Flashbulb Memory

Explain the study – Brown & Kulik (1977)

The aim of the study of Brown and Kulik (1977) was basically to investigate whether dramatic or personally important and influential events can cause flashbulb memories. They assessed memories of 80 American people for the circumstance in which they learned of public events. They found out that flashbulb memory is more likely for unexpected and personally relevant events that are usually shocking. So, they concluded that dramatic events that are unusual can cause physiological imprinting of a memory of the event. One weakness was that the data was collected through questionnaires which made it impossible to verify the accuracy of memories and also as dramatic events are rehearsed more, memories could be made more durable.

Explain the study – Neisser & Harsch (1992)

The morning after the explosion of space-shuttle Challenger (January 1996), 106 students were given a questionnaire. Among the questions asked were how they heard the news, where they were, what they were doing, who tole them, and what time it occurred. Thirty-two month later the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire again to compare the results. The finding showed that memories of these people were not accurate. Of 220 facts from the original questionnaire, 150 were wrong in the second questionnaire. Participants on the other hand weren’t aware of their performance and were highly confident in recalling the memory. The conclusion was that flashbulb memories are not accurate as people’s confidence in their memories are different.

Explain the study – Talarico & Rubin (2003)

The experiment gave 52 students a questionnaire about their memory of September 11 and an ordinary event of their preceding few days. Students were then divided into three groups each group returning for follow-up questionnaire session after different amount of time: 7, 42, 224 days. In the follow-up session, they were asked the same question about their memories about both ordinary event and flashbulb memory of September 11. The number of details remembered about September 11 and ordinary event were indistinguishable. Most memories were consistent and over time, details declined but there was no difference in ordinary event and September 11. Inconsistent details increased but the difference was the confidence and vividness. Students were more likely to believe their memories of September 11 were accurate than their ordinary memories as they reported that ordinary memories were becoming less vivid and reliable. So, when accuracy of memories is checked, flashbulb memories are not different from other memories.