Does Alcohol Actually Make You More Social?

On screen, in order

1. 0:41

   2012 / BUILD A FAIR TEST · 720 · SOCIAL DRINKERS · Ages 21–28 · Three strangers at each table

   

   720 social drinkers (360 men, 360 women) aged 21 to 28, randomly assigned to groups of 3 unacquainted people. The grouping graphic is an illustration, not 720 individual results.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Abstract; Method, Participants
2. 0:53

   THREE CONDITIONS · ALCOHOL · PLACEBO · KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC · Alcohol in the drink · Expects alcohol · Drink imitates it · Knows the drink is nonalcoholic

   

   Each group drank an alcoholic, a placebo or a control beverage. Placebo drinks were flattened tonic water poured from a vodka bottle into glasses smeared with vodka, and placebo participants were shown false breath-alcohol readings. Control participants were told they would get no alcohol and were given cranberry juice.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Participants and Procedure
3. 1:10

   EXPECTATION IS PART OF THE CONDITION · WHAT THE PARTICIPANT EXPECTS · PLACEBO · “Alcohol” · Sober · KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC · “No alcohol” · Sober

   

   The study used both a placebo and a nonalcoholic control condition to separate the drug’s effects from the expectation of drinking. The quoted words are explanatory labels, not the study’s instructions.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Introduction (control conditions); Method, Procedure
4. 1:18

   ONE CONDITION PER TABLE

   

   Each group of three was randomly assigned to one beverage condition. The table and glasses are an illustration.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Participants
5. 1:26

   36 MINUTES / RECORD → OBSERVE · EVENT CODED / SPEAKING TURN · PAUSE / CODE · Recorded behaviour and reports afterwards

   

   Drinks were consumed together over 36 minutes while the session was video recorded. Facial expressions and speech were coded frame by frame by coders who did not know the beverage condition; the bonding questionnaire came after the drinking session. The monitor interface is an illustration, not the original coding software.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Abstract; Method, Procedure and Measures
6. 1:37

   HOW DID IT FEEL? · After the encounter · WHAT CHANGED? · During the encounter

   

   Two kinds of measure: a questionnaire after the drinking session and behaviour coded from the recordings made during it.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Procedure and Measures
7. 1:41

   TEST 01 / FEELING CONNECTED · AFTER THE ENCOUNTER · How connected did you feel? · ILLUSTRATIVE RESPONSE

   

   Bonding was measured with the 12-item Perceived Group Reinforcement Scale (PGRS), with items such as “I like this group”. The question on screen is our short paraphrase and the ticked answer is an illustration, not a participant’s record.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Measures (Self-reported bonding)
8. 1:45

   MEAN REPORTED BONDING · ALCOHOL 7.22 · PLACEBO 6.74 · KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC 7.07 · 6.0 · 6.5 · 7.0 · 7.5 · 8.0 · Alcohol vs placebo: higher reported bonding

   

   Group means on the PGRS. Alcohol vs placebo: p < .001. The chart shows only the part of the scale from 6.0 to 8.0, as its footer says; no individual scores are shown.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding; Table 2
9. 1:56

   Alcohol vs known nonalcoholic: difference not statistically clear

   

   7.22 vs 7.07, p = .27.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding
10. 2:04

    WHAT “NOT CLEAR” DOES NOT ESTABLISH · Identical conditions · NOT ESTABLISHED · Expectation explains everything · NOT ESTABLISHED

    

    A difference that is not statistically clear is not evidence that the two conditions are the same, and this comparison does not test why the groups differed.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding
11. 2:10

    “ALCOHOL MADE EVERYONE FEEL CLOSER THAN BEING SOBER” · TOO BROAD FOR THIS RESULT

    

    The broad sentence is our example of an overstatement. Against people who knew they were sober the difference was not statistically clear.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding
12. 2:17

    ONE PAPER / TWO LEVELS OF ANSWER · ALCOHOL 7.22 · PLACEBO 6.74 · KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC 7.07 · BOTH NONALCOHOLIC CONDITIONS · Separate comparisons change the answer.

