Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 Aug 19;43(10):2203–2211. doi: 10.1111/acer.14156

Observing Alcohol Myopia in the Context of a Trauma Film Paradigm: Differential Recall of Central and Peripheral Details

Anna E Jaffe 1, Christina M Harris 2, David DiLillo 3
PMCID: PMC6824713  NIHMSID: NIHMS1044328  PMID: 31381171

Abstract

Background:

A major tenet of the Alcohol Myopia Model is that intoxication results in a narrowing of attention to the most central environmental cues, at the cost of more peripheral information. Though long hypothesized, no known study of alcohol myopia has demonstrated differential immediate recall of central and peripheral cues using a standardized task. To address this gap, we conducted an alcohol administration study with a clear, standardized focus—a trauma film.

Methods:

Ninety-eight female social drinkers completed self-report measures, and then were randomized to consume a placebo beverage, a low dose of alcohol (mean Breath Alcohol Concentration [BrAC] = .04%), or a high dose of alcohol (mean BrAC = .11%). Participants then moved to a staged room where they viewed a film clip depicting a sexual assault. After leaving the room, participants completed a written free recall task of the film and the room.

Results:

The distinction between recall of central and peripheral details was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. Consistent with the Alcohol Myopia Model, relative to placebo, a high dose of alcohol led to impaired recall of peripheral (but not central) details. Although the interaction between BrAC and information type (central vs. peripheral) was not statistically significant, simple effects revealed a strong association between BrAC and peripheral information, and no association between BrAC and central information. Bolstering myopia as an explanation for our findings, neither central nor peripheral information correlated with self-reported tendencies to dissociate or distract oneself, or typical alcohol consumption or expectancies.

Conclusions:

Alcohol myopia can be observed through an immediate free recall task following a stressful film. Additional research is needed to continue evaluating dose-dependent differential recall in larger samples. This task may be useful for clarifying the role of alcohol myopia in clinical phenomena, such as aggressive behavior and processing traumatic events.

Keywords: attention allocation model, intoxicated eyewitness, dose-dependent, acute alcohol intoxication

Nearly 30 years ago, Steele and Josephs (1990) proposed the Alcohol Myopia Model (AMM), which suggests the pharmacological effects of acute alcohol intoxication produce a narrowing of attention, restricting the range of internal and external cues perceived and processed by the intoxicated individual. According to this model, myopia manifests in an enhanced focus on immediate, salient or central information to the exclusion of longer-term perspectives involving peripheral information. AMM has been used to explain many intoxicated behaviors, including drunk driving, risky sexual behavior, aggression, and suicide (Cooper, 2006; Giancola et al., 2010; Hufford, 2001; MacDonald et al., 1995). However, efforts to directly test one of its main tenets—the differential effects of intoxication on central versus peripheral attention—have been limited. The few studies to do so have involved lab-based cognitive tasks examining micro-level indicators of attention. For example, Harvey et al. (2013) found intoxicated participants made fewer eye movements to peripheral regions of an image than sober participants. Relatedly, intoxication reduced participants’ accuracy detecting a peripheral probe, but had no effect on a central counting task (Bayless & Harvey, 2017). Similar effects have been observed using the “gorillas in our midst” film (Simons & Chabris, 1999); intoxicated participants were more likely than placebo participants to miss the gorilla due to a narrowed focus on the central task of counting passes (Clifasefi et al., 2006; Harvey et al., 2018).

Building on these basic findings, alcohol myopia has recently been examined using more ecologically valid tasks. Fairbairn and Sayette (2013) recorded facial affect during unstructured social interactions and, consistent with AMM, found that, relative to placebo, intoxicated participants’ affect was more present-focused and less influenced by past, peripheral experiences. In another alcohol administration study, participants who consumed alcohol in a simulated bar recalled less peripheral information about the bar environment than sober participants, but were no different in recall for central information about their interactions with a confederate bartender (Schreiber Compo et al., 2011).

With the present study, we sought to replicate and extend prior work demonstrating alcohol myopia using an ecologically valid lab-based paradigm. Similar to Schreiber Compo et al. (2011), we examined differential free recall of central and peripheral information during intoxication. However, we also addressed three previously unanswered questions. First, based on Steele and Josephs’ (1990) supposition that alcohol myopia “increases with dosage” (p. 924), we randomized participants to low and high dose alcohol conditions (or a placebo condition) to examine whether myopia is greater for those with higher levels of intoxication. Second, in contrast to Schreiber Compo et al.’s (2011) unstructured task, we employed a standardized stimulus (a film). This approach may facilitate replication efforts, as the saliency or centrality of cues may vary with the use of unstructured situations. Third, ecological validity was bolstered by using a well-established trauma film paradigm (Holmes & Bourne, 2008). This film evokes strong negative emotions, which are common in situations where alcohol myopia is implicated. Indeed, alcohol intoxication is involved in 19 to 37% of violent crimes (Rand et al., 2010) and at least half of all sexual assaults (Abbey, 2002).

