The data represents three face recognition Experiments for an article submitted to Acta Psychologica: Being observed caused physiological stress leading to poorer face recognition. Experiment 1 - (an old/new recognition paradigm) Columns represent: Participant Code Which counterbalanced version of the task was used (i.e., which faces were targets and which were distractors - Version 1 and Version 2) Whether participants were recorded at the learning phase of the experiment Whether participants were recorded at the recognition test phase of the experiment Participant Gender Participant Age Percentage accuracy during the recognition test Reaction Time (ms) to respond incorrectly during the recognition test Reaction Time (ms) to respond correctly during the recognition test HIT rate - calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010 - McMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2010). Detection theory. LEA Pub.) method: hit count / (hit count plus miss count) FALSE ALARM rate - calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: false alarm count / (false alarm count plus corrected rejection count) d' - recognition accuracy calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: Normsinv(HIT) - Normsinv(FA) C - response bias calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: 0.5 * (Normsinv(HIT) + Normsinv(FA)) Experiment 2 - (a line-up task) Columns represent: Whether the line up had the target in or not Whether the participants were observed or not during the task Participant Age Participant Gender Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS: Liebowitz, 1987) Result Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation-II Questionnaire (BFNE-II: Carleton, Collimore, & Asmundson, 2007) Result Classroom Anxiety Measure (CAM: Richmond, Wrench, & Gorham, 2001) result taken in the middle of the task Accuracy - 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct Confidence - 1 to 6 scale measure of confidence of response Classroom Anxiety Measure (CAM: Richmond, Wrench, & Gorham, 2001) result taken at the end of the task Experiment 3 - (an old/new recognition paradigm with physiological recording) Columns represent: Whether the participants were observed or not during the task Participant Gender Participant Age Then for Familiar Upright Faces: * HIT rate - calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: hit count / (hit count plus miss count) FALSE ALARM rate - calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: false alarm count / (false alarm count plus corrected rejection count) d' - recognition accuracy calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: Normsinv(HIT) - Normsinv(FA) C - response bias calculated using the MacMillan and Creelman (2010) method: 0.5 * (Normsinv(HIT) + Normsinv(FA)) Distinctiveness ratings (low is not distinctive) made to the faces during the learning task Reaction Time (ms) to make distinctiveness judgements in the learning phase Reaction Time (ms) to make recognition responses in the test phase ** Repeated * to ** for Familiar Inverted faces; Unfamiliar Upright Faces; Unfamiliar Inverted faces