Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35764830›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2022

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

Georgina Bartlett, Ian P Albery, Daniel Frings, Julie Gawrylowicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Georgina BartlettCentre for Addictive Behaviours Research, Division of Psychology, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, UK. bartleg2@lsbu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1573-9556
Ian P AlberyCentre for Addictive Behaviours Research, Division of Psychology, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, UK.
Daniel FringsCentre for Addictive Behaviours Research, Division of Psychology, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, UK.
Julie GawrylowiczDivision of Psychology and Forensic Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleWitnesses 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.

objectivesGiven the prevalence of intoxicated witnesses, it is imperative to understand how alcohol influences this effect.

methodsThe 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.

resultsIncreased 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.

conclusionsThus, whilst discussion and intoxication can negatively impact eyewitness memory, discussion may also have benefits for both sober and intoxicated witnesses.

Indexed as

Alcoholic IntoxicationCrimeData CollectionEthanolHumansMental RecallEthanolEyewitness memoryIntoxicationMemory conformitySource monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35764830
PMCPMC9385754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.