Flashbulb Memories

Flashbulb Memories

Learning OutcomesC12- Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive function.C10- Evaluate the extent to which a cognitive process is reliable.

The Psychology of Donald TrumpDonald Trump: There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came downI watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.

How does this example relate to the reliability of memory?

What does this example reveal about Trumps schema theory regarding Arab Americans and how it impacted his memory?

What does this show about flashbulb memories?

Should cognitive psychology be an excuse for Trumps behavior? Impact his presidential bid?

Warm-UpAnswer the following questions for when you heard about the terrorist attacks in Paris.

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 MemoryPlace (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

And TRIUMPH!

This one is for you Bonica!Doh

ExampleMy MomJFK Assassination: November 22, 1963 (52 years ago)Note: Video does not load online

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

Method: Asked 80 (40 white and 40 black) 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 when hearing about shocking events. Whites remembered JFK better while Blacks remembered MLK.More likely for unexpected & personally relevant events.Critical Thinking?

Limitations of Brown and Kulik (1977)-They asked people to recallno 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 as 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.Critical Thinking?

Hirst et al. (2015)Aim: To investigate the consistency and confidence of flashbulb memories over a long period.MethodHad participants from around the nation take surveys on 9/11 within a week of the attack.Had participants take the same survey three more times. 1 year, 3 years, 10 years.Compared the results for consistency and confidence of memories.Examined how engagement with Media, Conversations, residency, personal impact, and emotional intensity impacted remembering.

Hirst et al. (2015)Findings:

ConsistencyConfidenceLarge decrease in accuracy of memory within the first year. Little change between year 1 and year 10.Factors had little impact on consistencyErrors in memories were more likely to be corrected after years due to impact of media sources (movies).Confidence remained high throughout the study.Conversations and Media engagement led to stronger feelings of confidence.

Hirst et al. (2015)Conclusions: Even traumatic memories and those implicated in a communitys collective identity may be inconsistent over time and these inconsistencies can persist without the corrective force of external influences.Critical Thinking?

Evaluate Flashbulb MemoriesWeigh 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?

To what extent are flashbulb memories accurate?

StrengthsLimitationsEvaluate Flashbulb MemoriesExplains why emotional events are more memorable.Theory has been modified to say that the event must have personal relevancy.Does not fully account for the reconstructive nature of memory