Flashbulb Memory Theory and Research Studies

flashbulb memory

A highly detailed, exceptionally vivid "snapshot" of the moment when a surprising and emotionally arousing event happened, or when you learned of such an event

the emotion responsible for creating flashbulb memories

Surprise (or shock)

The cognitive process affected by FBMs

Memory

Theory of Flashbulb Memory

Suggests that strong emotion (surprise) can significantly enhance memory encoding and retrieval, so that people can remember vividly the details about where they were and what was happening when an event occurred, or they first heard about a surprising event

Brown and Kulik

The researchers who conducted a famous experiment on recalling past assassinations and then proposed, also in 1977, the theory of Flashbulb Memory (to help explain their findings)

"Photographic Model"

A name given to the first version of the flashbulb memory theory by Brown and Kulik, because several other models have followed it and further developed the theory. It argued that if an event is surprising, affects someone personally and triggers emotional arousal, it will form a FBM, which is maintained through rehearsal.

Overt rehearsal

Discussing an event with other people, such as retelling a story to others

Covert rehearsal

Practicing something silently or in your mind, or replaying a witnessed event in your mind

special mechanism hypothesis

Proposed in Brown and Kulik's initial flashbulb memory theory, it argues for the existence of a special biological memory mechanism that, when triggered by an event exceeding critical levels of surprise, creates a permanent record of the details and circumstances surrounding the experience

amygdala

A limbic system structure involved in emotion and memory, it also serves as a "fight or flight" center for the brain

areas of uncertainty regarding flashbulb memories

Is vividness the result of "photographic" encoding or rehearsal after the event? Are flashbulb memories more accurate than other episodic memories? Although the amygdala seems to be involved with emotional memories, what is the neural basis (the special mechanism) that triggers flashbulb memories?

effects of culture on flashbulb memories

Kulkofsky's work indicates that individualistic cultures (like the U.S.) are more likely to produce personal event flashbulb memories than collectivist cultures, although very important national events generated FBMs in collectivist cultures, too

AIM: Brown and Kulik, 1977

To investigate whether surprising and personally significant events can create flashbulb memories

SAMPLE: Brown and Kulik, 1977

40 White American males and 40 African American males from the United States (80 total participants)

PROCEDURES: Brown and Kulik, 1977

Researchers used a retrospective questionnaire that tested their memories of ten major events, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy 14 years earlier, and Martin Luther King Jr., 9 years earlier, plus the death of a loved one. They asked questions to specifically determine: (1) level of emotion felt about the event; (2) personal consequence of the event; (3) amount of rehearsal of the event before the study.

FINDINGS: Brown and Kulik, 1977

90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day when these events occurred (where they were, what they were doing, and how they heard about the event). Most had very detailed memories of the death of a loved one. Personal consequence led to differences in memory: 75% of black participants had FBMs of MLK's murder, compared to 33% of white participants.

CONCLUSION: Brown and Kulik, 1977

Flashbulb memories are qualitatively different from other memories, allowing people to vividly remember minor details of an event that they would otherwise forget. The difference in memory between black and white participants shows the importance of the personal consequence and strong emotion (surprise) felt when learning about the event.

AIM: Neisser and Harsch, 1992

To test the theory of flashbulb memory by investigating the extent to which memory for a shocking event (the Challenger disaster) would be accurate after a period of time

SAMPLE: Neisser and Harsch, 1992

106 college students in an introductory Psychology class

PROCEDURES: Neisser and Harsch, 1992

Participants were given a questionnaire less than 24 hrs after the space shuttle Challenger explosion and asked to write a description of how they had heard the news, and answer 7 questions about the details surrounding their hearing the news, including their level of emotion. 2.5 years later, 44 of the original students answered the same questionnaire, were asked to rate their confidence in the accuracy of their recall, and whether they had filled out the questionnaire before. This was followed by a semi-structured interview before they saw their original answers.

FINDINGS: Neisser and Harsch, 1992

Only 11 participants out of the 44 remembered that they had filled out the questionnaire before. There were major discrepancies between the details of their original account and their followup memories 2.5 years later. The mean score of correctness of recall of the seven questions was 2.95 out of 7. For 11 participants the score was 0, and 22 (half) scored 2 or less. The average level of confidence in accuracy for the questions, however, was 4.17 (out of 5).

CONCLUSION: Neisser and Harsch, 1992

The results challenge flashbulb memory theory and also question the reliability of memory in general. Participants were confident that they remembered the event correctly both times and could not explain the discrepancies between the first and second accounts they gave to the researchers.

AIM: Sharot et al, 2007

To determine the potential role of biological factors on flashbulb memories

SAMPLE: Sharot et al, 2007

24 American citizens who had been in New York City on the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; some had been in downtown Manhattan (closer to the site of the attacks) and some had been in midtown Manhattan (farther from the attacks)

PROCEDURES: Sharot et al, 2007

3 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on Manhattan, participants were placed in an fMRI machine and their brain activity was observed as they recalled a mix of personal memories from the summer of 2001 (before the attacks) or from the day of 9/11 itself. Personal event memories from the summer served as a baseline of brain activity for evaluating the nature of their 9/11 memories. After the fMRI session, participants rated their memories for vividness, detail, confidence in accuracy, and emotional arousal, and then wrote a description of their memories.

FINDINGS: Sharot et al, 2007

Only half of participants reported having vivid, detailed memories of 9/11, or with a great deal of confidence in them (hallmarks of flashbulb memories) - mostly those who did had been downtown (closer to the attacks). Amygdala activation was higher when they recalled 9/11 memories than for summer memories, but those in midtown (farther away) had equal levels amygdala response for both types. The level of amygdala activation at retrieval was shown to correlate with the flashbulb memories that had been indicated by their written accounts and ratings of their memories.

CONCLUSION: Sharot et al, 2007

These results suggest that close personal experience (and proximity to the event) may be critically important in engaging the neural mechanisms that produce the vivid memories characteristic of flashbulb memory. It also argues the amygdala is involved in flashbulb memories, and might be the neural mechanism for them.