Flashbulb Memory

Seite 1

A flashbulb memory is a highly detailed, exceptionally vivid 'snapshot' of the moment and circumstances in which and piece of surprising and important (or emotionally arousing) new was heard.

In 1977, the psychologists Brown and Kulick attempted to define people's recollections of the John.F.Kennedy assassination when they referred to them as 'flashbulb' memories. they defined them as:

Exceptionally vivid memories.

Usually consequential events.

Resistant to forgetting over time.

They suggested that a novel and shocking event activates a special brain mechanism, which they referred to as 'now print'. Much like a camera's flashbulb. Brown and Kulick hypothesised, the 'now print' mechanism preserves or 'freezes' whatever happens at that moment when we learn of the shocking event.

Brown and Kulick propose that there is an evolutionary and biological basis for the 'now print' mechanism: the mechanism is activated when a given event occurs unexpectedly and has a biologically significant consequence for individuals lives so that people are ready to recognise similar events in the future.

Aim:

To investigate the idea of flashbulb memories; that on days of personal significance, that day is illuminated in their minds where minor details such as conversations, smells, actions etc. are vividly remembered.

Procedure:

80 pps were asked a series of questions testing their memories of ten major events, such as the assassination of President John.F.Kennedy in 1963 (14 years earlier).

Findings:

Memories for such events were particularly vivid, detailed and long lasting. People usually remembered where they were when they heard the news, how they heard it, what they and others were doing at the time, and the emotional impact of hte news on themselves and those around them.

Conclusion:

Flashbulb memories are special and quite different from other memories. They allow people to remember minor details of an event that they would otherwise forget. E.g. Can you remember what you were wearing when you heard the news of September 11 2001.

Criticisms:

Other events such as graduating from college or a first romance can be recalled in the same way as flashbulb memories. Suggesting that flashbulb memories are no different from ordinary memories. Flashbulb memories are sometimes inaccurate. Studies found that people who were asked to recall the Challenger Explosion recalled an increasing amount on inaccurate details overtime. People who tend to forget these small details or make minor errors, are suggested that the event was not as personally important to them as it was to other people.

Neisser and Harsch

Aim:

To investigate flashbulb memory, to test how good people's memories are after an event (the Challenger Explosion) after a period of time.

Procedure:

106 psychology students were given a questionnaire less than 24 hours after the explosion. They were asked to write down how they had heard the news of the explosion. They were also asked 7 questions including:

What they were doing, where they were, their emotional feelings at the time of the explosion.

2 and a half years later, 44 of the original pps came back and were asked to fill in the questionnaire again. They were also asked to rate how confident they were about their memory on the scale of 1-5. They were asked if they had filled out a questionnaire about the explosion before.

They were then interviewed, asking: can you remember what you wrote the first time. Ppa were then show their answers from the first questionnaire.

Results:

11 of the pps remembered filling out the questionnaire the first time. There was a huge difference between people's answers on the first and second questionnaire. The mean score of correctness of recall of the 7 questions on the second questionnaire was 2.95 out of 7. 11 pps scored 0 (none of the answers were the same as on the first questionnaire). 22 pps scored 2 or less. The mean score for the confidence rating was 4.17.

Conclusion:

The results challenge flashbulb memory theory and it also questions the reliability of memory in general. Pps were confident that they had remembered the event correctly both times and they could not explain the differences between the first and second questionnaire.

New Page