Alcohol and Memory

Snap Shot

• The question: Short of a blackout, how does alcohol change what a person encodes, how and when the person can retrieve it, and how vulnerable the memory is to suggestion?
• What the research shows: Alcohol mainly impairs the formation of new memories, more as the dose rises, and impairs unaided recall more than recognition. Memory learned while drinking is somewhat easier to retrieve unaided in the same state, and drinking after an event has, in a number of studies, slightly improved memory for that event. At moderate doses, intoxicated participants in sexual assault scenarios generally reported less rather than less accurately.
• What it does not show: Most studies use moderate doses, scripted scenarios, and young volunteers, and some effects (state dependence, retrograde facilitation, alcohol-induced false memory) have not been consistent across studies. The research cannot say whether a particular person encoded, retained, or accurately reports a particular detail.
• The law: Expert testimony on alcohol and memory is governed by Rule 702, Daubert, Kumho, and Houser, and in Arizona by Chapple, Nordstrom, and Lindsey. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense (A.R.S. § 13-503; R.C.M. 916(l)(2), which admits it on specified mental elements), and capacity to consent is a legal question that memory research informs but does not answer.
• Issues for each side: Prosecutors may show that an intoxicated account is often incomplete rather than inaccurate and that gaps are expected, without presenting moderate-dose findings as settled for high doses; defense counsel may show dose, timing, and suggestion effects, recognizing that the same findings apply to the accused and do not establish that any account is wrong.

Alcohol is involved in a large share of the events that become criminal cases. One review estimated that roughly half of sexual assaults involve drinking by the perpetrator, the victim, or both (Abbey et al., 2001). The memory of a complainant, an accused, or a bystander who had been drinking is therefore often at issue, and the useful questions are specific: how much the person drank and when, whether drinking continued afterward, when the person was first interviewed, and what the person heard from others in the meantime.

The hub’s paper Intoxication and Memory gives the general overview, including identification and cannabis; this paper treats the non-blackout effects of alcohol in more depth. Blackouts are addressed in the Alcohol Blackouts resources listed at the end of this paper.

Dose and Encoding

Alcohol primarily disrupts the formation of new long-term memories. It leaves memories established before drinking largely intact and spares the ability to hold new information briefly in mind, and the impairment grows with the amount consumed (White, 2003, p. 186). Much of the cellular account of how alcohol disrupts the hippocampus comes from animal research (White, 2003).

The impairment is selective. In a double-blind study of three doses, alcohol produced a dose-dependent reduction in recognition accompanied by conscious recollection, while familiarity-based recognition did not differ significantly from placebo (Bisby et al., 2010). In a nine-hour drinking session, alcohol impaired recall more than recognition, impaired cued recall most, left priming and picture recognition unaffected, and impaired encoding whether blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was rising or falling (Söderlund et al., 2005). The form of a question therefore matters: a person who cannot freely recall a detail may recognize it, and something may feel familiar without the person being able to say where it was encountered.

Field research shows the same dose relationship. Bar patrons who watched a mock crime from a perpetrator’s perspective at moderate (mean 0.06%) or high (mean 0.16%) BAC recalled up to 33% fewer correct details when tested sober days later, and made more errors in cued recall than sober participants (van Oorsouw & Merckelbach, 2012). Because participants took the perpetrator’s role, the study bears on accused persons too. Doses are better compared by BAC than by number of drinks: women generally reach a higher BAC than men from the same dose, even adjusted for body weight, partly because women on average have less total body water (Mumenthaler et al., 1999).

Alcohol can also change how an event is perceived. Intoxicated participants who watched a film of intimate partner violence judged physical aggression to be milder and neutral conduct to be more hostile, and spread blame more evenly across the parties, compared with sober participants (Hildebrand Karlén et al., 2017); in a later study the reduced severity ratings required a BAC of at least 0.08% and persisted over a week (Hildebrand Karlén et al., 2021). These are perceptions rather than memory errors, but they can shape an account of who was the aggressor.

