No evidence that low levels of intoxication at both encoding and retrieval impact scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale

Mindthoff, Amelia; Evans, Jacqueline R.; Compo, Nadja Schreiber; Polanco, Karina; Hagsand, Angelica

doi:10.1007/s00213-021-05797-9

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since researchers began to investigate the effects of alcohol on eyewitness memory, the results have been mixed, but so have the research methods. The to-be-remembered stimuli have included mock crime videos (e.g., Bartlett et al, 2021;Crossland et al, 2016;Hagsand et al, 2013aHagsand et al, , 2013bHagsand et al, , 2017, live staged events (e.g., Altman, McQuiston, et al, 2019;Mindthoff et al, 2019;Schreiber Compo et al, 2012), stories (e.g., Mindthoff et al, 2021), and picture slides (e.g., Harvey et al, 2013a;Harvey & Sekulla, 2021). Participants' memory for faces has been assessed with show-ups (e.g., Altman, McQuiston et al, 2019;Dysart et al, 2002) and line-ups (e.g., Altman et al, 2018;Hagsand et al, 2013b;Flowe et al, 2017), and their memory for events has been assessed via free recall (e.g., Evans et al, 2019;Hagsand et al, 2017;Hildebrand Karlén et al, 2017) and with cued recall interviews (e.g., Hagsand et al, 2017;Schreiber Compo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Applied Research On Alcohol's Effect On Witness Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, mild to moderate intoxication level (BrAC < 0.10%) affects the quantity (i.e., number of details) and sometimes quality (i.e., accuracy) of eyewitness memory recall (Jores et al, 2019). Although some studies have found no effect of alcohol on quantity (e.g., La Rooy et al, 2013), most research finds that alcohol intoxicated participants tend to provide somewhat less information (e.g., Hildebrand Karlén et al, 2017;Mindthoff et al, 2021;Van Oorsouw et al, 2019). Despite a significant reduction in number of recalled details, effect sizes are small for low-moderate doses of alcohol (see Jores et al, 2019, for a meta-analysis).…”

Section: Applied Research On Alcohol's Effect On Witness Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Police Survey: Procedures and Prevalence of Intoxicated Witnesses and Victims in Sweden

Hagsand

Pettersson

Evans

et al. 2022

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Applied Research On Alcohol's Effect On Witness Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applied Research On Alcohol's Effect On Witness Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Police Survey: Procedures and Prevalence of Intoxicated Witnesses and Victims in Sweden

Hagsand

Pettersson

Evans

et al. 2022

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recent research show that intoxicated witness accounts often are reliable when breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) is approximately below .10%, with memory impairment increasing with higher levels of intoxication (see Altman et al, 2019, for a review). When interviews are conducted immediately after the witnessing of a crime, low to moderately intoxicated (BrAC < .10%) individuals reportedly are no less susceptible to suggestive leading questions than sober individuals (Mindthoff et al, 2021), and intoxicated persons also give complete and accurate statements (e.g., Hagsand et al, 2017;Mindthoff et al, 2019). In contrast, when the interview was postponed, both sober and intoxicated witnesses (e.g., Hagsand et al, 2017;Hildebrand Karlén et al, 2017;Schreiber Compo et al, 2017;Evans et al, 2018) gave less accurate information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Police Decision-Making in the Absence of Evidence-Based Guidelines: Assessment of Alcohol-Intoxicated Eyewitnesses

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regarding police procedures with alcohol-intoxicated witnesses, Swedish police officers have previously reported inconsistent and subjective decisions when interviewing these potentially vulnerable witnesses. Most officers have also highlighted the need for national policy guidelines aiding in conducting investigative interviews with intoxicated witnesses. The aims of the two studies presented here were to investigate whether (1) police officers’ inconsistent interview decisions are attributable to a lack of research-based knowledge; (2) their decision to interview, as well as their perceptions of the witnesses’ credibility could be influenced by scientific research; and (3) police officers decision-making and perceptions of witness credibility are biased by pre-existing social norms. In two separate randomized online experiments, police professionals and recruits (Study 1, N = 43; Study 2, N = 214) watched a recorded fictive witness interview to which they were asked to rate the probability of interviewing the witness, the witness’ credibility, and to estimate the witness’ level of intoxication. Results showed that interview probability and perceived witness credibility were affected by witness intoxication level. While it cannot be stated definitely from the present research, these findings provided indications that police officers and recruits lacked research-based knowledge. Results also showed that interview probability, but not perceptions of credibility, was influenced by a research-based message. In line with research, interview probability for the most intoxicated witness increased after reading the message. Unexpectedly, neither interview probability nor witness credibility was affected by social norms. The current findings added to the legal psychology literature by showing that a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) as low as .04% was enough for police officers and recruits to consider intoxicated witnesses less credible than sober witnesses. Findings also indicated that, despite the lower credibility assessment, police may have some understanding that these witnesses can be interviewed at low intoxication levels (i.e., around .04%). However, this willingness to interview intoxicated witnesses ceased at a BrAC lower than the levels where research has found intoxicated witnesses as reliable as sober witnesses (i.e., BrAC < .10%). Future directions for research and policy development as well as theoretical and practical implications of the present findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Intoxicated participants also appear to be less confident in their recollections compared to sober controls (Crossland et al 2016;Flowe et al 2017). The majority of lab studies did not find alcohol-related differences in individual's suggestibility using misinformation paradigms (Bartlett et al 2021;Flowe et al 2019;Thorley & Christiansen 2018) or the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Mindthoff et al 2021). Evans et al (2019) found that intoxicated participants were only more vulnerable to incorrect suggestions when tested after a delay.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of alcohol and co-witness information on memory reports: a field study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Witnesses who discuss a crime together may report details that they did not see themselves but heard about from their co-witness. Co-witness information may have beneficial and harmful effects on memory accuracy depending on whether the information was correct or incorrect. Objectives Given the prevalence of intoxicated witnesses, it is imperative to understand how alcohol influences this effect. Methods The present study asked pubgoers (n = 67) at varying levels of intoxication to recall a mock crime video after having also watched a video witness statement containing both correct and false information. Results Increased intoxication was associated with decreased confidence, completeness and accuracy, but no increased tendency to report false information. Exposure to incorrect post-event information (PEI) can lead to the incorporation of incorrect information, whereas exposure to correct PEI increased accuracy, regardless of individuals’ alcohol intoxication status. Conclusions Thus, whilst discussion and intoxication can negatively impact eyewitness memory, discussion may also have benefits for both sober and intoxicated witnesses.

show abstract

No evidence that low levels of intoxication at both encoding and retrieval impact scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale

Cited by 12 publications

References 49 publications

Police Survey: Procedures and Prevalence of Intoxicated Witnesses and Victims in Sweden

Police Survey: Procedures and Prevalence of Intoxicated Witnesses and Victims in Sweden

Police Decision-Making in the Absence of Evidence-Based Guidelines: Assessment of Alcohol-Intoxicated Eyewitnesses

The effects of alcohol and co-witness information on memory reports: a field study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About