We experimentally examined the effects of alcohol consumption and exposure to misleading postevent information on memory for a hypothetical interactive rape scenario, examining whether memory encoding and retrieval processes differed in relation to intoxication. Participants (N = 80) were randomly assigned to consume alcohol (mean BAC = .06%) or tonic water before engaging in the scenario. Alcohol expectancy was controlled, and participant beliefs about the beverage they thought they had consumed and feelings of intoxication were measured. A week later, immediately before recalling the scenario, participants were exposed to a postevent narrative, ostensibly written by another research participant who had been interviewed about the scenario. After the recall task, participants completed a recognition test, reporting confidence in the likely accuracy of their answers. Participants who believed they had consumed alcohol compared to those who believed they had consumed tonic reported fewer correct details; but, they were no more likely to report incorrect or misleading information. Further, participants who had consumed alcohol were less likely to volunteer answers to recognition questions about misled items. The confidence-accuracy relationship for control and misled items was similar across groups, and there was some evidence that metacognitive discrimination was better for participants who believed they had consumed alcohol compared to those who believed they had consumed tonic. We discuss the implications for alcohol’s effect on memory encoding and retrieval strategies in the context of rape.

1. The Effect of Alcohol
Intoxication on
Misinformation
Acceptance and
Confidence-Accuracy
Calibration
Heather D. Flowe1,
Joyce Humphries2, Melanie Takarangi3,
Kasia Zelek4, Nilda Karoğlu 5,
Fiona Gabbert6 and Lorraine Hope7
1University of Birmingham, School of Psychology
2Edgehill University, School of Psychology
3Flinders University, School of Psychology
4University of Leicester, School of Neuroscience, Psychology and
Behaviour
5University of Kent, School of Psychology
6Goldsmiths University of London, Department of Psychology
7University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology

2. Alcohol and Sexual Violence
 473,000 adults in England and Wales are victims of sexual
offenses per year on average (Home Office, 2013)
 Estimates for rape and attempted rape have ranged up to an
annual high of 1.27 million persons in the U.S. (National
Research Council, 2014)

3. Alcohol and
Sexual Violence
 Alcohol is often antecedent to sexual assault, with up to
75% involving alcohol use on the part of the victim, the
perpetrator, or both (Stern, 2010)
 Prosecutors reject 65% of rape cases (Flowe et al.,
2011), most often citing victim considerations such as
alcohol use
 Alcohol:
 Prejudicial aspect
 Probative aspect

4. Alcohol and Sexual Assault
 “Advocates and SANEs [Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiners] get frustrated when we can’t move
forward with an investigation, but sometimes we
can’t because the victim doesn’t remember what
happened or there are inconsistencies [in her story].”
 From (Cole & Logan, 2010)

5. Alcohol’s Effects on Memory
• Alcohol impairs the recollection of
specific episodic memory details,
but not feeling of knowing (i.e.,
familiarity) (Bisby, Leitz, Morgan, &
Curran, 2009)
• Alcohol affects completeness but
not the accuracy of recall Hagsand, Roos af
Hjelmsäter, Granhag, Fahlke, & Söderpalm Gordh, 2012; Harvey, Kneller &
Campbell, 2013; Hildebrand Karlén, Roos af Hjelmsäter, Fahlke, Granhag, &
Söderpalm Gordh, 2014; Schreiber Compo et al., 2012; Schreiber Compo et al.,
2017; Van Oorsouw, & Merckelbach, 2012 )

6. Does alcohol increase
vulnerability to postevent
memory reporting influences?
 When people are sober during event encoding and then consume
alcohol just before they receive MI, they are less likely to incorporate
misleading details in their memory reports 24 hours later compared
to those who consumed a placebo (Gawrylowicz, Ridley, Albery,
Barnoth & Young, 2017)

