Emotion and Cognition - Flashbulb Memory Theory

Flashbulb Memory Theory

* Brown and Kulik
* FBMs are "permanent record" created of shocking public and private events that individuals witness or hear about.
* Event: Elicit surprise; new; unexpected.
* Photographic snapshot of details (consult factors of FBM)
* Claim = FBM associated with physiological processes

\
Causes:

* Event is evaluated in terms of personal consequentialism = **surprising event** activate **emotional arousal** that exceeds critical level
* Personal relevance can also contribute reducing the "forgetting" curve of the memory. ==> More rehearsal!
* Social memories (Overt rehearsal):
* Collective shared memory
* Interpersonal rehearsal
* Covert rehearsal

Factors of FBM

* Place: Where?
* Informant: Who told you? Source.
* Event: What you were doing at the time?
* Affect: Emotion you felt/emotion of others (SOCIAL MEMORY)
* Aftermath: Consequences on the individual

Role of rehearsal in FBM

* Event leads to a lot of interpersonal rehearsal (conversations)
* Types of rehearsals:
* Covert: Replays of events, internal reflection of event, etc.
* Overt: Shared with others ==> Rehearsal keeps the memory alive

Eval of FBM

Strengths:
+ Diversifies the types of memories
+ Shows that memory can be reliable {implications on judicial court systems}
+ Yuille and Cutshall proposes that this is a possible explanation (their study was a field study)
+ Neurological support (Sharot et al.)

Weaknesses:
+ Neisser suggests that FBM is not photographic, but is simply well-rehearsed regular memory.

Brown and Kulik (1977)

Pioneering study on FBM

Research method: Questionnaire

Procedure:

* Asked 80 American participants if they recall circumstances of 9 events (death of public figures) & 1 self-selected personally relevant event.
* Most were assassinations (JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr.)
* They wrote personal accounts & rated on scale of personal significance.

Results:

* 90% of participants recalled with perpetual clarity. Details where? who? what? etc.
* Social memories were retained better.
* More FBM if event was personally shocking.
* Black participants had more FBM for Malcolm X & MLK assassinations than white participants {civil rights} ==> 75% compared to 33%

Findings:

* Personal significance = greater emotional arousal = creation of FBM.

Brown and Kulik Evaluation

Strengths: 

* Pioneering: Led to other research that supports FBM. 
* Suggesting different factors that could determine the development of FBM. 
* Replicable: Further attempts could allow for verification of the findings’ reliability. Limitations: 


* Retrospective in nature: recall can be affected by post-event information, accuracy can not be verified, etc. 
* Internal validity: Can not measure the level of surprise, the role of rehearsal, etc. 
* Difficult to generalize: 
* Population validity: American, males 
* Culture has been shown to affect FBM (such as collectivist cultures like China = less conversations about socially shocking events = less FBM)

Sharot et al.

Aim:
- Explore neural basis of memories
- Clarify characteristics of emotional events = FBM

Procedure:
- Study of personal recollections of people in NYC during September 11th.
+ Participants in both Downtown and Midtown (further away) NY
- 3 years after the event, participants were asked to recollect memories of 9/11 and personal events that happened in the same year {control}

Results:
- Downtown participants exhibited selective activation of amygdala as they recalled 9/11 (not for control)
- Not in the case of Midtown

Findings:
- Close personal experience may be critical in engaging neural mechanisms that unlie FBM
- Significant: Provides neurological support/clarifies characteristics of FBM.

Neisser and Harsch (criticism FBM)

Neisser proposed that FBM = well-rehearsed story governed by story telling schema (not a photographic type of memory) → “Mind conflate things”

Aim: Memory accuracy of Challenger space shuttle incident 24 hrs later & 2 1/2 years later.

Procedure:

* 106 students given questionnaire to recall details about the time they found out about the event.
* In the second questionnaire (2 1/2 years), participants were also asked to rate how confident they were in their recall.

Results:

* 40% of participants had distorted memory
* 25% were wrong about major details.
* Emo intensity = associated w/ greater confidence (not accuracy)

Neisser and Harsch (Evaluation)

Strengths:

* Internal validity: Measurement of accuracy of recall → Comparing participants to themselves. (Prospective study)
* Case study = method + data triangulation (supporting the findings).
* Longitudinal
* High ecological validity: Naturally occurring event (in-real life context)

Limitations:

* Lack of control = cannot control how the memory was rehearsed.
* Demand characteristics when reporting one’s level of confidence = could’ve inflated this.
* Transferability of findings (case-to-case): Can be transferred to other circumstances like September 11th.