State-Dependent Retrieval

Memory formed in one physiological state can be easier to retrieve unaided in the same state. In an early study, men who learned material while intoxicated recalled it better the next day when intoxicated again than when sober, although recognition was not significantly affected by a change of state (Goodwin et al., 1969). Later experiments reproduced the pattern in free recall and found that information encoded while intoxicated was recalled less well overall (Weingartner et al., 1976), and that state dependence appeared on tasks requiring unaided recall but not on tasks that provided cues (Petersen, 1977). A review concluded that drug-state dependence appears mainly when people must generate their own retrieval cues and largely disappears when effective cues are supplied (Eich, 1980). Later studies at a moderate dose found that matching states affected the kind of material recalled and the experience of remembering more than the overall amount (Weissenborn & Duka, 2000; Duka et al., 2001). One review judged clear evidence of alcohol state-dependent learning to be lacking (White, 2003).

The dominant effect remains impaired encoding; poorly encoded material is not recovered by drinking again, and state dependence is not a basis for re-intoxicating a witness. A sober person who cannot freely recall something learned while intoxicated may still recall it with cues, which is consistent with genuine retrieval and is also a reason to record what cues were supplied.

Drinking After the Event: Retrograde Facilitation

Alcohol consumed after learning has, in several laboratory studies, improved later memory for the material learned before drinking. Alcohol taken immediately after learning improved later remembering of verbal and visual material (Parker et al., 1980) and recognition of pictures (Parker et al., 1981), improved recall of prose but not word lists (Lamberty et al., 1990), and improved next-day recall of statements rated while sober (Bruce & Pihl, 1997). In a naturalistic study, social drinkers who drank at home after learning performed better the next morning than sober controls, and facilitation rose with the amount consumed (Carlyle et al., 2017). Whether alcohol works by blocking interference from new learning or by aiding consolidation has not been settled.

In a forensic analogue, participants who drank after watching a simulated crime were less likely than controls to report misinformation presented afterward (Gawrylowicz et al., 2017). The effect is not uniformly robust: a preregistered replication found no overall facilitation in cued or free recall, although modeling showed a retrieval advantage (Quevedo Pütter & Erdfelder, 2022). On present evidence, drinking after an event has not been shown to degrade memory for it, while it does impair memory for what happens next, including later conversations and interviews. When drinking occurred relative to the events at issue therefore matters.

Suggestion, Source Memory, and False Memory

Findings on whether alcohol produces false memories are mixed. In word-list studies, a low dose did not change overall false recognition but increased the share of false items participants said they consciously remembered (Milani & Curran, 2000), and a dose-effect study found that alcohol reduced correct recognition and made responding more cautious without affecting false recognition (Mintzer & Griffiths, 2001). Alcohol at encoding also reduced participants’ awareness that items had come from the study list, which bears on source memory, the ability to identify where a remembered item came from (Duka et al., 2001).

In witness studies, results depend on dose. Highly intoxicated bar patrons (mean BAC 0.16%) were more likely to accept suggestive questions both immediately and when retested sober (van Oorsouw et al., 2015). At moderate intoxication, participants intoxicated at both encoding and interview recalled fewer correct details but made no more confabulation errors and were no more suggestible on a standardized scale (Mindthoff et al., 2021). At moderate levels, completeness of recall is affected more than accuracy, at the levels tested. In a field study of pubgoers shown a mock crime and a co-witness statement with correct and false details, greater intoxication was associated with lower confidence, completeness, and accuracy but not with more reporting of false details, and correct co-witness information improved accuracy regardless of intoxication (Bartlett, Albery, et al., 2022). A co-witness shown drinking was judged less credible, but participants were no less likely to adopt that co-witness’s false details (Bartlett, Gawrylowicz, et al., 2022).