Within this framework, we tested several hypotheses. First, we examined definitions of peripheral and central details. Whereas Schreiber Compo et al. (2011) made conceptual distinctions between peripheral and central details, we evaluated such distinctions empirically and considered post-hoc adjustments to this operationalization. Specifically, we expected peripheral and central information to be represented by distinct latent factors within a measurement model of participant recall (Hypothesis 1). Next, consistent with prior work on alcohol and overall recollection, we expected alcohol intoxication would not affect the total information recalled (Schreiber Compo et al., 2012; Hypothesis 2a), but would impair cognitive functioning, thereby reducing the recall of task-relevant information (i.e., scorable details; Hagsand et al., 2013; Harvey et al., 2013; Yuille & Tollestrup, 1990; Hypothesis 2b). We anticipated that greater intoxication would specifically result in impaired recall of peripheral—but not central—information, reflecting alcohol myopia (Schreiber Compo et al., 2011; Hypothesis 3).

To rule out plausible alternative explanations, we also considered whether recall might reflect constructs other than alcohol myopia. To examine the possibility that participants might focus on peripheral cues to avoid distressing film content, we measured dissociation, distraction, and tendency to suppress thoughts (Hypothesis 4a). Given that heavy drinkers may experience general cognitive impairments (Ratti et al., 1999), we also considered whether impaired recall might be associated with typical alcohol consumption or everyday experiences with alcohol-related impairment. If so, we would expect reduced recall of central and peripheral details to be associated with greater typical alcohol consumption, higher expectations that drinking would lead to cognitive or behavioral impairment, and increased tendency to recognize experiences of alcohol myopia (Hypothesis 4b).

Materials and Methods

Participants

Women were recruited from the community for a larger study on alcohol, memories, and emotions. Recruitment methods included flyers, online advertisements, newspaper classifieds, and emails to university students. To participate, individuals were required to report social drinking (3+ standard drinks per occasion, 2+ occasions per month; Giancola et al., 2012). Due to risks associated with alcohol consumption, the following exclusion criteria were employed (National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2005; Watkins et al., 2015): (a) current/past alcohol-related treatment/hospitalization; (b) serious psychological symptoms; (c) medical contraindications for alcohol consumption; (d) serious head injury; (e) current pregnancy (assessed via urine pregnancy test); (f) nursing an infant; (g) the presence of a positive breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) upon arrival. Because amount of alcohol administered was based on participant weight, we adopted an upper weight limit (250 pounds) for eligibility.

Additional eligibility criteria were established given the nature of the trauma film, which depicted a sexual assault. Because risk for sexual victimization is higher for women than men (Black et al., 2011) and highest before age 30 (Ogle et al., 2013), film content was expected to be most applicable to young adult women. Accordingly, we recruited women ages 21 (legal drinking age) to 30 to limit variability in emotional responses and salience of film content. To reduce the likelihood of an adverse reaction to the film, individuals were excluded if they reported a personal history of sexual victimization (Weidmann et al., 2009), including contact sexual abuse before age 14 (assessed via three screening questions of the Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory sexual abuse subscale; DiLillo et al., 2010) or a forcible sexual assault since age 14 (assessed via four questions from the Sexual Experiences Survey; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Finally, access to a smartphone or tablet was required for participation in the larger study.

Of the 124 women who completed a telephone screening and were eligible to participate, 98 completed the laboratory session. There were no demographic differences between eligible individuals who did and did not participate. Mean age of the 98 participants was 23.03 (SD = 2.19). Regarding ethnicity, 14.3% were Latina/Hispanic. In addition, 84.7% identified as White, 13.3% as Asian, 4.1% as African American, and 5.1% as “Other” (participants could endorse multiple categories).

Laboratory Tasks

Alcohol administration.

A single-blind, no-information design was used to focus on the pharmacological effects of alcohol (Martin & Sayette, 1993). Participants were told they might be assigned to a high dose alcohol condition, a low dose alcohol condition, or a no-alcohol condition, but were not told which beverage they received until after all study procedures were complete. Participants were randomly assigned to a placebo or, similar to prior trauma film studies (Bisby et al., 2009, 2010), a low dose alcohol (.36 g/kg) or high dose alcohol (.72 g/kg) condition. Alcohol beverages involved a 1:5 ratio of 95% alcohol (190 proof Everclear) to mixer (orange juice); placebo beverages consisted of two glasses of mixer, each topped with 2 ml alcohol and sprayed with an alcohol/water mixture. Participants were allotted 20–30 minutes for drink consumption. Those who consumed a low or high dose of alcohol then completed a 20–35-minute absorption period (depending on time to reach target BrAC); those in the placebo condition received no absorption period (e.g., Giancola et al., 2012; Watkins et al., 2015) given that alcohol placebo manipulations are only effective for a brief time (Bradlyn & Young, 1983; Martin et al., 1990; Martin & Sayette, 1993) and distractor tasks do not facilitate placebo effectiveness (Schlauch et al., 2010). After participants rinsed their mouths with water, BrAC was assessed using the Intoximeter (St. Louis, MO) Alco-Sensor FST Breathalyzer. Participants also reported whether they believed they consumed alcohol (yes or no) and their subjective level of intoxication on a scale from 0 to 11, with 0=not at all, 8=drunk as I have ever been, and 11=more drunk than I have ever been (Giancola et al., 2012).