    

    The paper’s main comparison set the alcohol group against both nonalcoholic groups together, and alcohol scored significantly higher. The follow-up contrasts are the separate comparisons at 1:45 and 1:56.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding; Table 2
13. 2:28

    KEEP THE THIRD TABLE · The comparison is part of the answer.

    

    The known nonalcoholic group is the comparison in which the bonding difference was not statistically clear. The rooms are an illustration.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Introduction (control conditions); Results, Self-reported social bonding
14. 2:35

    FEELING MORE CONNECTED · PARTLY · Supported against placebo. · The knowingly sober comparison was not statistically clear.

    

    PARTLY is our verdict on the first claim. The two comparisons behind it are documented in the paper.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding; Table 2
15. 2:42

    TEST 02 / OBSERVE THE ENCOUNTER · RECORDING / ILLUSTRATIVE SEQUENCE · What happened on the recording?

    

    Behaviour was coded from the video recordings. The recording on the monitor is an illustration, not study footage.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Measures
16. 2:51

    CODE WHAT THE CAMERA CAN SEE · OBSERVE · Code visible movements. · 01 / NEUTRAL · 02 / MOUTH CORNERS LIFT · 03 / EYES + MOUTH · OBSERVABLE FACIAL PATTERN · MUSCLES AROUND THE EYES · + · MOUTH CORNERS · The combination is coded. · ILLUSTRATIVE FACE

    

    A Duchenne smile was coded as the combination of action units 6 (cheek raiser, muscles around the eyes) and 12 (lip corner puller) by FACS-certified coders. The face is an illustration.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Introduction (Duchenne smiles); Method, Facial coding
17. 3:01

    A facial pattern does not read someone’s inner life.

    

    Facial coding records visible muscle movements. What a person feels inside was not measured by it.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Facial coding
18. 3:06

    2012 / OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR · MORE SPEAKING

    

    People who drank alcohol spent significantly more time talking than those who did not, and alcohol groups had more sequences in which all three members spoke in turn.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Speech behaviors; Table 2
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, group-level Speech behaviors; Table 3
19. 3:15

    2025 / A NEW EXPERIMENT · THE SAMPLE · 393 · HEAVY-DRINKING YOUNG ADULTS · ALCOHOL / PLACEBO · Two conditions. No knowingly sober third group.

    

    393 participants (50.4% female) in groups of three strangers: 282 in the alcohol condition, 111 in the placebo condition. There was no condition in which people knowingly drank a nonalcoholic drink. The rooms are an illustration.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Abstract; Methods, Participants and Procedures; Table 1
20. 3:33

    FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION · More people taking part · A → B → C

    

    Alcohol groups had more triadic sequential speech (all three members speaking in turn) than placebo groups. The turn sequence on screen is an illustration, not recorded study data.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 4
21. 3:49

    OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR · The conversation itself changed.

    

    Alcohol participants spoke for longer, and alcohol groups had more triadic sequential speech and shorter group silence than placebo groups.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Tables 3 and 4
22. 3:55

    2025 / NOT EVERY DETAIL REAPPEARED · OVERALL LAUGHTER · No clear increase

    

    Beverage condition did not significantly affect individual laughter after the correction for multiple tests, or triadic laughter.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Tables 3 and 4
23. 4:01

    ALL THREE SMILING TOGETHER · Not clearly reproduced

    

    Alcohol groups did not show longer triadic Duchenne smiling, unlike the 2012 study; the authors list it as a finding that did not replicate.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 4
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Discussion
24. 4:06

