Hey, sorry if this has already been asked (I can't find it anyway), but does anyone have any ideas on how to introduce the farrington, weatherburn or Sutherland studies/theories? I mean, what can I write about in the first part of a section A on any/each of these studies? My teacher gave us booklets of the studies but included no background for these Thanks in advance
Does anyone know if a section has ever been repeated in the next series? So like last years turning to crime was cognition, it is very unlikely for it to be repeated?
Does anyone know if a section has ever been repeated in the next series? So like last years turning to crime was cognition, it is very unlikely for it to be repeated?
I wouldn't ignore it if you have the time! It's a bit of a gamble. They've done it a few times. Diagnosis came up three times in a row once! (Jan 12, June 12, Jan 13).
They know us students like to use process of elimination to make our revision easier, so they fool us. Hoping that because we haven't had a January exam this year that they'll be kinder to us.
How are you guys revising? I'm basically writing out the studies I know the least such as the Treatments of Disorders studies in health and clinical and doing timed past papers... but Forensic studies are a lot longer, therefore harder to remember !!
If a study is low in generalisability then does that mean it is low in reliability too?
Not necessarily, because it might use a standardised procedure (high internal reliability). But I'd link it to external validity - population and ecological validity.
Not necessarily, because it might use a standardised procedure (high internal reliability). But I'd link it to external validity - population and ecological validity.
I'm so anxious about the exam tomorrow, hopefully we get decent part b questions. I had my history exam this morning which went really really well (never thought I'd be saying that haha)
I'm so anxious about the exam tomorrow, hopefully we get decent part b questions. I had my history exam this morning which went really really well (never thought I'd be saying that haha)
Same and I have an exam in the morning too! But hopefully it should be okay.
As there's a whole topic called Reaching a Verdict with a sub-topic also called that, if there's a part B question on Reaching a Verdict, can we use any study from the whole topic or just the 3 in the sub-topic (like Minority/Majority influence and Stages of Decision Making)? If this makes sense.
As there's a whole topic called Reaching a Verdict with a sub-topic also called that, if there's a part B question on Reaching a Verdict, can we use any study from the whole topic or just the 3 in the sub-topic (like Minority/Majority influence and Stages of Decision Making)? If this makes sense.
You know the False Confession study (Gudjonsson and MacKeith) could we say that it is low in ethics due to lack of protection from harm etc?
I don't think so, Gudjonsson and MacKeith were only documenting it, probably after he had been released so they didn't do anything ethically wrong! You could claim that the interrogation was ethically wrong but that would be more to do with Inbau.