Trauma film.

Participants viewed a 10.5-minute film clip depicting a sexual assault from the 2003 French-language feature film, Irreversible. To avoid detracting attention from the visual images, English subtitles were not displayed. The clip consists of a single unbroken shot, mimicking memory formation of personal events. Recent studies have validated and recommended the Irreversible segment for use in trauma film studies, due to its consistent capacity to induce negative affect (Arnaudova & Hagenaars, 2017; Weidmann et al., 2009). Participants were informed of the distressing nature of this film beforehand, as well as their right to stop the film (and participation) at any time by pressing the spacebar.

Measures

Alcohol myopia.

A free recall task completed while still under the influence of alcohol was adapted from Schreiber Compo et al. (2011). After the absorption period, participants moved to a separate, staged room (Figure 1) where they remained for approximately 30 minutes. In this room, participants viewed the trauma film and completed tasks related to the larger study (emotion ratings, heart rate assessments, monitoring film-related intrusive memories). Then, participants returned to the original room and, around 7 minutes later, were prompted verbally and in writing to recall details about the staged room:

“Please take some time to think about what you saw and heard in the other participant room where you watched the film clip. Picture the room and think back to where you were sitting. Try to remember details about the environment, objects in the room, the tasks you completed, and the film clip. Please take the next 10 minutes to write out all you can remember about what you saw and heard in the other participant room where you watched the film clip. Please write down any detail you can remember, even if it might seem trivial.”

The average time spent on this survey page, including reading instructions and writing the response, was 9.46 minutes (SD = 3.01). Participants were not informed ahead of time about the task.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Staged room.

A team of research assistants (RAs) coded participant responses for the number of accurate details reported for each item in the room, as well as each person and object in the film. RAs read the whole response, then coded each sentence, determining accuracy by referring to photos of the room and screenshots of the film. Before coding participant responses, a codebook was developed based on a training set of four RA-generated responses. To avoid drift in coding, discrepancies were reviewed after coding 40% of participant responses. Coding schemes included 42 items in the room (e.g., books, artificial tree), 6 people in the film (e.g., female victim, male perpetrator, bystander who walked away), and 22 objects in the film (e.g., perpetrator’s knife, passing cars). Editorializing (e.g., personal anecdotes, reactions) was not coded. Participant mention of an item (0=no, 1=yes) and number of accurate, observable details (adjectives, location of objects, actions of persons in the film) were coded by a first rater and summed to create an overall measure of information per item. A second rater coded 50% responses and achieved excellent interrater agreement (across all items, ICC = .98). Confirmatory factor analyses described below were used to test whether each coded item best represented central or peripheral information.

Dissociation.

The Dissociative Experiences Scale-II (Carlson & Putnam, 1993) is a 28-item assessment of dissociative experiences. Participants specified the percentage of time each dissociative experience occurred (e.g., not hearing what was said, daydreaming) when not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, from 0% to 100% in increments of 10. A mean score was computed; α = .85.

Distraction.

The 6-item Distraction subscale of the Thought Control Questionnaire (Wells & Davies, 1994) assessed tendency to use distraction techniques. Participants were asked to consider times they had experienced unpleasant or unwanted thoughts, and report how often they used cognitive (“I think about something else”) and behavioral (“I do something that I enjoy”) distraction techniques. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (almost always). A sum score was computed; α = .76.

Thought suppression.

The White Bear Suppression Inventory (Wegner & Zanakos, 1994) is a 15-item assessment of individuals’ tendency to suppress thoughts (“I have thoughts I try to avoid”). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sum score was computed; α = .91.

Typical alcohol consumption.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption Questions (Bush et al., 1998) involves three items assessing alcohol use. A sum score was computed (range: 0–12).

Expectation of alcohol-related impairment.

The 9-item Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment subscale of the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol questionnaire (Fromme et al., 1993) measures expectations that drinking alcohol leads to cognitive and behavioral changes. Items were rated from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree). A mean score was computed; α = .80.

Self-reported alcohol myopia.

The 14-item Alcohol Myopia Scale (Lac & Berger, 2013) assesses frequency of AMM-consistent experiences (“I was more exaggerated in my behaviors”) during drinking episodes in the past 30 days. Items were rated from 1 (never) to 7 (always). A mean score was computed; α = .89.

Procedure

Interested individuals completed an initial phone screening, and if eligible, confirmed responses to the screening in the laboratory. Participants provided full written and verbal informed consent. Data were collected as part of a larger study, which involved other assessments (daily diaries, one-week follow-up) not reported here. The university Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.

Analytic Rationale

Manipulation check.

To ensure the alcohol manipulation was successful, between-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine group differences in peak BrAC levels before film viewing (immediately following the absorption period) and at any time in the lab after the recall task (BrAC was still ascending for some who received a high dose). ANOVAs were conducted in SAS PROC MIXED; variances for each condition were estimated separately when possible.

Confirmatory factor analysis.

