Flashbulb Memories

Learning Outcomes C12- Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one

cognitive function.

C10- Evaluate the extent to which a cognitive process is

reliable.

Warm-UpThink of a time when you heard emotional or surprising news.

Where were you?

What were you doing?

Who told you?

How did you feel?

How did they feel?

How confident are you in your memory?

Brown and Kulik (1977)

Flashbulb Memories

Highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memories when

learning about a shocking event.

Episodic Memories (explicit memories) that are highly resistant to

forgetting because of the emotional arousal at the moment of

encoding.

“Flashbulb” Memory registers like a photograph

Importance and arousal lead to rehearsal

Elements of a Flashbulb Memory

Place (where they were when the incident happened)

Ongoing Activity (what they were doing)

Informant (who broke the news)

Own affect (how they felt)

Others’ affect (how others felt)

Aftermath (importance of the event)

Tragedies…

Triumph

Brown and Kulik (1977) StudyAim: To investigate whether shocking events are recalled more vividly and accurately than other events.

Method: Asked 80 participants to recall circumstances of learned shocking events.

Findings/Conclusions: Participants had vivid memories about where they were, what they were doing, how they felt about JFK assassination.More likely for unexpected & personally relevant

events.

Example…My Mom JFK Assassination: November 22, 1963 (51 years ago

tomorrow!)

Limitations of Brown and Kulik

(1977)

They asked people to recall…no way

of testing whether those memories are

correct.

Generally seen as emotionally

accurate but not the details.

Neisser and Harsh (1992)

Aim: To test the theory of flashbulb memory by investigating to what extent memories about the challenger explosion would be accurate after a period of time.

Challenger Disaster

Method: 106 students completed a questionnaire explaining

details about finding out about the Challenger. (Within 24 hours of event)

2.5 years later, 44 students answered the questionnaire again. Listed 1-5 on how confident they were about their memories.

Neisser and Harsh (1992)

Findings:

There were major differences between the

original questionnaire and the follow-up. (Avg

accuracy: 2.95 of 7)

Level of confidence was 4.17

Conclusion: Flashbulb Memories are not as

accurate Brown and Kulik predicted.

Critical Thinking

Evaluation

+ Natural environment

- Importance of the event could have been

different for different people.

C10 - Phelps et al. (2006)

Aim: To investigate the neurological activity

while recalling a flashbulb memory.

Method:

Three years following the 9/11 attacks, used

fMRI to measure brain activity when recalling an

autobiographical memory and the memory of the

9/11 attacks.

Two groups:

Downtown (near the attack)

Midtown (5 miles away from the attack)

Phelps et al. (2006)Findings:

Downtown group remembered more information

about the attacks.

Those near the attack experienced activity in

their amygdala when recalling the event while

those who were not as near did not show any

difference between 9/11 and their other

memories.

Conclusions: The witnessing of an event bring

more emotional memories and thus create

lasting memories of shocking events.

Portfolio Possibility

Compare the results of your interview about

9/11 with the results from the studies we

have discussed today and/or the articles

found at This Link.

You could also use this information to

evaluate one of your own memories.

Evaluate Flashbulb Memories

Weigh the strengths and limitations of the Theory of

Flashbulb Memories.

What are the strengths of the theory? What does it explain well?

What are the limitations of the theory?

What studies can we use to back up or question this theory?