Modified t-tests comparing d/ scores revealed that two Individual level analyses: super-recognisers [20.0%; d/ = 3.21; = 1.75, < .05, one-tailed, = 1.76] and one t(143) p z police identifier [2.8%; d/ = 3.24; = 1.79, < .05, one-tailed, = 1.80] scored t(143) p z significantly above the control mean (n = 143, = 1.88, = 0.75) (see Figure 10 for the M SD proportion of population (95% CI) expected to perform below each group member). Overall mean performance on the four face processing tests The mean scores for each participant on each outcome (hits, correct rejections, sensitivity (d/), response bias (C)) across the four face processing tests were calculated ((Famous Face + + Recognition Test Unfamiliar Face Memory Array Test Old/New Unfamiliar Face + and a final series of one-way ANOVAs Memory Test Glasgow Face Matching Test)/4), compared the between-group mean scores (see Figure 11).8 As previously, super-recognisers and police identifiers did not differ on any measure (p > .05), but their hit rates, (2, 186) = 21.33, < .001, = .187; (2, 186) = FCNR p FUN η2 23.68, < .001, = .203, correct rejection rates, 186) = 14.91, < .001, = .138 and p F(2, p η2 η2 sensitivity, (2, 186) = 32.91, < .001, = .261; (2, 186) = 33.58, < .001, = FCNR p FUN p η2 η2 .265 were higher than controls (p < .05). No response bias effects were significant (p > .2). Figure 11 about here Figure 12 about here Modified t-tests comparing d/ CNR scores revealed that Individual level analyses: nine super-recognisers (90.0%) and 32 police identifiers (88.9%) scored above the control
Individual level analyses: Modified t-tests comparing d/ scores revealed that two super-recognisers [20.0%; d/ = 3.21; t(143) = 1.75, p < .05, one-tailed, z = 1.76] and one police identifier [2.8%; d/ = 3.24; t(143) = 1.79, p < .05, one-tailed, z = 1.80] scored significantly above the control mean (n = 143, M = 1.88, SD = 0.75) (see Figure 10 for the proportion of population (95% CI) expected to perform below each group member). Overall mean performance on the four face processing tests The mean scores for each participant on each outcome (hits, correct rejections, sensitivity (d/), response bias (C)) across the four face processing tests were calculated ((Famous Face Recognition Test + Unfamiliar Face Memory Array Test + Old/New Unfamiliar Face Memory Test + Glasgow Face Matching Test)/4), and a final series of one-way ANOVAs compared the between-group mean scores (see Figure 11).8 As previously, super-recognisers and police identifiers did not differ on any measure (p > .05), but their hit rates, FCNR (2, 186) = 21.33, p < .001, η2 = .187; FUN (2, 186) = 23.68, p < .001, η2 = .203, correct rejection rates, F(2, 186) = 14.91, p < .001, η2 = .138 and sensitivity, FCNR (2, 186) = 32.91, p < .001, η2 = .261; FUN (2, 186) = 33.58, p < .001, η2 = .265 were higher than controls (p < .05). No response bias effects were significant (p > .2). Figure 11 about here Figure 12 about here Individual level analyses: Modified t-tests comparing d/ CNR scores revealed that nine super-recognisers (90.0%) and 32 police identifiers (88.9%) scored above the control
SuperiorFaceRecogniser_final.docx