To evaluate the distinction between central and peripheral information (Hypothesis 1), confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in Mplus v.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Confirmatory factor analysis is a hypothesis-driven approach to evaluate latent traits underlying a measure. An initial model is tested based on expectations, then conceptually-justified adjustments are made to achieve satisfactory model fit. Latent variables were identified by fixing latent factor means to 0 and factor variances to 1. The overall (global) model fit was evaluated using the χ2 test of absolute model fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Good fit is indicated by a non-significant χ2 test of absolute model fit, CFI and TLI values greater than .95, and RMSEA value or 90% confidence interval under .05. The relative fit of items on each factor (local fit) was examined using standardized loadings and residuals.

Because representing each object as a separate indicator would have resulted in nearly as many parameters as participants, objects were combined into larger groupings based on location and salience. A total of 13 groupings (5 for the room; 8 for the film) were created by summing responses within each grouping. Objects not mentioned by any participant were dropped. Measurement models were estimated using maximum likelihood with robust standard errors. After establishing a model with appropriate fit, sum scores were computed to represent the total number of central and peripheral details recalled. Word count of free recall responses (Hypothesis 2a) and a sum score reflecting total scorable details (=peripheral + central details; Hypothesis 2b) were also examined.

Examination of myopia.

Differential recall of peripheral and central details by level of intoxication (Hypothesis 3) was evaluated between conditions with ANOVAs; associations with BrAC were examined via correlations. A multivariate regression was then used to evaluate whether the association between BrAC and recall differed by information type (central vs. peripheral). Variances were allowed to differ by condition and information type. Because multiple comparison tests can be overly conservative and a significant omnibus test is not required to examine pairwise comparisons (Howell, 2013), simple effects of BrAC for each information type were also examined.

Examination of alternatives.

To evaluate alternative explanations for differential recall (Hypotheses 4a-b), bivariate correlations between recall and other variables were calculated. To further isolate associations between constructs of interest and the portion of variance in recall not explained by intoxication, part correlations were computed in SPSS v.24, while controlling for the influence of BrAC on recall. To provide the most conservative test, the BrAC variable (either pre-film or peak post-recall) most highly correlated with recall was used as the control.

Results

Manipulation Check

Participants were randomized into a placebo condition (n = 34), low dose condition (n = 32), or high dose condition (n = 32). There were significant differences between conditions in pre-film BrAC, F(2, 95) = 170.30, p < .001 (Table 1). Specifically, pre-film BrAC for the high dose (M = .09, SD = .02) was significantly higher than the low dose (M = .05, SD = .01), p < .001, which was in turn significantly higher than the placebo (M = .02, SD = .01), p < .001. Although some placebo participants had a BrAC above zero when assessed immediately after beverage consumption (pre-film), all placebo participants had a BrAC of .00 at all subsequent BrAC readings (post-recall). Thus condition differences were more pronounced for peak post-recall BrAC,1, F(2, 95) = 959.26, p < .001. Further, although pre-film subjective intoxication differed significantly between each condition, F(2, 95) = 27.78, p < .001, the majority of participants in the placebo condition (85.3%) and all participants in the low and high dose conditions believed they consumed alcohol. Overall, results suggested the alcohol manipulation was effective in achieving desired BrAC levels, and placebo procedures were fairly effective in giving participants the impression they had consumed alcohol.

Table 1.

Differences Across Conditions

Placebo
(n = 34)		 Low Dose
(n = 32)		 High Dose
(n = 32)		 F(2, 95)
M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range
Subjective intoxicationabc 2.06 (1.98) 0 to 8 3.47 (1.90) 0 to 7 5.34 (1.64) 2 to 8 27.78***
Pre-film BrACabc .02 (.01) .00 to .05 .05 (.01) .03 to .08 .09 (.02) .05 to .13 170.30***
Peak post-recall BrACabc .00 (.00) all .00 .04 (.01) .03 to .06 .11 (.02) .07 to .15 959.26***
Word count 250.94 (108.34) 54 to 432 274.22 (139.37) 83 to 741 282.41 (139.46) 86 to 593 0.60
Total detailsab 48.50 (20.65) 5 to 94 43.94 (17.97) 10 to 96 35.34 (15.72) 7 to 71 4.70*
Peripheral detailsab 27.12 (17.82) 0 to 71 23.66 (12.08) 0 to 45 16.38 (10.98) 0 to 41 5.62**
Central details 21.38 (17.87) 0 to 57 20.28 (17.61) 0 to 62 18.97 (13.63) 0 to 40 0.20
Open in a new tab

Note. BrAC = Breath Alcohol Concentration. Subjective intoxication was assessed pre-film on a scale from 0 to 11.

a

Significant difference between High Dose and Placebo, p < .05.

b

Significant difference between High Dose and Low Dose, p < .05.

c

Significant difference between Low Dose and Placebo, p < .05.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Measurement Model

