Jan 8, 2025 01:44 AM
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/jan/impl...imed-court
PRESS RELEASE: The 1995 Lost in the Mall study has often been cited in criminal trials, particularly those involving historical sexual abuse – including by Harvey Weinstein’s defence team – in order to cast doubt on the memory of accusers.
This famous study suggested that it is easy to implant false memories for a fake event that never happened – after 25% of the 24 participants wrongly recalled being lost in a supermarket at the age of five.
In 2023 the Lost in the Mall study was repeated by psychologists at University College Cork and University College Dublin, using the same methods. They used a larger sample of 123 people and claimed to find more false memories (35%) than the original study.
However, the new analysis of the 2023 data, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, has raised serious questions about these findings. The article shows that none of the 35% judged to have a false memory in 2023 reported an entirely false memory and many did not even recall being lost.
According to the new analysis, half of those judged to have false memories had actually been lost before and were likely to be reporting on real events (albeit at a different time/place). Meanwhile others were so unsure about the suggested details in the fake story that their testimony would have been of little value in court.
Emeritus Professor Chris Brewin (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences) said: “The findings underscore the dangers of applying laboratory research findings to the real world of witnesses in court. People in these studies are cautious in what they claim to remember and seem to be much less likely than the investigators to agree they had a false memory. Experts need to be very careful in how they present research findings so as not to mislead the justice system.”
As part of their analysis, the researchers focused on six core details of the fake event, including: being lost; crying; being helped by an elderly woman; being reunited with their family; the location of the event; the time of the event.
They found that participants who were deemed to have a false memory on average recalled one and a half details with any confidence, and 30% recalled none at all.
This was consistent with previous reports that investigators’ false memory judgements were often not backed up by the views of participants themselves.
Lead author Emeritus Professor Bernice Andrews (Royal Holloway Department of Psychology) added: “This is the first time that the raw data from a false memory implantation study have been made publicly available and subjected to independent scrutiny.”
PRESS RELEASE: The 1995 Lost in the Mall study has often been cited in criminal trials, particularly those involving historical sexual abuse – including by Harvey Weinstein’s defence team – in order to cast doubt on the memory of accusers.
This famous study suggested that it is easy to implant false memories for a fake event that never happened – after 25% of the 24 participants wrongly recalled being lost in a supermarket at the age of five.
In 2023 the Lost in the Mall study was repeated by psychologists at University College Cork and University College Dublin, using the same methods. They used a larger sample of 123 people and claimed to find more false memories (35%) than the original study.
However, the new analysis of the 2023 data, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, has raised serious questions about these findings. The article shows that none of the 35% judged to have a false memory in 2023 reported an entirely false memory and many did not even recall being lost.
According to the new analysis, half of those judged to have false memories had actually been lost before and were likely to be reporting on real events (albeit at a different time/place). Meanwhile others were so unsure about the suggested details in the fake story that their testimony would have been of little value in court.
Emeritus Professor Chris Brewin (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences) said: “The findings underscore the dangers of applying laboratory research findings to the real world of witnesses in court. People in these studies are cautious in what they claim to remember and seem to be much less likely than the investigators to agree they had a false memory. Experts need to be very careful in how they present research findings so as not to mislead the justice system.”
As part of their analysis, the researchers focused on six core details of the fake event, including: being lost; crying; being helped by an elderly woman; being reunited with their family; the location of the event; the time of the event.
They found that participants who were deemed to have a false memory on average recalled one and a half details with any confidence, and 30% recalled none at all.
This was consistent with previous reports that investigators’ false memory judgements were often not backed up by the views of participants themselves.
Lead author Emeritus Professor Bernice Andrews (Royal Holloway Department of Psychology) added: “This is the first time that the raw data from a false memory implantation study have been made publicly available and subjected to independent scrutiny.”
