brown and kulik

• Key Terms Defined
  

  • Flashbulb memory: A vivid, detailed “snapshot” of the moment and context in which emotionally significant news was first heard.

  • Emotion: Affective arousal that can modulate cognitive processes—here, memory encoding and recall.

  • Cognitive reliability: How accurately a cognitive process (e.g., memory) reflects the original event.

• Context
  

  • This study exemplifies the cognitive approach’s use of questionnaire methods to explore how emotion influences memory.

  • Brown & Kulik proposed a flashbulb memory model, suggesting that surprising, personally relevant events are encoded and stored more vividly.

• Outline/Thesis Statement
  

  • This essay will evaluate the methods and findings of Brown & Kulik (1977), examine how emotion may enhance memory encoding, and consider the reliability of flashbulb memories.

• Theory
  

  • Surprising and highly personally relevant events trigger a special memory mechanism, yielding vivid, long-lasting flashbulb memories.

• Evidence
  

  • Aim: To test whether surprising, emotionally significant events produce flashbulb memories.

  • Method:
    

    • Participants: 80 American males (40 Black, 40 White).

    • Instrument: Self-report questionnaire asking about the assassination of public figures (e.g., JFK, MLK Jr.) and personal losses.

    • Questions: Where were you? Who was with you? What were you doing? How did you feel? How important was it? How often have you talked about it?

  • Findings:
    

    • 90% of participants recalled rich detail for public-figure deaths.

    • Detail for personal losses was even higher.

    • 75% of Black participants versus 33% of White participants had flashbulb memories of MLK’s assassination—showing personal relevance matters.

• Application
  

  • Highlights how emotionally salient events enjoy enhanced encoding and rehearsal, producing more vivid memories.

  • Informs eyewitness testimony protocols: witnesses may be very confident about emotionally charged events but still be prone to distortion.

• Criticism
  

  • Sampling bias: Only American males; lacks gender and cultural diversity.

  • Self-report, retrospective data: Cannot verify actual accuracy; relies on participants’ memories of their own vividness and rehearsal frequency.

  • No biological measures: Hypothesizes a biological mechanism but does not test it.

  • No control over rehearsal: Frequency of discussing the event likely varied widely and wasn’t measured objectively.

  • Demand characteristics/social desirability: Participants may overstate their confidence or detail to conform to perceived expectations.

• Unanswered Questions
  

  • How do rehearsal and media exposure interact with emotion to shape flashbulb memories?

  • Would findings generalize to females, other cultures, or non-U.S. contexts?

  • What is the neurobiological mechanism underpinning enhanced encoding for emotional events?

• Practical Use
  

  • Guides legal practitioners in evaluating eyewitness confidence versus accuracy.

  • Suggests educational strategies for leveraging emotional engagement to improve learning and retention.

Counterarguments

• Neisser & Harsch (1992) and Talarico & Rubin (2003) found that although people feel very confident in flashbulb memories, their actual accuracy declines similarly to ordinary memories over time.

• This suggests that emotion enhances subjective vividness and belief, but not necessarily objective fidelity.

• Restate Main Points
  

  • Brown & Kulik’s study used questionnaire methods to show that surprise and personal relevance yield vivid, enduring memories.

  • However, reliance on retrospective self-reports and lack of objective accuracy measures limit claims about true reliability.

• Closing Statement
  

  • While emotion clearly influences the subjective experience of memory, flashbulb memories may not be immune to distortion—underlining the need to distinguish confidence from accuracy when evaluating emotionally charged recollectio