Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

Sorted by: relevance · author · university · dateNew search

You searched for subject:(Sequential presentation). Showing records 1 – 2 of 2 total matches.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters


University of Kansas

1. Juanico, Jessica Foster. Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity.

Degree: PhD, Applied Behavioral Science, 2017, University of Kansas

Sequential presentation (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) is a widely used procedure to increase consumption of non-preferred foods in children with food selectivity (e.g., Allison et al., 2012; Anderson & McMillan, 2001; Kern & Marder, 1996; Najdowski, Wallace, Doney, & Ghezzi, 2003). Escape extinction is often a critical component of sequential presentation. However, there are challenges associated with its implementation such as extinction bursts and extinction-induced response variability (Ahearn, Kerwin, Eicher, Shantz, & Swearingin, 1996; Sevin, Gulotta, Sierp, Rosica, & Miller, 2002). These challenges may make sequential presentation difficult to implement under certain situations, specifically for caregivers (e.g., McConnachie & Carr, 1997). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effects of procedures in the absence of escape extinction (Kodak & Piazza, 2008; Penrod, Wallace, Reagon, Betz, & Higbee, 2010). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of sequential presentation without escape extinction under various conditions. First, we compared the effects of three sequential presentation procedures using various stimuli (i.e., preferred food, preferred tangible, preferred attention). If those sequential presentation procedures were ineffective, we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which we combined the three preferred stimuli. If the sequential presentation procedure with combined stimuli was ineffective, then we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which the duration of access to the combined stimuli was increased. Results suggest the delivery of a single stimulus was effective for three of eight participants, the combination of stimuli was effective for three of six participants with whom we evaluated this procedure, and escape EXT was necessary for two participants. Advisors/Committee Members: Dozier, Claudia L (advisor), Francisco, Vincent T (cmtemember), Jarmolowicz, David P (cmtemember), Neidert, Pamela L (cmtemember), Travers, Jason C (cmtemember).

Subjects/Keywords: Behavioral psychology; Behavioral sciences; children; escape extinction; food selectivity; parameters of reinforcement; sequential presentation

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Juanico, J. F. (2017). Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Juanico, Jessica Foster. “Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity.” 2017. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas. Accessed May 24, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Juanico, Jessica Foster. “Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity.” 2017. Web. 24 May 2018.

Vancouver:

Juanico JF. Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity. [Internet] [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas; 2017. [cited 2018 May 24]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014.

Council of Science Editors:

Juanico JF. Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity. [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Kansas; 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014


Cornell University

2. Caputo, Deanna. GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS .

Degree: 2004, Cornell University

It was my objective to understand whether accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses could be distinguished by their decision-making during a sequential-lineup. All eyewitnesses, except in Study 6, were shown a video-taped crime and presented with sequential lineups. Study 1 was designed to identify the decision processes of eyewitnesses. While viewing a culprit-present lineup, witnesses were asked to ?think aloud? and later describe in writing their thoughts as they reached a decision for each photograph; five decision process statements were then created or selected from previous research. In Study 2, the main dependent measure asked eyewitnesses to endorse all applicable decision process statements from Study 1. Factor analysis revealed a simple matching strategy containing three decision processes and a deliberative strategy with four decision processes. Accurate eyewitnesses were significantly associated with the simple matching strategy, and inaccurate eyewitnesses with the deliberative strategy. An automatic recognition statement was added to the decision process statements. Study 3 looked at inaccurate identifications in culprit-absent lineups and found that the decision processes of inaccurate eyewitnesses did not differ regardless of having selected an innocent suspect replacement or a known innocent picture. Study 4a and 4b successfully replicated previous findings using a new set of experimental materials with different witness viewing conditions. Study 5 demonstrated that accuracy rates could not be predictably influenced via the manipulation of witness decision processes. Witnesses forced to use deliberative decision processes were not subsequently less accurate. Witnesses forced to use simple matching and automatic processes were also not subsequently more accurate. Study 6 participants were asked to postdict witness accuracy. They were given previous eyewitness identification judgment forms and some were informed about the decision strategies found to be indicative of accuracy and some were not. Unexpectedly, informed participants did not outperform the uninformed or perform better than chance. Studies 7 and 8 tested whether logical modifications to the sequential procedure would affect accuracy. In Study 7, only culprit-present lineups were conducted and seeing it twice before making any identification (no-ID-first-view) presentation produced significantly greater accuracy than the traditional presentation. Study 8 served as a replication and extension, using both culprit-present and culprit-absent lineups. The superiority of the no-ID-first view condition did not reach significance. The implications of Studies 1-8 for memory, face recognition and the legal system are discussed.

Subjects/Keywords: eyewitness identification; sequential lineups; eyewitness decision processes; lineup presentation

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Caputo, D. (2004). GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS . (Thesis). Cornell University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1813/170

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Caputo, Deanna. “GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS .” 2004. Thesis, Cornell University. Accessed May 24, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/170.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Caputo, Deanna. “GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS .” 2004. Web. 24 May 2018.

Vancouver:

Caputo D. GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS . [Internet] [Thesis]. Cornell University; 2004. [cited 2018 May 24]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/170.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Caputo D. GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS . [Thesis]. Cornell University; 2004. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/170

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

.