Distinctions were first examined within the film (i.e., central and peripheral to the assault) and room (i.e., items central and peripheral to the trauma film task), but all details within the film were highly correlated, as were the details within the room. Therefore, the model was respecified to have only one factor for the film and one factor for the room. Because the film involved emotionally salient content presented in the center of participants’ visual field, film details were considered central information. Because the room included background objects without emotional value, room details were considered peripheral information. The model was further respecified by dropping indicators with low standardized loadings (<.30), including items in a far corner of the room, and film setting/language. Details for the perpetrator and victim in the film were highly correlated (r = .91, p < .001) and therefore allowed to covary.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the final, best fitting model involved two factors: (1) film details, reflecting central information, and (2) room details, reflecting peripheral information (Table 2). Global model fit was good, χ2(42) = 56.78, p = .064; CFI = .967; TLI = .957; RMSEA = .060 (90% CI: .000, .097). Standardized factor loadings were .36–.71 for the peripheral factor and .60–.88 for the central factor. Central and peripheral factors were marginally correlated, r = −.27, p = .062.

Table 2.

Final Measurement Model

Standardized Estimate p R2
Factor 1: Peripheral details (room)
 Bookcase .65 < .001 .42
 Artificial tree/nearby items .36 .010 .13
 Items on/under desk (e.g., computer, tissues) .71 < .001 .50
 Objects on the wall (e.g., photos, curtain, mirror) .67 < .001 .45
Factor 2: Central details (film)
 Female victim .88 < .001 .77
 Male perpetrator .88 < .001 .77
 Person who escaped the perpetrator’s first attack .76 < .001 .57
 Bystander who walked away during the assault .60 < .001 .36
 Woman who provided directions before the assault .66 < .001 .44
 Objects visible on the street before the assault .72 < .001 .51
 Tunnel where the assault occurred .80 < .001 .63
Correlations
 Peripheral & Central details −.27 .062
 Victim & Perpetrator in the film .48 .004
Open in a new tab

Free Recall Descriptive Statistics

Based on the measurement model, sum scores were computed across 35 peripheral (room) objects (α = .82; range: 0–71) and 21 central (film) actors/objects (α = .76; range: 0–62). Although participants were prompted to write about both the film and room, 19.4% only reported room details, and 11.2% only reported film details. Relatedly, the number of peripheral and central details recalled were negatively correlated, r = −.26, p = .010.

Written responses ranged from 54 to 741 words (M = 268.82, SD = 128.84). Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, there were no condition differences in word count, F(2, 95) = 0.60, p = 0.548 (Table 1). Total number of scored details ranged from 5 to 96 (M = 42.71, SD = 18.90). Supporting Hypothesis 2b, scored details differed between conditions, F(2, 95) = 4.70, p = .011, with fewer scored details in the high dose than placebo, p = .004, and low dose conditions, p = .045.

Examination of Myopia

Consistent with our primary prediction regarding alcohol myopia (Hypothesis 3), peripheral information differed by alcohol condition, F(2, 95) = 5.62, p = .005 (Table 1). Specifically, those in the high dose condition reported less peripheral information than those in the low dose, p = .013, or placebo conditions, p = .004. Similarly, the higher the peak post-recall BrAC, the less peripheral information recalled, r = −.31, p = .002 (Table 3). Also consistent with Hypothesis 3, central information recalled did not differ by alcohol condition, F(2, 95) = 0.20, p = .821, and was not associated with peak post-recall BrAC, r = −.08, p = .434.

Table 3.

Bivariate and Part Correlations

Bivariate Correlations Part Correlationsa
Central details Peripheral details Central details Peripheral details
Pre-film BrAC −.09 −.26**
Peak post-recall BrAC −.08 −.31**
Dissociation −.09 −.16 −.09 −.17
Distraction −.13 .11 −.14 .09
Suppression −.08 −.15 −.08 −.15
Typical alcohol consumption .03 .05 .03 .06
Expectation of alcohol-related cognitive/behavioral impairment .06 −.08 .06 −.08
Self-reported typical alcohol myopia −.09 .12 −.10 .10
Open in a new tab

Note. BrAC = Breath Alcohol Concentration.

a

Part correlations control for the influence of peak post-recall BrAC on central or peripheral details.

**

p < .01.

Using a multivariate approach to examine amount recalled, the interaction between peak post-recall BrAC and information type (central vs. peripheral) was not statistically significant, F(1, 96) = 2.27, p = .135. However, there was a significant simple effect of BrAC for peripheral information, B = −98.21, SE = 29.69, p = .001, and no simple effect of BrAC for central information, B = −30.44, SE = 33.76, p = .370.

Examination of Alternatives

Peripheral information recalled was not correlated to self-reported tendencies to dissociate, distract oneself, or suppress thoughts (Table 3). Likewise, recall was unrelated to typical alcohol consumption, expectations of alcohol-induced cognitive-behavioral impairment, or experiences of alcohol myopia. These findings suggest impaired peripheral recall may best reflect acute intoxication and related myopia, instead of alternate constructs.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine AMM using multiple doses of alcohol, a standardized, emotionally salient stimulus, and a free recall task. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, post-hoc measurement models supported the distinction between peripheral and central information. As expected, alcohol did not affect the overall amount of information provided during the free recall task (Hypothesis 2a), but did reduce the number of scorable details (Hypothesis 2b). These findings indicate intoxicated participants may have had difficulty staying on task, providing more extraneous information, perhaps including emotional reactions to the film that were not coded. Importantly, alcohol-related differences in scorable details were not evenly distributed across central and peripheral domains. Consistent with expectations (Hypothesis 3), greater intoxication was associated with impaired recall of peripheral details, but had no effect on recall of central details, indicating highly intoxicated participants used their limited attentional resources to focus on the most central (film-related) information. Although the alcohol-by-information type interaction was not statistically significant, the overall pattern of findings supports AMM.