Researchers disagree about what this literature supports. A review found the clearest evidence of increased suggestibility under heavy intoxication or after a delay (Kloft et al., 2021); a commentary responded that problems of validity and method preclude blanket conclusions and that policy recommendations would be premature and could unfairly prejudice intoxicated witnesses (Flowe & Schreiber Compo, 2021). Neither position supports presuming that an intoxicated account contains false details.

Memory for Sexual-Assault-Relevant Events

Several experiments have tested women’s memory for interactive hypothetical sexual assault scenarios, using balanced-placebo designs that separate the effect of alcohol from the effect of believing one has consumed it. In one, participants who drank answered “don’t know” more often at 24 hours and four months, but what they reported was as accurate as sober participants’ reports at the doses tested; both groups remembered peripheral details less accurately than central ones, with a steeper decline over time; and participants told they were drinking were more accurate (Flowe et al., 2016). In another, at a mean BAC of 0.06%, alcohol did not increase reporting of a misleading narrative presented a week later (Flowe et al., 2019). In a third (90 women, mean breath alcohol 0.06%), one-week accuracy for what the perpetrator did during the non-consensual portion was unaffected by alcohol, and more confident answers were more often correct, although participants were overconfident overall (Stevens et al., 2023). Among bystanders recruited near bars, greater intoxication was associated with less accurate recall of a sexual assault vignette and poorer assessment of risk (Melkonian et al., 2020).

The expectancy findings suggest that beliefs about one’s drinking can affect how carefully one monitors memory. The studies used moderate doses and imagined scenarios and do not address high-dose intoxication, the stress of an actual assault, or blackout-level impairment.

Next-Day Memory and Self-Reports of Drinking

A meta-analysis of studies testing people during hangover, when BAC had returned to near zero, estimated moderate impairments in short-term and long-term memory and sustained attention, although individual studies were mixed and confidence intervals wide (Gunn et al., 2018). A person interviewed the morning after heavy drinking may perform below baseline for reasons unrelated to encoding.

Reports of how much a person drank are themselves memories. When young adults’ reports of a night’s drinking were compared with field observations, estimates were accurate at eight or fewer drinks, and underestimation grew with heavier drinking (Northcote & Livingston, 2011). Any account of consumption is best checked against receipts, video, test results, and other witnesses.

Chronic Heavy Drinking

Long-term heavy drinking is associated with broader cognitive deficits. A meta-analysis found moderate impairment across most cognitive domains, including verbal and visual memory, during the first year of abstinence, with generally small effects after a year (Stavro et al., 2013); an updated meta-analysis using standardized neuropsychological tests found that memory deficits persisted even in people abstinent for longer periods (Crowe et al., 2020). Korsakoff’s syndrome, a severe amnestic condition caused principally by thiamine deficiency, most often in the context of alcohol misuse, involves anterograde and retrograde amnesia and sometimes confabulation (Arts et al., 2017). Confabulation in that syndrome is an honest memory error, not lying. A history of heavy drinking does not establish that a particular account is impaired; that question requires individual assessment.

Implications for Interview Timing and Method

A review of free-recall studies concluded that immediate reports by intoxicated witnesses may yield more information than reports a week later, that an early interview can improve later recall, and that new details in repeated interviews tend to be as accurate as earlier ones (Hildebrand Karlén, 2018). When 58 young social drinkers given placebo or alcohol (the higher dose peaking near the UK driving limit) recalled a filmed crime immediately and 24 hours later, about 18% of second-session details were new and accurate and contradictions were under 1%, with no dose effect, although errors rose slightly in all groups. The authors cautioned that a null result from a modest sample cannot show that alcohol has no effect (La Rooy et al., 2013). For witnesses who were sober, moderately intoxicated, or more heavily intoxicated when they viewed a theft on a night out, the Enhanced Cognitive Interview improved accuracy and completeness in all three groups compared with a structured interview (Crossland et al., 2020).

