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


California State University – Sacramento

1. Whelan, Colleen M. A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters.

Degree: MA, Psychology (Applied Behavior Analysis, 2016, California State University – Sacramento

This study extends the research on the effects of simultaneous and sequential food presentation methods with children who are picky eaters. An age-appropriate sized portion of non-preferred food (NPF) was presented as an ???appetizer??? before the participant???s preferred food (PF) was presented. Participants were required to consume their NPF before gaining access to their PF (i.e., dinner). This Appetizer Presentation Method is compared to a simultaneous presentation method called, Total Meal Presentation. In the Total Meal Presentation, a whole portion of both foods were presented together on the same plate and the participants were allowed to eat what they choose. Three participants, between ages 3 to 6, participated in this study. The Appetizer Presentation Method, was effective in increasing consumption of NP foods for two of the three participants. Advisors/Committee Members: Penrod, Becky.

Subjects/Keywords: Feeding; Feeding intervention; Simultaneous presentation; Sequential presentation; Picky eating; Selective eating; Food selectivity

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

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

APA (6th Edition):

Whelan, C. M. (2016). A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters. (Masters Thesis). California State University – Sacramento. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/182679

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Whelan, Colleen M. “A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters.” 2016. Masters Thesis, California State University – Sacramento. Accessed January 18, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/182679.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Whelan, Colleen M. “A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters.” 2016. Web. 18 Jan 2017.

Vancouver:

Whelan CM. A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters. [Internet] [Masters thesis]. California State University – Sacramento; 2016. [cited 2017 Jan 18]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/182679.

Council of Science Editors:

Whelan CM. A comparison of simultaneous versus sequential meal presentation with picky eaters. [Masters Thesis]. California State University – Sacramento; 2016. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/182679


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 January 18, 2017. 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. 18 Jan 2017.

Vancouver:

Caputo D. GOT PERP? EYEWITNESS ACCURACY, DECISION PROCESSES, AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES USING SEQUENTIAL LINEUPS . [Internet] [Thesis]. Cornell University; 2004. [cited 2017 Jan 18]. 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

.