flashbulb 2

1. Flashbulb Memories

2. Learning Outcomes
 C12- Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one
cognitive function.
 C10- Evaluate the extent to which a cognitive process is
reliable.

3. Warm-Up
Think of a time when you heard emotional or
surprising news.
 Where were you?
 What were you doing?
 Who told you?
 How did you feel?
 How did they feel?
 How confident are you in your memory?

4. Brown and Kulik (1977)
Flashbulb Memories
 Highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memories when
learning about a shocking event.
 Episodic Memories (explicit memories) that are highly resistant to
forgetting because of the emotional arousal at the moment of
encoding.
 “Flashbulb”  Memory registers like a photograph
 Importance and arousal lead to rehearsal

5. Elements of a Flashbulb Memory
Place (where they were when the incident
happened)
Ongoing Activity (what they were doing)
Informant (who broke the news)
Own affect (how they felt)
 Others’ affect (how others felt)
Aftermath (importance of the event)

6. Tragedies…

7. Triumph

8. Brown and Kulik (1977) Study
Aim: To investigate whether shocking events
are recalled more vividly and accurately than
other events.
Method: Asked 80 participants to recall
circumstances of learned shocking events.
Findings/Conclusions: Participants had vivid
memories about where they were, what they
were doing, how they felt about JFK
assassination.
 More likely for unexpected & personally relevant
events.

9. Example…My Mom
 JFK Assassination: November 22, 1963 (51 years ago
tomorrow!)

10. Limitations of Brown and Kulik
(1977)
They asked people to recall…no way
of testing whether those memories are
correct.
Generally seen as emotionally
accurate but not the details.

11. Neisser and Harsh (1992)
Aim: To test the theory of flashbulb memory by
investigating to what extent memories about
the challenger explosion would be accurate
after a period of time.
Challenger Disaster
Method:
 106 students completed a questionnaire explaining
details about finding out about the Challenger.
(Within 24 hours of event)
 2.5 years later, 44 students answered the
questionnaire again. Listed 1-5 on how confident they
were about their memories.

12. Neisser and Harsh (1992)
Findings:
There were major differences between the
original questionnaire and the follow-up. (Avg
accuracy: 2.95 of 7)
 Level of confidence was 4.17
Conclusion: Flashbulb Memories are not as
accurate Brown and Kulik predicted.
Critical Thinking

13. Evaluation
+ Natural environment
- Importance of the event could have been
different for different people.

14. C10 - Phelps et al. (2006)
Aim: To investigate the neurological activity
while recalling a flashbulb memory.
Method:
 Three years following the 9/11 attacks, used
fMRI to measure brain activity when recalling an
autobiographical memory and the memory of the
9/11 attacks.
Two groups:
 Downtown (near the attack)
 Midtown (5 miles away from the attack)

15. Phelps et al. (2006)
Findings:
Downtown group remembered more information
about the attacks.
Those near the attack experienced activity in
their amygdala when recalling the event while
those who were not as near did not show any
difference between 9/11 and their other
memories.
Conclusions: The witnessing of an event bring
more emotional memories and thus create
lasting memories of shocking events.

16. Portfolio Possibility
Compare the results of your interview about
9/11 with the results from the studies we
have discussed today and/or the articles
found at This Link.
You could also use this information to
evaluate one of your own memories.

17. Evaluate Flashbulb Memories
 Weigh the strengths and limitations of the Theory of
Flashbulb Memories.
 What are the strengths of the theory? What does it explain well?
 What are the limitations of the theory?
 What studies can we use to back up or question this theory?