The findings also identify what to document: breath or blood alcohol and the time measured, drinking after the event, sleep and hangover before a next-day interview, and co-witness discussion. Accuracy-focused retelling can strengthen recall; slanted retelling, repeated suggestive questioning, or exposure to others’ accounts can contaminate it (see “Remembering Changes Memory”). An early, brief, recorded open-ended account, with a fuller interview after the person has sobered and rested, fits this research, although that sequence has not been tested across the intoxication levels seen in cases.

Limits of the Evidence

Ethical limits keep most laboratory doses at or below roughly 0.08–0.10% BAC; field studies reach higher levels at the cost of control over dose, other drugs, and expectancies. Samples are mostly young social drinkers, and materials are often word lists or filmed or scripted events with no personal stakes. Several effects, including state dependence, retrograde facilitation, and alcohol-related false memory, have been inconsistent across studies or rest on small samples. Case BAC estimates are often reconstructed from imprecise reports. Sex differences have seldom been examined: two intimate partner violence studies with similar numbers of men and women found no participant-sex difference (Hildebrand Karlén et al., 2017, 2021), and gender did not moderate intoxication effects among bar-area bystanders (Melkonian et al., 2020). Otherwise the sexual assault scenario studies tested only women, several foundational studies only men (Goodwin et al., 1969; Parker et al., 1980; Bruce & Pihl, 1997; Söderlund et al., 2005), mixed-sex studies usually adjusted dose for sex without comparing the sexes, and women are underrepresented in chronic-drinking research (Crowe et al., 2020). These are group findings and cannot settle whether a particular person encoded, retained, or accurately reports a particular detail.

Questions to Ask About This Research

When the sexual assault scenario studies (Flowe et al., 2016, 2019; Stevens et al., 2023) are cited to show that an intoxicated complainant’s account is likely accurate, counsel can ask who was studied and at what dose, since mean BACs were about 0.06% and the scenarios were hypothetical. When van Oorsouw et al. (2015) is cited to show that an intoxicated person is suggestible, counsel can ask whether the person’s intoxication resembled the study’s high group, since moderate intoxication did not increase suggestibility in Mindthoff et al. (2021). When retrograde facilitation (Carlyle et al., 2017; Gawrylowicz et al., 2017) is offered to suggest that later drinking strengthened a memory, counsel can ask whether the finding has held up, given the mixed results of a preregistered replication (Quevedo Pütter & Erdfelder, 2022). When Goodwin et al. (1969) is cited, counsel can ask what was measured, since the effect appeared in recall but not recognition. When anyone’s estimate of how much was consumed is relied on, counsel can ask whether it has been checked against independent evidence (Northcote & Livingston, 2011). These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.

Alcohol, Memory, and the Law

Federal and Military Standards

Expert testimony about alcohol and memory is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, which requires the proponent to show that it is more likely than not that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, reflects reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of them to the case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) makes the court a gatekeeper, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extends that obligation to all expert testimony, including non-scientific technical or specialized knowledge. Military Rule of Evidence 702 tracks the federal rule; the 2023 amendment took effect in the military rule in 2025 through Military Rule of Evidence 1102 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025; practitioners should confirm current text), and military judges also apply the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993). Voluntary intoxication, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not a defense in a court-martial, but evidence of it may be introduced to raise a reasonable doubt about actual knowledge, specific intent, willfulness, or premeditation when one of those is an element (R.C.M. 916(l)(2)). Article 120, UCMJ, reaches sexual acts with a person “incapable of consenting” because of impairment by an intoxicant that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of (10 U.S.C. § 920(b)(3)(A), (g)(8)). Memory research can describe what alcohol does to encoding and recall; capacity to consent is a separate question for the factfinder.

