Alcohol-induced retrograde facilitation renders witnesses of crime less suggestible to misinformation

Abstract

RationaleResearch has shown that alcohol can have both detrimental and facilitating effects on memory: intoxication can lead to poor memory for information encoded after alcohol consumption (anterograde amnesia) and may improve memory for information encoded before consumption (retrograde facilitation). This study examined whether alcohol consumed after witnessing a crime can render individuals less vulnerable to misleading post-event information (misinformation).MethodParticipants watched a simulated crime video. Thereafter, one third of participants expected and received alcohol (alcohol group), one third did not expect but received alcohol (reverse placebo), and one third did not expect nor receive alcohol (control). After alcohol consumption, participants were exposed to misinformation embedded in a written narrative about the crime. The following day, participants completed a cued-recall questionnaire about the event.ResultsControl participants were more likely to report misinformation compared to the alcohol and reverse placebo group.ConclusionThe findings suggest that we may oversimplify the effect alcohol has on suggestibility and that sometimes alcohol can have beneficial effects on eyewitness memory by protecting against misleading post-event information.

An experimental examination of the effects of alcohol consumption and exposure to misleading postevent information on remembering a hypothetical rape scenario

“…They found that alcohol intoxication during encoding was associated with increased suggestibility, but only when participants were asked leading follow‐up questions. Gawrylowicz, Ridley, Albery, Barnoth, and Young () found that when people were sober during event encoding and then consumed alcohol just before they received MI, they were less likely to incorporate misleading details in their memory reports 24 hr later compared with those who consumed a placebo. Schreiber Compo et al () found that the likelihood of reporting MI did not differ for sober participants compared with participants who were alcohol intoxicated both during the to‐be‐remembered event and when they were exposed to MI (Schreiber Compo et al, ).…”

The impact of own and others’ alcohol consumption on social contagion following a collaborative memory task

“…It is known that the stage at which people become intoxicated can influence how they respond to misinformation. For example, Gawrylowicz, Ridley, Albery, Barnoth and Young (2017) found that providing participants with alcohol after encoding to-beremembered information, but prior to encountering misinformation, reduces the likelihood of misinformation tainting their recollection. This is believed to occur as intoxication inhibits the formation of newer memories, meaning the new misinformation is forgotten and cannot contaminate existing memories (see also Santtila, Ekholm, & Niemi, 1999).…”

The impact of alcohol intoxication on witness suggestibility immediately and after a delay

“…The finding that alcohol‐induced suggestibility was more apparent after a 1‐week delay than in the immediate condition is consistent with past research on suggestibility (e.g., Loftus et al, ) and possibly helps account for why this effect has been elusive. Past research has tested participants either in the same session as encoding (e.g., Schreiber Compo et al, ) or when participants encoded while sober (Gawrylowicz et al, ; Santtila et al, ). One study examined suggestibility both immediately and after a 3‐ to 5‐day delay (Van Oorsouw et al, ), when participants had encoded while intoxicated.…”

“…In another lab‐based study (Gawrylowicz, Ridley, Albery, Barnoth, & Young, ), sober participants watched a stimulus video and then encoded misinformation while either intoxicated ( M BrAC = 0.065%) or sober. They were then tested via a cued forced response test the following day, while sober.…”