Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Lost Letter Technique/Evidence
Method evidence record

Lost Letter Technique

The lost letter technique, introduced by Milgram, Mann, and Harter in 1965, is an unobtrusive field method for measuring community attitudes by exploiting a small act of everyday helping. Researchers distribute stamped, addressed envelopes in public places as if they had been accidentally dropped, with the letters addressed to different organizations representing varying causes (for example, a neutral individual versus a politically charged group). A passerby who finds a letter must decide whether to mail it, ignore it, or destroy it, and the proportion of letters returned for each addressee serves as an index of public sentiment toward that cause -- letters addressed to favored organizations are mailed more often than those to disfavored ones. Because finders do not know they are participating in a study, the measure sidesteps social-desirability bias and yields a behavioral, aggregate indicator of attitudes that complements self-report surveys.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Lost Letter Technique (Unobtrusive Attitude Measurement)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / social-psychology
  • Milgram, S., Mann, L., & Harter, S. (1965). The lost-letter technique: A tool of social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 437-438. · DOI 10.1086/267344
  • Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301. · DOI 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyBogus Pipelinemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyFalse Consensus Paradigmmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyUnmatched Count Techniquemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account