Arizona

Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective January 1, 2012, to adopt the federal formulation and the Daubert standard, and effective January 1, 2024, to track the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). State v. Chapple (1983) is Arizona’s leading case on expert testimony about the reliability of eyewitness memory, and excluding that testimony was an abuse of discretion on its facts; State v. Nordstrom (2001) approved limiting such an expert to general factors without an opinion on a particular witness’s accuracy, and State v. Lindsey (1986) bars expert opinion on a particular witness’s credibility. Under A.R.S. § 13-503, temporary intoxication from the voluntary use of alcohol or other substances is not insanity and is not a defense to any criminal act or requisite state of mind. “Without consent” in Arizona’s sexual offense statutes includes a victim’s incapacity to consent by reason of alcohol, drugs, or a similar impairment of cognition that the defendant knew or should reasonably have known of (A.R.S. § 13-1401(A)(7)(b)).

Special Issues in Legal Practice

The principles described above apply with equal force to every party in a legal proceeding. The science operates the same way regardless of who is asking the questions, and the research summarized here does not by itself favor either side. What differs between the parties is not the science but the vantage point — the particular places where these issues tend to surface, and the particular errors each party is best positioned to guard against. The two summaries below identify those recurring issues. They are offered for orientation, not as litigation strategy; in every case the controlling question is what the evidence in that case will, and will not, support, and the expert’s role is to inform the trier of fact rather than to advocate for either side.

Special Issues for Prosecutors

The research supports several propositions prosecutors can legitimately present. At the moderate doses studied, intoxicated participants in sexual assault scenarios reported less but not less accurately and tended to answer “don’t know” rather than guess; gaps reflect alcohol’s effect on encoding and are not, on their own, evidence of fabrication. A detail that surfaces only with cues may reflect genuine retrieval, and drinking after an event has not been shown to degrade memory for it. Prosecutors can protect the evidence by obtaining an early, recorded, open-ended account, documenting BAC and timing, and using the cognitive interview once the person is sober.

The research also counsels caution. The reassuring scenario findings come from moderate doses and hypothetical events; at high doses, field studies have found less accurate recall and greater suggestibility that persisted after sobering. Self-reports of drinking, including the complainant’s, tend to understate heavy consumption. A memory gap is not by itself proof of incapacity, and testimony that equates the two goes beyond the research. The same findings apply to the accused’s account and statements.

Special Issues for Defense

The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. Alcohol impairs encoding in proportion to dose, affects unaided recall more than recognition, can change how aggression and blame are perceived, and at high doses has been associated with more errors and greater suggestibility. Co-witness discussion can introduce false details at any level of intoxication, next-day interviews may be affected by hangover, and self-reported consumption is often underestimated at heavy levels. Testimony explaining these findings, tied to evidence of dose, timing, and what the person was told, can help the factfinder weigh an account.

The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. Intoxicated participants are often accurate in what they report, and alcohol-induced false memory has not been consistently shown at moderate doses. An expert cannot tell the factfinder that a particular person failed to encode an event or is mistaken. The same principles apply to the accused: drinking impairs the accused’s own encoding and estimates of consumption, voluntary intoxication is not a defense in Arizona or in courts-martial (although the military rule admits it on specified mental elements), and the accused’s account of an intoxicated period raises the same questions of reconstruction and suggestion.

This paper is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The author is a psychologist, not an attorney; summaries of law are general and must be verified against current authority or with a licensed attorney.

References

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research & Health, 25(1), 43–51.

Arts, N. J. M., Walvoort, S. J. W., & Kessels, R. P. C. (2017). Korsakoff’s syndrome: A critical review. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13, 2875–2890. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S130078

Bartlett, G., Albery, I. P., Frings, D., & Gawrylowicz, J. (2022). The effects of alcohol and co-witness information on memory reports: A field study. Psychopharmacology, 239(9), 2945–2953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-022-06179-5

Bartlett, G., Gawrylowicz, J., Frings, D., & Albery, I. P. (2022). Would you believe an intoxicated witness? The impact of witness alcohol intoxication status on credibility judgments and suggestibility. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 983681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.983681

Bisby, J. A., Leitz, J. R., Morgan, C. J. A., & Curran, H. V. (2010). Decreases in recollective experience following acute alcohol: A dose–response study. Psychopharmacology, 208(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-009-1709-y

