| 008 |
|
200327n^^^^^^^^xx^^^^^^o^^^^^|||^u^eng^d |
| 024 |
7 |
|a HV8073.G37 2019_GarciaAmanda |2 BU-Local |
| 245 |
00 |
|a Differences in eyewitness accuracy amongst the deaf and hearing population |h [electronic resource]. |
| 260 |
|
|a Miami, Fla. : |b Barry University, |c 2019. |
| 490 |
|
|a Barry University Theses -- College of Arts and Sciences – Psychology. |
| 502 |
|
|a Thesis (M.S.)--Barry University, 2019 |
| 504 |
|
|a Includes bibliographical references (leaves 46-56). |
| 506 |
|
|a Copyright Amanda Garcia. Permission granted to Barry University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a The purpose of the current study was to clarify the advantages and disadvantages, if any, that deaf individuals have within their perceptual experience of a crime. To investigate this research question, volunteer participants were exposed to a brief video clip of a crime event and had their memory for the event tested through open and closed ended questions in an electronic survey format. Participants were classified into 3 groups: (1) those who identify as culturally Deaf, (2) hearing participants who watched the crime event with sound, and (3) hearing participants who watched the crime event without sound. It was hypothesized that Deaf individuals would have superior memory recall (i.e., higher accuracy), for “peripheral” details compared to “central” details when compared to the hearing individuals without sound, and that accuracy may vary as a function of the type of question asked (open versus closed-ended). A 3 (participant type: hearing with sound vs. hearing without sound vs. Deaf) x 2 (question type: open vs. closed) x 2 (detail type: central vs. peripheral) mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the interacting effects of experimental group and two within subject variables, question type and detail type, on the primary dependent variable: accuracy rate (e.g., the proportion of correct details out of all details provided). The analysis revealed a main effect of detail type on participant accuracy, F(2, 166) = 123.10, p < .001, partial η2 = .43. Participants were more accurate when answering questions about details classified as central (M = .69, SD = .14) compared to peripheral (M = .45, SD = .23). Another main effect was revealed of question type on participant accuracy, F(1, 166) = 174.33, p < .001, partial η2= .51. Overall, participants were more accurate when answering open ended questions (M = .79, SD = .14) compared to closed ended questions (M = .46, SD = .18). This effect was qualified by a significant detail type by question type interaction, F(2, 166) = 54.49, p < .001, partial η2 = .25. The effect of question type on participant’s accuracy rates was more pronounced for central details compared to peripheral details, all p’s < .001. Lastly, a marginal effect of participant type on accuracy was revealed, F(2, 166) = 2.96, p = .055, partial η2 = .03. Hearing participants who viewed the video with sound tended to be more accurate overall compared to hearing participants who viewed the video without sound (hearing control group) and Deaf participants. However, this marginal effect should be interpreted within a significant question by participant type interaction, F(2, 166) = 3.88, p = .023, partial η2 = .05. Hearing participants’ accuracy was less impacted by the question type compared to the other groups. The current study’s primary hypothesis that Deaf individuals would have better accuracy of details for an experienced crime due to perceptual advantages was not supported. Interestingly, hearing participants were less influenced by the type of question asked (closed-ended vs. open-ended) and tended to be more accurate overall regardless of detail type (peripherally vs. centrally presented details). The second hypothesis that Deaf individuals have better recall for peripherally presented details vs. centrally presented details was not fully supported; however, Deaf participants performed significantly more accurate than hearing controls on peripheral details. This finding provides some support for previous literature that has linked Deaf individuals to having better recall (i.e., higher accuracy) for peripherally presented details vs. centrally presented details. |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Barry University, |d 2020. |f (Barry University Digital Collections) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 535 |
1 |
|a Barry University Archives and Special Collections. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Eyewitness identification. |
| 650 |
0 |
|a Criminal investigation. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a Barry University Digital Collections. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a Theses and Dissertations. |
| 852 |
|
|a BUDC |c Theses and Dissertations |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://sobekcmsrv.barrynet.barry.edu/AA00001321/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a https:/budc.barry.edu/content/AA/00/00/13/21/00001/HV8073_G37 2019_GarciaAmandathm.jpg |
| 997 |
|
|a Theses and Dissertations |