    INDIVIDUAL SMILING / TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS · ILLUSTRATIVE MOMENTS · NOT A MEASURED SMILE CURVE · MOMENT 1 · NEUTRAL · MOMENT 2 · SMILE · MOMENT 3 · NEUTRAL · MOMENT 4 · SMALL SMILE · MOMENT 5 · SMILE · EARLIER · LATER · AVERAGE ACROSS THE INTERACTION · Not clear after multiple-test correction

    

    The beverage effect on individual Duchenne smiling was significant without the correction but not after the false discovery rate correction. The five faces are illustrations, not measured values.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 3
25. 4:15

    CHANGE DURING THE INTERACTION · Faster increase in the alcohol condition

    

    Over the session, Duchenne smiling increased more rapidly in alcohol participants than in placebo participants.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 3 (beverage condition × time) and Figure 2
26. 4:28

    THE STUDIES ASKED DIFFERENT COMPARISONS · 2012 / SEPARATE SAMPLE · 720 · ALCOHOL / PLACEBO / KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC · 2025 / SEPARATE SAMPLE · 393 · ALCOHOL / PLACEBO · 2025: no knowingly nonalcoholic comparison group

    
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Participants
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Participants and Procedures
27. 4:40

    WHO WAS STUDIED? · 2025 / THE SAMPLE · Young adults selected for heavy drinking

    

    Aged 21 to 29; inclusion required drinking at least weekly and binge drinking at least four times in the past month. 84% met the AUDIT criterion for hazardous or problematic drinking.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Participants
28. 4:50

    OBSERVABLE CONVERSATION CAN CHANGE · HOLDS · Within these short encounters between strangers.

    

    HOLDS is our verdict on the bounded claim: in these laboratory sessions between strangers, alcohol changed observable conversation.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Tables 3 and 4
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results; Tables 2 and 3
29. 5:02

    2021 / PHYSICAL CLOSENESS · 212 PEOPLE / FRIENDS AND STRANGERS

    

    212 young social drinkers, each paired either with their own friend or with a stranger: 52 alcohol/friends, 56 alcohol/strangers, 48 control/friends, 56 control/strangers. The pair on screen is an illustration.

    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Materials and Method
30. 5:16

    STRANGERS / FACE DISTANCE · DISTANCE BETWEEN FACES · ILLUSTRATIVE APPROACH · Faster reduction among strangers

    

    Among strangers, distance fell by 0.29 cm per minute with alcohol and 0.06 cm per minute with the control drink (beverage × time interaction P = 0.035). Distance was estimated from face positions in the video every 10 seconds. The video shows no measured centimetres.

    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, pp. 1–2, Results
    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 3, Table 1
31. 5:25

    FRIENDS / A DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP · No clear extra alcohol-versus-control effect

    

    Friends moved closer in both beverage conditions, with no significant difference between them (b = −0.08, P = 0.671).

    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Results
    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 3, Table 1
32. 5:37

    THE PARTICIPANTS KNEW THEIR DRINK · DRINK + EXPECTATION · Alcohol or control · Participants knew which one.

    

    Participants were aware of their beverage assignment; there was no placebo.

    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Materials and Method
33. 5:45

    THE RELATIONSHIP CHANGES THE QUESTION · THE MEASUREMENT · AFTER THIS ENCOUNTER · A better friendship? · Not established by measuring physical distance

    

    The study measured distance between faces during one 36-minute drinking session. What happened to the relationship afterwards was not measured.

    • Checked[3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Materials and Method
34. 6:12

    2025 / VIRTUAL CROWDS · FOREGROUND GROUP + BACKGROUND CROWD · HAPPY BODY LANGUAGE · NEUTRAL BODY LANGUAGE · SAD BODY LANGUAGE · ILLUSTRATION / NOT ORIGINAL STUDY STIMULI · Emotion conveyed through body language

    

    The scenes showed three interacting foreground characters and a background crowd of 200. The characters were featureless mannequins with no facial expressions, so emotion came from body movement. Foreground characters were neutral or sad; the background crowd was happy, neutral or sad. The figures on screen are illustrations, not the study stimuli.

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Method, The social emotion paradigm
35. 6:22

    47 PEOPLE / ALCOHOL OR PLACEBO · Watched individually

    

    47 in the analysed sample: 24 alcohol, 23 placebo. Participants took part alone and watched passively.

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Method, Participants; Table 1
    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Discussion (limitations)
36. 6:32

    SAME PARTICIPANTS / SEPARATE SESSIONS · WHAT WAS MEASURED? · A SEPARATE SESSION · FACIAL MUSCLE ACTIVITY · Same participants · Different measurement

    

    Study 1 recorded self-reported emotion; one week later, Study 2 measured facial muscle activity with electromyography in the same participants. They are two sessions, not two independent replications.

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Abstract; Method, Study 2: facial EMG
37. 6:38

    SESSION / REPORTED EMOTION · No clear alcohol-versus-placebo difference

    

    No main effect of consumption condition on self-reported emotion (F(1, 45) = .80, P = .38).

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Results, Study 1
38. 6:43

    TWO WAYS TO READ THE SAME COMPARISON · CONDITION × CONTEXT · NEUTRAL · SAD · ALCOHOL · PLACEBO · Muscle activity · Pattern changed differently across the two contexts

    

    Interaction between foreground emotion and consumption condition for smiling-muscle activity: F(1, 45) = 7.10, P = .01. The grid cells are labels, not measured values.

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Results, Study 2, Movement of zygomaticus major (smile)
39. 6:51

    Within sad scenes: direct group difference not clear

    

    “No differences in smiling between the consumption conditions” for neutral or sad foreground characters (P’s > .35). The article’s abstract describes significantly more smiling among intoxicated participants viewing sad crowds; the video follows the results section.

    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Results, Study 2, Movement of zygomaticus major (smile)
40. 6:56

    A SMALL SCREEN-BASED EXPERIMENT · Muscle activity does not reveal hidden feelings.

    

    The study measured muscle activity while people watched screens alone. It did not measure hidden feelings, and it did not show that drinkers respond cruelly.

    • Checked[4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Method, Study 2: facial EMG; Discussion (limitations)
41. 7:06

    EXPRESSION + CONTEXT · Counting smiles cannot, by itself, grade empathy.

    

    None of the studies measured empathy. The conversations shown are illustrations, not a reconstruction of the screen experiment.

    • Checked[4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Method, Study 1 and Study 2
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Measures
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Measures
42. 7:19

    WHAT THE EXPERIMENTS ESTABLISHED · THE MEASURED ENCOUNTER · Feeling more rewarded + a different conversation flow

    

    Higher reported bonding than placebo in both studies, and changes in speech and turn-taking. In 2012 the bonding difference against the known nonalcoholic group was not statistically clear.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results; Tables 2 and 3
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Tables 2 and 4
43. 7:32

    OUTCOMES THESE TESTS DID NOT ESTABLISH · BETTER JUDGEMENT · NOT SHOWN · BETTER LISTENING · NOT SHOWN · LASTING FRIENDSHIP · NOT SHOWN

    

    Neither group study measured judgement, listening or later relationships; both followed a single drinking session. Not measured is not the same as shown to be absent.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Measures
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Measures; Discussion (limitations)
44. 7:39

    A STUDY WINDOW / WITHIN A LONGER EVENING · SCOPE OF OBSERVATION · BRIEF STRUCTURED ENCOUNTER · REST OF THE EVENING · Outside this measurement window · SCOPE DIAGRAM / NOT A TIMELINE OF MEASURED EFFECTS · The newer experiment focused on rising alcohol levels.

    

    Alcohol participants in the 2025 study were on the rising part of the blood-alcohol curve for all study measures. Both studies observed a 36-minute drinking period.