Bruce, K. R., & Pihl, R. O. (1997). Forget “drinking to forget”: Enhanced consolidation of emotionally charged memory by alcohol. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5(3), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.5.3.242

Carlyle, M., Dumay, N., Roberts, K., McAndrew, A., Stevens, T., Lawn, W., & Morgan, C. J. A. (2017). Improved memory for information learnt before alcohol use in social drinkers tested in a naturalistic setting. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 6213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06305-w

Crossland, D., Kneller, W., & Wilcock, R. (2020). Improving intoxicated witness recall with the Enhanced Cognitive Interview. Psychopharmacology, 237(7), 2213–2230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-020-05531-x

Crowe, S. F., Cammisuli, D. M., & Stranks, E. K. (2020). Widespread cognitive deficits in alcoholism persistent following prolonged abstinence: An updated meta-analysis of studies that used standardised neuropsychological assessment tools. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy106

Duka, T., Weissenborn, R., & Dienes, Z. (2001). State-dependent effects of alcohol on recollective experience, familiarity and awareness of memories. Psychopharmacology, 153(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130000564

Eich, J. E. (1980). The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 8(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213419

Flowe, H. D., Humphries, J. E., Takarangi, M. K. T., Zelek, K., Karoğlu, N., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2019). An experimental examination of the effects of alcohol consumption and exposure to misleading postevent information on remembering a hypothetical rape scenario. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3531

Flowe, H. D., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2021). The lack of robust evidence for the effects of alcohol on false memory. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127, 332–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.04.029

Flowe, H. D., Takarangi, M. K. T., Humphries, J. E., & Wright, D. S. (2016). Alcohol and remembering a hypothetical sexual assault: Can people who were under the influence of alcohol during the event provide accurate testimony? Memory, 24(8), 1042–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1064536

Gawrylowicz, J., Ridley, A. M., Albery, I. P., Barnoth, E., & Young, J. (2017). Alcohol-induced retrograde facilitation renders witnesses of crime less suggestible to misinformation. Psychopharmacology, 234(8), 1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4564-2

Goodwin, D. W., Powell, B., Bremer, D., Hoine, H., & Stern, J. (1969). Alcohol and recall: State-dependent effects in man. Science, 163(3873), 1358–1360. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.163.3873.1358

Gunn, C., Mackus, M., Griffin, C., Munafò, M. R., & Adams, S. (2018). A systematic review of the next-day effects of heavy alcohol consumption on cognitive performance. Addiction, 113(12), 2182–2193. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14404

Hildebrand Karlén, M. (2018). Interviewing intoxicated witnesses: Memory performance in theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12404

Hildebrand Karlén, M., Green, J., Larsson, A., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2021). Time and alcohol do not change everything: How intoxicated witnesses perceive aggression in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), NP13028–NP13053. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519900271

Hildebrand Karlén, M., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Fahlke, C., Granhag, P. A., & Söderpalm Gordh, A. (2017). Alcohol intoxicated witnesses: Perception of aggression and guilt in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(22), 3448–3474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515599656

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2025). Amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence since 1984 (G. E. Maggs, Ed.; 2025 ed.). https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/MRE%20Amendments%202025.pdf

Kloft, L., Monds, L. A., Blokland, A., Ramaekers, J. G., & Otgaar, H. (2021). Hazy memories in the courtroom: A review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 124, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.012

La Rooy, D., Nicol, A., & Terry, P. (2013). Intoxicated eyewitnesses: The effects of alcohol on eyewitness recall across repeated interviews. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmp.2013.23017

Lamberty, G. J., Beckwith, B. E., Petros, T. V., & Ross, A. R. (1990). Posttrial treatment with ethanol enhances recall of prose narratives. Physiology & Behavior, 48(5), 653–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(90)90206-J