7. Does alcohol increase
vulnerability to postevent
memory reporting influences?
 For participants who were alcohol-intoxicated both during the to-be-
remembered event and when they were exposed to MI, the
likelihood of reporting MI does not differ compared to sober
participants (Schreiber Compo et al., 2012)
 However, Van Oorsouw et al. (2015) found that alcohol intoxication
during encoding was associated with increased suggestibility when
sober

8. How might alcohol impair
memory monitoring?
 Retrieval of the original memory trace rather than misinformation
is more likely if people monitor the source of their recollections
(e.g., Lindsay & Johnson, 1989; Thomas, Bulevich & Chan, 2010)
 Conditions that reduce diagnostic source cues availability lead to
poorer metacognitive discrimination and lower accuracy on misled
items (e.g., Horry, Colton, & Williamson, 2014)

9. Research Questions
 Do people recall fewer correct details about rape if
they were intoxicated compared to sober during
encoding?
 Are intoxicated participants more likely to recall
incorrect information, particularly misleading
information?
 Is metacognitive discrimination accuracy lower for
intoxicated participants?

10. Participants
 80 women between the ages of 18 and 31 (M=20.36, SD=2.41)

11. Design
 2 beverage (alcohol BAC .06% or tonic) x 2 expectancy (told
alcohol or told tonic) x 4 item type (consistent, misled, neutral, and
control items) mixed design
 Item type was varied within participants; the other factors were varied
between subjects
 Dependent variables:
 Number of correct, incorrect, and misled details
 Recall accuracy
 Recognition accuracy and confidence

12. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
7 days later
Screening

13. Screening
 Medical conditions
 Medication
 Problem drinking behaviours
 Pregnancy

14. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Screening
Beverage
Manipulation
Rape Scenario
Rape scenario presented via participant choice procedure: Flowe et al., 2007;
Flowe et al., 2011; Flowe et al., 2016; Flowe et al., 2017

15. Method: Session 1,
Encoding Phase

16. Method: Session 1,
Encoding Phase

17. Method: Session 1,
Encoding Phase

18. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
7 days later
Screening
Beverage
Manipulation
Rape
Post-
event
Narrative
Interview
Recog
Test

19. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
7 days later
Screening
Beverage
Manipulation
Rape
Post-
event
Narrative
Interview
Recog
Test

20. Correct Details
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
SAI
Placebo
0.06
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CI
Placebo
0.06

21. Incorrect Details
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SAI
Placebo
0.06 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CI
Placebo
0.06

22. Overall Accuracy
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Correct
ProportionCorrectly
Recalled
Self Administered
Interview
Placebo
0.06
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Correct
ProportionCorrectly
Recalled
Cognitive Interview
Placebo
0.06

23. Recognition Performance
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
consistent
"Idon'tknow"Responses
Placebo
0.06

24. Recognition Accuracy
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
consistent neutral misleading
Placebo
0.06

26. Other results
 Computed the Adjusted Normalised Discrimination Index, and
found that women who thought they had consumed alcohol had
higher discrimination accuracy, F(1, 33) = 10.17, p = .003, ηp
2 =
.24, MSE = .76
 Analysed the recall data as a function of person, object, action,
and location details, and interview phase (free recall v question),
and found some evidence that women who believed they had
consumed alcohol reported fewer details during the question
phase than those who thought they had tonic, F(4, 61) = 2.81, p
= .03, Wilks’ Lambda = .84, ηp
2 = .16.

27. Conclusion
 Do participants who were acutely alcohol-intoxicated during
encoding recall fewer correct details than their sober counterparts?
No
 Are intoxicated participants more likely to recall incorrect
information, particularly when they have been misled? No
 Does metacognitive discrimination accuracy lower for intoxicated
participants? No, and there was evidence that women were
controlling and monitoring their memory reports depending on
intoxication beliefs

28. Implications, Limitations and
Future Directions
 Alcohol does not necessarily affect the quality of memory reports
 Larger dose of alcohol necessary
 Field research may enable higher doses, but the trade-off is that
alcohol expectancy cannot be studied