Abstract
We comment on Kloft et al.'s (2021) review of the effects of alcohol and other drugs on false memory reporting. Across studies, problems of internal and external validity and methodological consistency preclude any blanket conclusions and recommendations regarding alcohol's effects on false memory reporting and suggestibility in witnesses. We argue that any policy and practice conclusions drawn from this limited literature are premature and would be unfairly prejudicial to witnesses and confusing to triers of fact at this time.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 332-333 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews |
Volume | 127 |
Early online date | 4 May 2021 |
DOIs |
|
Publication status | Published - Aug 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2021
Keywords
- Alcohol
- Drugs
- False memory
- Intoxication
- Suggestibility
- Suspect
- Victim
- Witness
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Behavioral Neuroscience