The convergence of findings with Schreiber Compo et al. (2011) is noteworthy given the substantial differences in methodology. Whereas they conceptually defined central and peripheral information, we independently developed a novel coding scheme and statistically evaluated distinctions between central and peripheral details. Interestingly, although we considered potential distinctions between central and peripheral details within the film (as have been examined within images; Harvey et al., 2013), measurement models revealed details for the film were highly correlated. This may reflect that reporting on one aspect of the film may have cued participants to recall other aspects, including smaller details of the film that were spatially peripheral to the assault. As a result, any recall of the film was considered central and peripheral details were best represented by recall of objects in the room. This conceptualization is consistent with Schreiber Compo and colleagues’ (2011) intuitive decision to score information about the lab environment as peripheral. Another methodological difference is that instead of asking participants to recall casual “small talk” with a confederate bartender (Schreiber Compo et al., 2011), we used an emotionally evocative film as the central stimulus. The consistency in findings suggests alcohol myopia may be observed during intoxicated free recall tasks of varying structure and levels of emotional arousal.

Although our findings provide some support for myopia at lower doses of alcohol, it was most evident in individuals who consumed a high dose. Specifically, BrAC was inversely related to number of peripheral details recalled. Although peripheral recall in the low dose condition fell between placebo and high dose conditions, impairment was not significantly different than placebo. Research with larger samples is needed to determine whether small effects of alcohol myopia can be observed at lower doses. Further, the dose-dependent impairment observed for peripheral recall is consistent with AMM, but not state-dependent memory, the notion that an encoding-retrieval match in alcohol state facilitates recall (Weissenborn & Duka, 2000).

We also ruled out alternative explanations for reduced recall of peripheral information (Hypotheses 4a-b). Findings revealed no evidence that responses on the recall task were related to tendencies to avoid distressing material. Similarly, no associations were found between recall and typical alcohol consumption or alcohol-related experiences. These null findings increase our confidence that myopia resulting from acute intoxication was primarily responsible for the differential recall of peripheral information.

Similar to other studies revealing an alcohol-related narrowing of attention (Bayless & Harvey, 2017; Clifasefi et al., 2006; Harvey et al., 2018; Schreiber Compo et al., 2011), the free recall task was completed while participants were still intoxicated. Therefore, intoxication may have impacted both encoding and retrieval. Studies assessing delayed, sober retrieval have not shown differential impairment in recall of central and peripheral information (Crossland et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2013; Read et al., 1992). Taken together, findings suggest intoxication may not differentially impair memory of peripheral information, as participants may still be able to recall this information when sober. Instead, present findings may reflect deficits in attention. That is, retrieving and writing about the memory when intoxicated likely permitted participants to demonstrate their focus on the most central, salient information encoded. Alternatively, differential encoding of central and peripheral information may only be detectable for immediate (not delayed) retrieval because alcohol intoxication may interfere with the transfer of both central and peripheral memories from short- to long-term storage (White, 2003), reducing overall recall and decreasing the central-peripheral performance distinction over time.

Additional research is needed to address study limitations. Notably, although patterns of findings suggest alcohol disproportionately affected recall for peripheral information, the interaction between BrAC and information type was not statistically significant, indicating the need for larger studies to better power replication efforts. This study also involved a specific sample (young female social drinkers with no history of sexual assault). It is unclear whether findings might generalize to more diverse samples, including men and those with past alcohol use disorder or sexual victimization. The amount of alcohol that can be safely administered in a laboratory is also necessarily limited. To determine whether findings extend to higher levels of intoxication, recall tasks could be integrated into field-based studies of intoxicated individuals (van Oorsouw & Merckelbach, 2012). Finally, it is unclear whether current findings would generalize to other stimuli, including stressful films without sexual content, non-stressful films, photos, or staged interactions.

The effectiveness of the placebo also bears consideration. Our placebo drink included a small amount of alcohol to enhance believability through sensory cues. Initial BrAC readings indicated this placebo may have resulted in a non-trivial amount of intoxication. However, as noted, these readings were taken immediately after drink consumption, raising the possibility that residual alcohol in participants’ mouths may have increased initial BrAC values. Such effects dissipated by subsequent readings, when all BrAC were .00 in the placebo condition, while BrAC in alcohol conditions were .03 or above—suggesting meaningful differences in dosage between conditions. Another question is whether the placebo beverage convinced participants they were drinking alcohol. As is common when the alcohol dose evokes a BrAC above .04 (Martin et al., 1990; Schlauch et al., 2010), most placebo participants believed they received alcohol, but their perceived intoxication level was lower than participants in an alcohol condition. Future studies may enhance the believability of placebos by mixing beverages in front of participants, presenting participants with false BrAC readings, and using double-blind procedures (Rohsenow & Marlatt, 1981; Schlauch et al., 2010). We also recommend research on differential recall between no-alcohol and low-alcohol conditions.

