structure your Critical Review. Use the emboldened sub-headings below as sub-headings for your Review. As a rough guide, each section (other than the title) should be somewhere around 500 words long, though obviously some may be shorter and others may be longer: The length of each section will depend on how much you have to say.

Title.
The full, APA style reference to the article must be included in the title.

Background.
Provide the following in the background section of your Review:
1) A summary of the relevant theoretical issues and
2) A review of previous research related to the article you are considering
3) Show evidence of reading other articles in the area and reference this reading accordingly.
This should not simply be a summary of the introduction in the journal article (the authors may not have included some material/research relevant to your critical analysis of this article) so you need to do your own reading in this area, and reference this reading accordingly.

Rationale.
Identify and critique the rationale given by the authors for their research. This rationale will be located in their introduction.
You will probably draw on the Background section you have written to assess the following questions:
1) Is any key research missing from the Introduction of the article you are reviewing? If so, why is the omitted research important/relevant?
2) Do the authors present a compelling argument for why this research is needed?
3) Do the research questions or hypotheses follow logically from the issues raised in the Introduction?
NOTE: You should integrate your own reading into your critique. You should not merely list or describe what you found during your additional reading. Make a judgement about the strength of the rationale for the research.

Method and Design.
Summarise and discuss the Method and Design of the research under review, exploring the advantages/disadvantages of the methodology and any weaknesses in the design, sampling method, analysis etc.
You should note that carrying out the study on one particular sample (e.g. white middle class Americans) is not a necessarily a weakness. This is only a weakness if:
(i) The authors do not clearly indicate the population from which their participants are drawn.
(ii) This specific sample is different from the population in general with regard to some factor that is likely to relate to the criterion variable.
(iii) The author generalises these results in an inappropriate way.
Important: If you identify a weakness, you need to explain why it is a weakness, not simply state that it is a weakness.

Findings.
Clearly and concisely summarise and evaluate the main research findings.
Discuss whether or not the analyses seem sufficient to answer the questions posed by the researcher and address the aims of the research.

Discuss whether or not the statements about the findings are justified in light of the data.

Discussion and Conclusions.
Clearly and concisely discuss the findings and conclusions with reference to the wider literature. You might also consider:
1) What are the theoretical and practical implications? Have they been fully examined by the authors?
2) Have the authors identified limitations in their research?
3) Can you identify any further limitations that have not been mentioned in the article? Have any potential implications been missed?
4) Are there any alternative explanations for the findings that the researchers have not considered?
5) Do you have any recommendations for future research that the researchers might not have suggested?

ethics