The Lost in the Mall Technique: Valid or corrupt research?

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or whatever it is that you think you remember?"- Elizabeth Loftus.

                                                                                                                                                       

Background on the study

• Professor Elizabeth Loftus is the woman at the very front line of  research into false memories and the now coined 'misinformation effect'. Hundreds of studies, from small to large, have been conducted by Loftus herself and her students.
• She believes that memory involves interpreting what is seen or heard then reconstructing these subjective interpretations when required.
• It is also said that post-event information can distort or bias a memory- in this study it is the introduction of completely new post-event information in order to attempt to not only distort a memory, but rather create a memory.
• As a cognitive psychology assignment, Loftus‘ student, Jim Coan, first came up with the basis of this experiment‘s methodology and conducted it on his own family. This was then converted into the following formal study. 

Study methodology

• In 1995 Loftus and Jacqueline Pickrell (Loftus' student) recruited 24 participants.
• Each participant was presented 4 stories, supposedly provided by family members, from when they were 4-6 years old.
• 3 of which were real stories about the participants' childhoods however one was fake.
• The fake narrative described an incident in which the child was lost in a shopping mall for an extended period of time before being reunited with their family by an elderly person.
• This narrative was used as it included plausible details that may trigger the brain into reconstructing this false memory with details from schemas to produce a false memory. What helped was gaining details from the family including specific local shopping malls to include.
• It was also chosen as it is not overly traumatic or emotionally difficult to recall making it ethical.
• Participants gave partially informed consent when being told that they were part of a study however the researchers used deception and said it was simply a study on ability to recall childhood memories.
• They were asked, after reading the narratives, to then write down which events they remembered. 
• Two interviews were then conducted a week apart asking them about the narratives then finally were asked to rate the clarity of those memories. 

Results, conclusions and follow-ups

• When informed that one was a fake memory, of the 24 students, 5 falsely recalled the 'lost in the mall' event as a real memory (20.83%).
• Many of these people could even provide embellishing details of the occurrence. 
• Loftus interpreted this to mean that even with such low level coercion, imagining a false event could trigger a false memory.
• In 1996, a larger scale version of the study with a wider range of memories was done by Hyman and Pentland which gained even more successful results in proving the ability to implant false memories as at least some kind of false memory could be planted in between 20-40% of participants' minds (depending on experimental variables).
• Arguably the most successful later study with a similar aim was conducted in 2002 by Wade, Garry, Read and Lindsay in which a doctored photograph of a hot air balloon flight was used to induce the production of false memories in participants. 
• Using similar interview techniques to the 'lost in the mall' experiment, they found that 50% of participants created full or partial false memories of the flight.

Critic's  evaluations of 'The lost in the mall technique'

   Criticisms have been made upon Loftus' conclusions from the data found in her and Pickrell's study. Some, famously including the writings of Crook and Dean, say that comparing the recall of a repressed memory of being lost in a mall to the recall of painful repressed memories of childhood abuse is wrong due to the difference in emotional connection. Therefore, any practical applications to improve therapy techniques that Loftus intended with her study have often been written off by peers in the psychology world as many believe that this creation of false memories isn't comparable to therapists creating pseudo-memories of child abuse. And any conclusion suggesting this generalises cases of child abuse memories being uncovered in adulthood as all false memories which is ethically damaging to those who experience real memories.      

   Overall the methodology of this study has been profusely criticised yet also praised. Loftus later wrote 'Lost in the Mall: Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings' as a response to Crook and Dean's criticism. She described their take on the study and its conclusions as having 'errors, exaggerations, and omissions' and even accused the writers of making a 'deliberate attempt to distort my work'. 

My personal evaluation of 'The lost in the mall technique'

   I believe that Loftus' transparency of her study and her professional response to the criticisms show that not only does she care about her work and its reputation but also that she is confident is the validity of its conclusions. I do, however, understand Crook and Dean's worry towards the implication that anybody who uncovers memories of childhood abuse are a victim of false memories. Yet i believe this claim was exaggerated and that Loftus never intended for such extreme conclusions to be drawn- especially considering the study only created false memories in just over 20% of participants. 

   Due to the continuation of similar studies with similar methodologies and aims which have gained even more conclusive results with increased statistics, I believe the study was justified. It's findings alone display a new strive in the research in false memories so the study is worthwhile and ethically just when viewed through the immediate implications alone rather than exaggerated conclusions.