» Articles » PMID: 33646341

No Evidence That Low Levels of Intoxication at Both Encoding and Retrieval Impact Scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2021 Mar 1
PMID 33646341
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Rationale: It is not uncommon for police to question alcohol-intoxicated witnesses and suspects; yet, the full extent to which intoxication impacts individuals' suggestibility in the investigative interviewing context remains unclear.

Objective: The present study sought to measure the effect of alcohol-intoxication on interviewee suggestibility by implementing a standardized suggestibility test with participants whose intoxication-state was the same at both encoding and recall.

Methods: We randomly assigned participants (N = 165) to an intoxicated (mean breath alcohol level [BrAC] at encoding = 0.06%, and BrAC at retrieval = 0.07%), active placebo (participants believed they consumed alcohol but only consumed an insignificant amount to enhance believability), or control (participants knowingly remained sober) group. An experimenter then implemented the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS), which produced free recall outcomes (number of correct details and memory confabulations) and suggestibility outcomes (yielding to leading questions and changing answers in response to negative feedback from the experimenter).

Results: Intoxicated participants recalled fewer correct details than did placebo and control participants but did not make more confabulation errors. No effects of intoxication on suggestibility measures emerged.

Conclusions: Moderately intoxicated interviewees may not be more suggestible during investigative interviews than sober interviewees. However, before concrete evidence-based policy recommendations are made to law enforcement, further research is needed examining the effects of alcohol on suggestibility in conditions that are more reflective of the legal context.

Citing Articles

The importance of the smallest effect size of interest in expert witness testimony on alcohol and memory.

Otgaar H, Riesthuis P, Ramaekers J, Garry M, Kloft L Front Psychol. 2022; 13:980533.

PMID: 36544435 PMC: 9760759. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980533.


Police-suspect interactions and confession rates are affected by suspects' alcohol and drug use status in low-stakes crime interrogations.

Hagsand A, Zajac H, Lidell L, Kelly C, Compo N, Evans J Front Psychol. 2022; 13:983362.

PMID: 36186325 PMC: 9521503. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.983362.


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

Bartlett G, Albery I, Frings D, Gawrylowicz J Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2022; 239(9):2945-2953.

PMID: 35764830 PMC: 9385754. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06179-5.


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

Pettersson D, Bergquist M, Hagsand A Front Psychol. 2022; 13:761956.

PMID: 35185717 PMC: 8850937. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.761956.

References
1.
Bruce K, Pihl R . Forget "drinking to forget": enhanced consolidation of emotionally charged memory by alcohol. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997; 5(3):242-50. DOI: 10.1037//1064-1297.5.3.242. View

2.
Clare I, Gudjonsson G, Rutter S, Cross P . The inter-rater reliability of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (form 2). Br J Clin Psychol. 1994; 33(3):357-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01132.x. View

3.
Crossland D, Kneller W, Wilcock R . Improving intoxicated witness recall with the Enhanced Cognitive Interview. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2020; 237(7):2213-2230. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05531-x. View

4.
Doss M, Weafer J, Gallo D, de Wit H . Δ-Tetrahydrocannabinol at Retrieval Drives False Recollection of Neutral and Emotional Memories. Biol Psychiatry. 2018; 84(10):743-750. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.04.020. View

5.
Engelkamp J . Visual imagery and enactment of actions in memory. Br J Psychol. 1995; 86 ( Pt 2):227-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02558.x. View