Melkonian, A. J., Ham, L. S., Wiersma-Mosley, J. D., Jackson, K. K., Mobley, A. M., Jozkowski, K. N., Willis, M., & Bridges, A. J. (2020). Alcohol intoxication impairs the bystander intervention process in a hypothetical sexual assault: A field investigation. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000283

Milani, R., & Curran, H. V. (2000). Effects of a low dose of alcohol on recollective experience of illusory memory. Psychopharmacology, 147(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130050008

Mindthoff, A., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., Polanco, K., & Hagsand, A. V. (2021). No evidence that low levels of intoxication at both encoding and retrieval impact scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Psychopharmacology, 238(6), 1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-05797-9

Mintzer, M. Z., & Griffiths, R. R. (2001). Alcohol and false recognition: A dose-effect study. Psychopharmacology, 159(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130100893

Mumenthaler, M. S., Taylor, J. L., O’Hara, R., & Yesavage, J. A. (1999). Gender differences in moderate drinking effects. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(1), 55–64.

Northcote, J., & Livingston, M. (2011). Accuracy of self-reported drinking: Observational verification of ‘last occasion’ drink estimates of young adults. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 46(6), 709–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agr138

Parker, E. S., Birnbaum, I. M., Weingartner, H., Hartley, J. T., Stillman, R. C., & Wyatt, R. J. (1980). Retrograde enhancement of human memory with alcohol. Psychopharmacology, 69(2), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00427653

Parker, E. S., Morihisa, J. M., Wyatt, R. J., Schwartz, B. L., Weingartner, H., & Stillman, R. C. (1981). The alcohol facilitation effect on memory: A dose-response study. Psychopharmacology, 74(1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00431763

Petersen, R. C. (1977). Retrieval failures in alcohol state-dependent learning. Psychopharmacology, 55(2), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01457849

Quevedo Pütter, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2022). Alcohol-induced retrograde facilitation? Mixed evidence in a preregistered replication and encoding-maintenance-retrieval analysis. Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000569

Söderlund, H., Parker, E. S., Schwartz, B. L., & Tulving, E. (2005). Memory encoding and retrieval on the ascending and descending limbs of the blood alcohol concentration curve. Psychopharmacology, 182(2), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0096-2

Stavro, K., Pelletier, J., & Potvin, S. (2013). Widespread and sustained cognitive deficits in alcoholism: A meta-analysis. Addiction Biology, 18(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2011.00418.x

Stevens, L. M., Monds, L. A., Riordan, B., Hayre, R. K., & Flowe, H. D. (2023). Acute alcohol intoxication and alcohol expectancy effects on women’s memory for consensual and non-consensual sexual activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1008563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008563

van Oorsouw, K., & Merckelbach, H. (2012). The effects of alcohol on crime-related memories: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1799

van Oorsouw, K., Merckelbach, H., & Smeets, T. (2015). Alcohol intoxication impairs memory and increases suggestibility for a mock crime: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3129

Weingartner, H., Adefris, W., Eich, J. E., & Murphy, D. L. (1976). Encoding-imagery specificity in alcohol state-dependent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2(1), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.83

Weissenborn, R., & Duka, T. (2000). State-dependent effects of alcohol on explicit memory: The role of semantic associations. Psychopharmacology, 149(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002139900349

White, A. M. (2003). What happened? Alcohol, memory blackouts, and the brain. Alcohol Research & Health, 27(2), 186–196.

Legal Authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).

State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).

United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).

10 U.S.C. § 920 (Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-503.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1401.

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Ariz. R. Evid. 702.

Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).

Mil. R. Evid. 702.

Mil. R. Evid. 1102.

Rule for Courts-Martial 916(l)(2).

Related topic papers: Intoxication and Memory · Mood-Congruent and State-Dependent Memory · Source Monitoring · The Misinformation Effect · Remembering Changes Memory · The Hippocampus

Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Alcohol Blackouts · Alcohol Blackouts: Alcohol Blackout / Amnesia · Courts-Martial