In sum, findings suggest alcohol myopia can be observed through an immediate free recall task following a salient, distressing film. This is the first known study to demonstrate differential immediate recall by alcohol dose, supporting Steele and Josephs’ (1990) supposition that alcohol myopia increases with dosage. These results add to a small but growing literature supporting one of the main tenets of AMM—that alcohol intoxication impairs attention for peripheral, but not central, information. Although a variety of methods have been used to observe myopia (cognitive tasks, eye-tracking, facial affect), the present results add to others’ findings (Schreiber Compo et al., 2011) by indicating an immediate free recall task may be an efficient yet valid way of assessing alcohol myopia in studies examining the role of alcohol myopia in clinical phenomena (e.g., processing traumatic events, violence perpetration).

Current findings also contribute to a growing literature on intoxicated eyewitnesses (see Hildebrand Karlén, 2018; Jores et al., 2019). Although field studies suggest extreme intoxication can impair eyewitness memory (e.g., Crossland et al., 2016), laboratory studies often reveal no effect of moderate-to-high intoxication on immediate recall of mock crimes (e.g., Schreiber Compo et al., 2012). Adding to this work, the current study revealed intoxication did not impair participants’ immediate recall for central aspects of a crime. Current findings therefore support recommendations to interview witnesses immediately (Hildebrand Karlén, 2018), as even intoxicated eyewitnesses can be expected to provide accurate, relatively complete information for the most central information of a crime.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) grant F31AA023456, as well as a Dissertation Research Award from the American Psychological Association, both awarded to the first author (AEJ) and supervised by the third author (DD). Manuscript preparation was supported by NIAAA grant T32AA007455 (PI: Larimer). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIAAA.

Footnotes

1

Allowing variances to differ by condition resulted in model nonconvergence for peak post-recall BrAC. Therefore, variances were not allowed to differ by condition for this particular ANOVA.

Contributor Information

Anna E. Jaffe, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Christina M. Harris, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

