G543 - Interviewing Witnesses - Bruce Et Al

Question 1

How many lab experiments were there in total?

Answer 1

3

Question 2

How many participants were ther in experiment 1? How much did they get paid? What was their mean age?

Answer 2

30 students (15m 15f). Paid £2. Mean age 29.2

Question 3

In experiment 1, how many composite images were created from how many photographs of celebrities?

Answer 3

40’composites from 10 photographs

Question 4

In experiment 1, who were the composites made from? Using what software?

Answer 4

Made from celebrities using E-Fit, Pro-Fit sketch and evo fit

Question 5

In experiment 1, what were the three conditions participants were tested individually on?

Answer 5

Complete set, internal features only and external features only

Question 6

In experiment 1, what were the pps asked to do in their assigned groups?

Answer 6

Asked to place each composite in front of the celebrity face in their own time until the task was finished

Question 7

What was the sample in experiment 2?

Answer 7

48 undergraduates at striking university (27 males 21 females). All volunteers

Question 8

What did experiment 2 consist of?

Answer 8

A photo array with distraction faces making the task more difficult

Question 9

In experiment 2, what was made easy or hard!

Answer 9

Faces and foils. Easy - faces and foils all very different. Hard - faces and foils all very similar

Question 10

In experiment 2, how were the composites presented?

Answer 10

One at a time along with the photo array

Question 11

In experiment 2, what did the participant have to do?

Answer 11

Pick out the celebrity face from the array that matched the composite

Question 12

In experiment 2, what were the two types of composite?

Answer 12

Internal or external features (like experiment 1)

Question 13

In experiment 3, how many staff were recruited. To be what? How much were they paid?

Answer 13

8 staff paid £10 to be participant witnesses

Question 14

In experiment 3, how many volunteers did a sorting task and how many did a naming task?

Answer 14

Sorting task - 54

Naming task - 16

Question 15

In experiment 3, what was presented to the witnesses?

Answer 15

Familiar or unfamiliar faces

Question 16

In experiment 3, what did the witnesses have to do after being presented with the familiar or unfamiliar faces?

Answer 16

Create pro-fit composites after seeing the faces for 30 seconds

Question 17

In experiment 3, what happened after the witnesses had made the pro-fit composites?

Answer 17

They were then photoshopped to create internal and external only composites which were then randomly presented to the sorters and the namers alongside while faces as before

Question 18

Experiment 1 results:

• Whole composites and those of external features were sorted similarly at what percentage?
• what percentage were internal features sorted at?

Answer 18

35% correct

19.5% correct

Question 19

Experiment 2 results:
Composites of …. Were identified more easily than …
What was this consistent across?

Answer 19

• external features (42%). Internal features (24%)

- array type (whether easy or difficult)

Question 20

Experiment 3 results:
What % was sorting accurate at?
What did it not matter whether the face were?
What features were more accurate than what?
How accurate was the naming task?

Answer 20

• 57%
• familiar or unfamiliar
• external more accurate than internal at 53.3% against 32.6%
• 22% accurate whether face was familiar or unfamiliar

Question 21

What did Bruce et al conclude participants performed equally well with? Which could indicate what?

Answer 21

External features and whole faces which could indicate that there is something about internal features of a face that does not work well when trying to create a reconstruction.

Question 22

What did they aim to investigate?

Answer 22

The relative recognisability of internal and external features of facial composites