brown and kulik ( 1977) flashbulb memory

Brown & Kulik (1977) – Flashbulb Memory

Introduction

• Key Terms:

• Flashbulb memories: Highly detailed, vivid memories of significant events, as if the mind had “photographed” them.

• Context:

• The study aimed to investigate the effect of surprise and personal significance on the formation of flashbulb memories.

• It relates to the cognitive approach as it examines memory processing and recall.

• Outline:

• This essay will evaluate the theory of flashbulb memory with reference to Brown & Kulik’s (1977) study.

Main Body (TEACUP Analysis)

Theory

• Brown & Kulik hypothesized that emotionally significant and surprising events lead to flashbulb memories, stored with vivid detail.

• They also suggested a biological mechanism behind flashbulb memory but did not investigate it in this study.

Evidence (Study Details)

• Aim: To investigate whether surprising and personally significant events cause flashbulb memories.

• Participants:

• 80 male American participants (40 Black, 40 White).

• Method:

• Participants completed a questionnaire about the deaths of public figures (e.g., John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) and someone personally significant.

• They answered questions such as:

• Where were you when you heard the event?

• Who was with you?

• What were you doing?

• How did you feel? (Emotional significance)

• How important was the event in your life? (Personal relevance)

• How often have you spoken about it? (Rehearsal)

• Findings:

• 90% of participants recalled significant details about the events.

• Most had detailed memories of a loved one’s death.

• Personal relevance influenced memory recall:

• 75% of Black participants had flashbulb memories of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination.

• Only 33% of White participants had flashbulb memories of MLK’s death.

Application

• Supports the idea that emotion and personal significance contribute to memory strength.

• Suggests that flashbulb memories may be more common for events tied to personal identity or cultural significance.

• Can be applied to eyewitness testimony, highlighting the role of emotion in memory recall.

Criticism

• Cause-and-effect issue:

• The study cannot establish causation between personal relevance and memory recall.

• Self-report bias:

• Participants relied on memory, which may be inaccurate or distorted over time.

• Comparison to Neisser & Harsch (1992) suggests that flashbulb memories may not always be reliable.

• Lack of measurement for surprise/emotion:

• No objective method to measure emotional response at the moment of the event.

• Potential demand characteristics:

• Social desirability bias – participants may have given responses they believed were expected.

• Sampling bias:

• All male, American participants → Gender and cultural bias.

• Research suggests collectivist cultures may have lower rates of flashbulb memory.

Counterargument (Alternative Viewpoint)

• Neisser & Harsch (1992) challenged flashbulb memory theory:

• Found that memory for shocking events can be inaccurate and change over time.

• Suggests that flashbulb memories may be subject to reconstruction, rather than being “photographic.”

Conclusion

• Main Points Restated:

• Brown & Kulik’s study supports the idea that emotionally significant events lead to vivid memories.

• Personal relevance appears to play a key role in memory recall.

• However, the study has methodological limitations (self-report bias, lack of control over variables).

• Implications:

• Findings have practical applications in understanding eyewitness testimony and how emotional experiences shape memory.

• Further research is needed to establish a biological explanation for flashbulb memories.