David DiLillo, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Lincoln, NE

References

  1. Abbey A (2002) Alcohol-related sexual assault: a common problem among college students. J Stud Alcohol Suppl 14:118–128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnaudova I, Hagenaars MA (2017) Lights … action: comparison of trauma films for use in the trauma film paradigm. Behav Res Ther 93:67–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayless SJ, Harvey AJ (2017) Testing Alcohol Myopia Theory: examining the effects of alcohol intoxication on simultaneous central and peripheral attention. Perception 46:90–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bisby JA, Brewin CR, Leitz JR, Curran HV (2009) Acute effects of alcohol on the development of intrusive memories. Psychopharmacology 204:655–666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bisby JA, King JA, Brewin CR, Burgess N, Curran HV (2010) Acute effects of alcohol on intrusive memory development and viewpoint dependence in spatial memory support a dual representation model. Biol Psychiat 68:280–286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, Stevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bradlyn AS, Young LD (1983) Parameters influencing the effectiveness of the balanced placebo design in alcohol research, in Stress and Alcohol Use (Pohorecky L, Brick Jeds), pp 87–104. Elsevier, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA (1998) The AUDIT alcohol consumptions questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med 158:1789–1795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson EB, Putnam FW (1993) An update on the Dissociative Experiences Scale. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders 6(1):16–27. [Google Scholar]
  10. Clifasefi SL, Takarangi MT, Bergman JS (2006) Blind drunk: the effects of alcohol on inattentional blindness. Appl Cognitive Psych 20:697–704. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cooper ML (2006) Does drinking promote risky sexual behavior? A complex answer to a simple question. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15:19–23. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossland D, Kneller W, Wilcock R (2016) Intoxicated witnesses: testing the validity of the Alcohol Myopia Theory. Appl Cognitive Psych 30:270–281. [Google Scholar]
  13. DiLillo D, Hayes-Skelton SA, Fortier MA, Perry AR, Evans SE, Messman-Moore TL, Fauchier A (2010) Development and initial psychometric properties of the Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory (CAMI): a comprehensive self-report measure of child maltreatment history. Child Abuse Neglect 34:305–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairbairn CE, Sayette MA (2013) The effect of alcohol on emotional inertia: a test of alcohol myopia. J Abnorm Psychol 122:770–781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fromme K, Stroot E, Kaplan D (1993) Comprehensive effects of alcohol: development and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. Psychol Assessment 5:19–26. [Google Scholar]
  16. Giancola PR, Josephs RA, Parrott DJ, Duke AA (2010) Alcohol myopia revisited: clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspect Psychol Sci 5:265–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Giancola PR, Parrott DJ, Silvia PJ, DeWall CN, Bègue L, Subra B, Duke AA, Bushman BJ (2012) The disguise of sobriety: unveiled by alcohol in persons with an aggressive personality. J Pers 80:163–185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hagsand A, Roos Af Hjelmsäter E, Granhag PA, Fahlke C, Söderpalm-Gordh A (2013) Bottled memories: on how alcohol affects eyewitness recall. Scand J Psychol 54:188–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harvey AJ, Bayless SJ, Hyams G (2018) Alcohol increases inattentional blindness when cognitive resources are not consumed by ongoing task demands. Psychopharmacology 235:309–315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Harvey AJ, Kneller W, Campbell AC (2013) The effects of alcohol intoxication on attention and memory for visual scenes. Memory 21:969–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hildebrand Karlén M (2018) Interviewing intoxicated witnesses: memory performance in theory and practice. Scand J Psychol, 59:113–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes EA, Bourne C (2008) Inducing and modulating intrusive emotional memories: a review of the trauma film paradigm. Acta Psychol 127:553–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Howell DC (2013) Statistical methods for psychology. 8th ed Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hufford MR (2001) Alcohol and suicidal behavior. Clin Psychol Rev 21:797–811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jores T, Colloff MF, Kloft L, Smailes H, Flowe HD (2019) A meta-analysis of the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on witness recall. Appl Cognitive Psych 33:334–343. [Google Scholar]
  26. Koss MP, Gidycz CA (1985) Sexual experiences survey: reliability and validity. J Consult Clin Psychol 53:422–423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lac A, Berger DE (2013) Development and validation of the Alcohol Myopia Scale. Psychol Assessment 25:738–747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. MacDonald TK, Zanna MP, Fong GT (1995) Decision making in altered states: effects of alcohol on attitudes toward drinking and driving. J Pers Soc Psychol 68:973–985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Martin CS, Earleywine M, Finn PR, Young RD. (1990) Some boundary conditions for effective use of alcohol placebos. J Stud Alcohol 51:500–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martin CS, Sayette MA (1993) Experimental design in alcohol administration research: limitations and alternatives in the manipulation of dosage-set. J Stud Alcohol 54:750–761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2017) Mplus user’s guide. 8th ed Los Angeles, CA. [Google Scholar]
  32. National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2005) Recommended council guideline on ethyl alcohol administration in human experimentation. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, MD: Available at http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/ResearchResources/job22.htm. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ogle CM, Rubin DC, Berntsen D, Siegler IC (2013) The frequency and impact of exposure to potentially traumatic events over the life course. Clin Psychol Sci 1:426–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rand MR, Sabol WJ, Sinclair M, Snyder HN (2010) Alcohol and crime: data from 2002 to 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics; Available at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5884 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ratti MT, Soragna D, Sibilla L, Giardini A, Albergati A, Savoldi F, Bo P (1999) Cognitive impairment and cerebral atrophy in “heavy drinkers”. Prog Neuro-Psychoph 23:243–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Read JD, Yuille JC, Tollestrup P (1992) Recollections of a robbery: effects of arousal and alcohol upon recall and person identification. Law Human Behav 16:425–446. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rohsenow DJ, Marlatt GA (1981) The balanced placebo design: methodological considerations. Addict Behav 6:107–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schlauch RC, Waesche MC, Riccardi CJ, Donohue KF, Blagg CO, Christensen RL, Lang AR (2010) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of placebo manipulations in alcohol-challenge studies. Psychol Addict Behav 24:239–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schreiber Compo N, Evans JR, Carol RN, Kemp D, Villalba D, Ham LS, Rose S (2011) Alcohol intoxication and memory for events: a snapshot of alcohol myopia in a real-world drinking scenario. Memory 19:202–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schreiber Compo N, Evans JR, Carol RN, Villalba D, Ham LS, Garcia T, Rose S (2012) Intoxicated eyewitnesses: better than their reputation? Law Human Behav 36:77–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059–1074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Steele CM, Josephs RA (1990) Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects. Am Psychol 45:921–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. van Oorsouw K, Merckelbach H (2012) The effects of alcohol on crime-related memories: a field study. Appl Cognitive Psych 26:82–90. [Google Scholar]
  44. Watkins LE, DiLillo D, Maldonado RC (2015) The interactive effects of emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner aggression. Psychol Addict Behav 29:653–663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wegner DM, Zanakos S (1994) Chronic thought suppression. J Pers 62:615–640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Weidmann A, Conradi A, Gröger K, Fehm L, Fydrich T (2009) Using stressful films to analyze risk factors for PTSD in analogue experimental studies–which film works best? Anxiety Stress Copin 22:549–569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Weissenborn R, Duka T (2000) State-dependent effects of alcohol on explicit memory: the role of semantic associations. Psychopharmacology 149:98–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wells A, Davies MI (1994) The Thought Control Questionnaire: a measure of individual differences in the control of unwanted thoughts. Behav Res Ther 32:871–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. White AM (2003) What happened? Alcohol, memory blackouts, and the brain. Alcohol Res Health, 27:186–196. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yuille JC, Tollestrup PA (1990) Some effects of alcohol on eyewitness memory. J Appl Psychol 75:268–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES