World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Lost in the mall technique

Article Id: WHEBN0003055274
Reproduction Date:

Title: Lost in the mall technique  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Memory conformity, Memory implantation, Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 July 6, Active recall, Lu Chao
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Lost in the mall technique

The "Lost in the Mall" technique, or the "lost in the mall" experiment,[1] is a memory implantation technique used to demonstrate that confabulations about events that never took place – such as having been lost in a shopping mall as a child – can be created through suggestions made to experimental subjects. It was first developed by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus as support for the claim that it is possible to implant entirely false memories in people. The technique was developed in the context of the debate about the existence of repressed memories and false memories (see False memory syndrome).[2]

Study methodology

The idea of the lost in the mall technique was first developed and tested on a few individuals by Loftus and Ketcham.[3] It was first used in a formal study by Loftus and her student Jacqueline Pickrell in 1995.[4] In their experiment they gave 24 participants four short narratives describing childhood events, all supposedly provided by family members. The participants were told they were participating in a study looking at memory for childhood events and were instructed to try to remember as much as possible about each of the four events. If they could not remember anything about the events they were instructed to be honest and say so. Unbeknownst to the participants, one of the narratives was false. This narrative described the person being lost in a shopping mall at around the age of 5. According to the narrative the person was lost for an extended period of time before finally being rescued by an elderly person and reunited with his or her family. The narrative was based upon actual family shopping trips and incorporated plausible details provided by the relative such as the name of the mall they would usually go to when the person was a child and who would be likely to be present when they went shopping.[4]

The participants first had to fill in what they remembered about each event in a booklet, and were then called in for two interviews where they were asked about details of the events. In the study, 25% of the participants reported to be able to remember the false event. The memory for the false event was usually reported to be less clear than the true events, and people generally used more words to describe the true events than the false events. At the end of the study when the participants were told that one of the 4 events was false, some people (5 out of 24) failed to identify the lost in the mall event as the false event and instead picked one of the true events to be false. Loftus calls this study "existence proof" for the phenomenon of false memory creation and suggests that the false memory is formed as a result of the suggested event (being lost in a mall) being incorporated into already existing memories of going to the mall. With the passage of time it becomes harder for people to differentiate between what actually happened and what was imagined and they make memory errors.[4]

The lost in the mall experiment has been replicated and extended with different ages of subjects.[5] About 25 percent of the participants not only "remembered" the implanted memory but also filled in the missing details.[1]

Criticisms of methodology and conclusions

The Lost in the Mall technique is generally accepted as a memory implantation study that is useful for investigating the effect of suggestions on memory. However some people have argued that this is not generalizable to memories for traumatic events. An article in the journal Child Development by Pezdek and Hodges described an extension of the experiment. By using the subjects' family members to do the interviewing, their study was able to replicate Loftus' findings that memories of being lost in the mall could be created and were more likely to occur in young children. However, a much smaller number of children reported false memories of another untrue incident: that of a painful and embarrassing enema.[5] Another article by Kenneth Pope in the American Psychologist suggested possible confounding variables in the study as well as questioning whether the technique's ability to generate a false memory could be compared with the ability of a therapist to create a pseudomemory of childhood sexual abuse.[6] In still another article (in the Journal Ethics & Behavior) two people who had recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse, Lynn Crook and Martha Dean, also question Loftus' Lost in the Mall-study, arguing that the methods used are unethical and the results not generalizable to real life memories of trauma.[7] Loftus responded to Crook and Dean's criticisms pointing to the exaggerations, omissions and errors in Crook and Dean's description of the technique and their mistakes about the study's representation in the media. Loftus makes it clear that the Lost in the Mall study and other studies using memory implantation techniques in no way try to claim that all memories of childhood sexual abuse discovered in therapy are false, they merely try to show how relatively easy it is to manipulate human memory. Loftus also accuses Crook of writing the article as part of a long series of efforts to discredit her integrity as a researcher and her work.[8][9] In 1995, Crook filed an ethics complaint with the American Psychological Association charging Loftus with misrepresenting Crook’s successful recovered memory lawsuit in a media interview with Psychology Today ("Dispatch from the Memory War").

See also


  1. ^ a b
  2. ^ Loftus EF, Coan J., Pickrell, JE. Manufacturing false memories using bits of reality. In Reder, L., ed. Implicit Memory and Metacognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, in press.
  3. ^ Loftus, E.F. & Ketcham, K. (1994) The Myth of Repressed Memory. NY: St. Martin's Press.
  4. ^ a b c
  5. ^ a b
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.