neisser and harsch (1992) flashbulb memory

Neisser & Harsch (1992) - Flashbulb Memory

Research Methods:

• Methodology Used: Case study, longitudinal design, and method triangulation.

• Data Collection: The study used both questionnaires and interviews.

• Procedure: 106 Emory University students were asked to recall their memories of the Challenger disaster (1986). Their responses were recorded in a questionnaire, followed by a second questionnaire 2.5 years later. Confidence in memory accuracy was rated, and semi-structured interviews were conducted.

• Type of Data: Both quantitative (scoring memory accuracy) and qualitative (descriptions of memories).

• Strengths & Limitations of Methodology:

• Strengths: High ecological validity, naturalistic setting.

• Limitations: Participant attrition (some participants dropped out over time), no control over external influences (e.g., media exposure).

Aim of the Study:

• To investigate whether flashbulb memories (FBM) are prone to distortion over time, challenging the belief that they are highly accurate and resistant to forgetting.

Procedure & Results:

• Initial Questionnaire: Administered less than 24 hours after the Challenger disaster, asking students about the specifics of how and where they learned about the event.

• Follow-up Questionnaire: 2.5 years later, the same participants filled out the same questionnaire again. Discrepancies between initial and follow-up responses were examined. They were also asked to rate their confidence in the accuracy of their memories.

• Key Findings:

• The average score of memory accuracy was 2.95 out of 7.

• Only 3 participants scored the maximum of 7, while 22 scored 2 or lower.

• Despite low accuracy, participants displayed high confidence (average rating of 4.17).

• Participants had considerable discrepancies in their recall (e.g., where they were, who they were with) when comparing initial and follow-up responses.

• No significant impact of cues on accuracy during the interviews.

Evaluation:

• Strengths:

• Ecological Validity: The study took place in a real-world setting, providing high ecological validity.

• Longitudinal & Prospective Design: Allowed the researchers to measure memory over time and track changes in memory accuracy.

• Triangulation: Using both questionnaires and interviews improved the reliability and depth of the findings.

• Weaknesses:

• Lack of Replicability: The case study design limits the ability to replicate the study.

• Participant Attrition: Some students dropped out, which could have influenced the results.

• Confounding Variables: There was no control over external factors (e.g., how often participants discussed the event or exposure to media, which might have influenced memory accuracy).

• Demand Characteristics: The study’s reliance on self-reporting could have led participants to alter their confidence ratings, potentially skewing the results.

• Small Sample Size: The study included only 44 participants in the follow-up, limiting the generalizability of the results.

Conclusion:

• The study by Neisser & Harsch (1992) provides valuable insights into the fallibility of flashbulb memories. It challenges the belief that FBMs are immune to distortion and demonstrates that these memories, despite their vividness and emotional significance, are susceptible to inaccuracies over time. The high confidence shown by participants, despite discrepancies in their memories, points to the complexity of memory processing and the potential for distortions in autobiographical recall.