    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Procedures; Results (BAC); Discussion
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Procedure
45. 7:50

    THE TESTED CONDITIONS SET THE BOUNDARY · ALCOHOL · PLACEBO · KNOWN NONALCOHOLIC · MORE ALCOHOL MORE BENEFIT? · NOT ESTABLISHED · CHOSEN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

    

    Each study gave one moderate dose of alcohol, so neither tested whether more alcohol brings more of the same effect.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Procedure
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Discussion (limitations)
46. 8:00

    A GROUP PATTERN IS NOT A PROMISE TO YOU · GROUP AVERAGE ≠ EVERY PERSON

    

    The results compare condition groups. They do not predict how any one person will respond. The people shown are illustrations.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results
47. 8:08

    LESS FRICTION / UNDER THE STUDIED CONDITIONS · MEASURED ENCOUNTER · ? · A BETTER RELATIONSHIP? · LEFT OPEN BY THESE TESTS

    

    All three experiments observed one short session. Whether the change lasts or becomes a better relationship was not measured.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Procedure
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Discussion (limitations)
    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Materials and Method
48. 8:20

    TESTED 05 / PARTLY · FEELING CONNECTED · Comparison matters

    

    PARTLY is our overall verdict. The first card repeats the 2012 bonding result.

    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding; Table 2
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 2
49. 8:29

    CONVERSATION · Changed in these encounters

    
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Tables 3 and 4
    • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results; Tables 2 and 3
50. 8:36

    LASTING SOCIAL SKILL · Not shown by these tests

    

    Not measured in any of the four studies. This is not a finding that there is no effect.

    • Checked[1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Measures
    • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Discussion (limitations)
    • [3] Gurrieri et al., PNAS 2021, p. 2, Materials and Method
    • [4] Monk et al., Alcohol and Alcoholism 2025, Discussion (limitations)

Also said in the narration

1. 1:56

   The alcohol group did score higher on average.

   

   7.22 vs 7.07 against the known nonalcoholic group; the difference was not statistically significant (p = .27).

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Results, Self-reported social bonding
2. 3:34

   There were more sequences in which all three people contributed, and less time when the whole group was silent.

   

   Group silence is not shown on screen as a figure.

   • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 4
3. 4:28

   The newer participants also reported more bonding than the placebo participants.

   

   Alcohol participants reported significantly higher social bonding on the PGRS than placebo participants.

   • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Results; Table 2
4. 4:40

   And these were selected heavy drinkers in their twenties.

   

   Aged 21 to 29, mean 22.4.

   • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Participants
5. 7:39

   The two group studies followed a brief, structured drinking period.

   

   Drinks were consumed together over 36 minutes in both studies.

   • [1] Sayette et al., Psychological Science 2012, Method, Procedure
   • [2] Creswell et al., Clinical Psychological Science 2025, Methods, Procedures

Documents

• All four studies are laboratory experiments with adults who drink. Nothing here is advice about drinking.
• Each scene’s footer in the video names its study. This page gives every figure and statement its own evidence label, so the points the studies did not measure are marked NOT SHOWN here even where the footer names the study.
• The PubMed Central copies of the 2012 and 2025 group studies are author manuscripts without printed page numbers, so rows name the section and table. The PNAS brief report is cited by its own page numbers. The supplements of the three group and distance studies could not be retrieved; no figure or statement on this page depends on them.
• The opening questions (FEELING · BEHAVIOUR · SOCIAL SKILL, THREE DIFFERENT CLAIMS, COMPARED WITH WHOM?), WHICH PART DO WE MEAN BY “SOCIAL”? with STARTING · ENJOYING · UNDERSTANDING, THE PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE and the closing lines are our framing and conclusions, not study results.
• The people, tables, drinks, observation booth, monitors, questionnaire, faces, virtual figures and the happy and upsetting conversations are illustrations, not evidence and not study footage or stimuli.
• The episode makes no calculations of its own.

