Who Got Lost in the Mall? Challenges in Counting and Classifying False Memories

In a reanalysis of our replication of the Lost in the Mall false memory study, Andrews and Brewin (2024) applied a novel coding scheme to count the presence of certain details in the transcripts of participants' interviews, ultimately suggesting the false memory rate was just 4% rather than 35%. We disagree with this narrow reanalysis but believe it raises important points about the constructive nature of memory as well as how we draw inferences about a memory based on a recorded conversation. As stated in our original paper, we encourage researchers to employ multiple metrics to assess and quantify false memories and not to rely on any single coding scheme—for example, two‐thirds of our participants self‐reported remembering (14%) or believing (52%) the fake event occurred. We also argue that even if the false memory rate was just 4%, that would still have significant theoretical and legal implications.