1. [1]

   Psychological Science (SAGE, Association for Psychological Science)

   Alcohol and Group Formation: A Multimodal Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol on Emotion and Social Bonding (Sayette MA, Creswell KG, Dimoff JD, Fairbairn CE, Cohn JF, Heckman BW, Kirchner TR, Levine JM, Moreland RL · 2012;23(8):869–878 · doi:10.1177/0956797611435134) ↗

   Published 3 July 2012 · Retrieved 27 September 2026

   Published online 3 July 2012; print issue August 2012.

   • Publisher’s version (DOI) ↗
   • PubMed ↗

   The copy checked is the author manuscript in PubMed Central, which has no printed page numbers, so rows name the section and table. The supplemental material could not be retrieved; nothing on this page depends on it.

   Used at 0:41 · 0:53 · 1:10 · 1:18 · 1:26 · 1:37 · 1:41 · 1:45 · 1:56 · 2:04 · 2:10 · 2:17 · 2:28 · 2:35 · 2:42 · 2:51 · 3:01 · 3:06 · 4:28 · 4:50 · 7:06 · 7:19 · 7:32 · 7:39 · 7:50 · 8:00 · 8:08 · 8:20 · 8:29 · 8:36

2. [2]

   Clinical Psychological Science (SAGE, Association for Psychological Science)

   The Effects of Alcohol in Groups of Heavy-Drinking Young Adults: A Multimodal Investigation of Alcohol Responses in a Laboratory Social Setting (Creswell KG, Wright AGC, Sayette MA, Girard JM, Lyons G, Smyth JM · 2025;13(6):1069–1088 · doi:10.1177/21677026251333784) ↗

   Published 7 June 2025 · Retrieved 27 September 2026

   Published online 7 June 2025; print issue November 2025.

   • Publisher’s version (DOI) ↗
   • PubMed ↗
   • Study materials (OSF) ↗

   The copy checked is the author manuscript in PubMed Central, which has no printed page numbers, so rows name the section and table. The supplementary tables could not be retrieved; nothing on this page depends on them.

   Used at 3:15 · 3:33 · 3:34 · 3:49 · 3:55 · 4:01 · 4:06 · 4:15 · 4:28 · 4:40 · 4:50 · 7:06 · 7:19 · 7:32 · 7:39 · 7:50 · 8:00 · 8:08 · 8:20 · 8:29 · 8:36

3. [3]

   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

   Alcohol narrows physical distance between strangers (Gurrieri L, Fairbairn CE, Sayette MA, Bosch N · 2021;118(20):e2101937118 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2101937118) ↗

   Published 10 May 2021 · Retrieved 27 September 2026

   Published online 10 May 2021 (volume 118, issue 20).

   • PubMed Central copy ↗
   • PubMed ↗

   A three-page brief report; page numbers are its own (1 of 3 to 3 of 3). The supporting information appendix could not be retrieved; nothing on this page depends on it.

   Licence: Open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

   Used at 5:02 · 5:16 · 5:25 · 5:37 · 5:45 · 8:08 · 8:36

4. [4]

   Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford University Press)

   Drink and be merry? The impact of intoxication and affective social cues on social drinkers’ emotional responses (Monk RL, Qureshi AW, Zamboanga BL, Tovmasyan A, McLaughlin O, Bradford-Priest M, Butler A, Heim D · 2025;60(5):agaf046 · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agaf046) ↗

   Published 25 July 2025 · Retrieved 27 September 2026

   Published 25 July 2025 (volume 60, issue 5, September 2025).

   • DOI ↗
   • PubMed Central copy ↗

   The article has no printed page numbers, so rows name the section. Study 1 and Study 2 used the same 47 participants one week apart.

   Licence: Open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY 4.0).

   Used at 6:12 · 6:22 · 6:32 · 6:38 · 6:43 · 6:51 · 6:56 · 7:06 · 8:36

Corrections

No corrections so far.

Found an error? Email [email protected] with the time stamp and your source, or leave a comment under the video.