3.9 Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.

3.9 Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.

Brown and Kulik (1977)

Flashbulb memories (FM) are a type of episodic memory (explicit memory). It is assumed that they are highly resistant to forgetting, i.e. the details of the memory will remain intact and accurate because of the emotional arousal at the moment of encoding. This is controversial. FM can be defined as a highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memory of the moment a person first hears about a shocking event. The ‘flashbulb’ indicates that the event will be registered like a photograph, i.e. it will be accurate in detail. Brown and Kulik suggested that FM is often rehearsed because it is important or emotionally salient to the individual and this makes the memory more accessible and vividly remembered over time. There are six important features about FM that people remember in detail:

• Place (i.e. where they were when the incident happened)
• Ongoing activity (i.e. what they were doing)
• Informant (i.e. how they learned about the incident)
• Own affect (i.e. how they felt - their emotional status or affect)
• Other affect (i.e. how other people felt)
• Aftermath (i.e. importance of the event - the consequences)

Aim: To investigate whether shocking events are recalled more vividly and accurately than other events.

Procedure: Questionnaires asked 80 participants to recall circumstances where they had learned of shocking event.

Results: The participants had vivid memories of where they were, what they did, and what they felt when they first heard about a shocking public event such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The participants also said they had flashbulb memories of shocking personal events such as the sudden death of a relative. The results indicated that FM is more likely for unexpected and personally relevant event. The researchers suggested ‘the photographic model of flashbulb memory’. Brown and Kulik suggest that FM is caused by the physiological emotional arousal (e.g. activity in the amygdala).

Evaluation: The reliance on retrospective data questions the reliability of this study. People tend to interpret an event from their current perspective. Research indicates that although an FM is emotionally vivid, it is not necessarily accurate in regard to details. The photographic model of FM has been challenged.

Neisser (1982) is critical towards the idea of flashbulb memories, as certain memories are very vivid because they are rehearsed and discussed after the event.

Neisser and Harsch (1992) did a real life study on people’s memory of the Challenger disaster. The first data were collected less than 24 hours after the event and the same participants were tested two and a half years later. Most participants did not remember anything correctly but they were confident they did.

Aim: To test the theory of flashbulb memory by investigating the extent to which memory for a shocking event (the Challenger disaster) would be accurate after a period of time

Procedure: 106 students in an introductory psychology class were given a questionnaire and asked to write a description of how they had heard the news. They also had to answer seven questions relation to where they were, what they were doing, etc., and what emotional feelings they experienced at the time of the event. Participants answered the questionnaires less than 24 hours after the disaster. Two and a half years later, 44 of the original students answered the questionnaire again. This time they were also asked to rate how confident they were of the accuracy of their memory on a scale from 1 to 5. The participants were also asked if they had filled out a questionnaire of the subject before. Sometime after the last questionnaires, the researchers performed a semi-structured interview to test whether the participants could remember what they had written previously. Participants then saw their original reports from the first questionnaire.

Results: Only 11 participants out of the 44 remembered that they had filled out the questionnaire before. There were major discrepancies between the original questionnaire and the follow-up two and a half years later. The mean score of correctness of recall of the seven questions was 2.95 out of 7. For 11 participants the score was 0, and 22 scored 2 or less. The average level of confidence of accuracy for the questions was 4.17. The results challenge the predictions of the FM theory and also question the reliability of memory in general. Participants were confident that they remembered the event correctly both times and they could not explain the discrepancies between the first and second accounts.

Evaluation: The study was conducted in a natural environment and it has higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments on memory. The participants were psychology students who participated for course credits and they may not be representative. The degree of emotional arousal when witnessing a shocking public event may be different from experiencing a traumatic event in your own personal life, and the importance of the events may be very different. This could influence how well people remember a certain event.

Strengths of the FM theory	Limitations of the FM theory
The theory can, to some extent, explain why very emotional memories are often more vividly remembered over time, but it cannot explain why these memories are often no more accurate than any other memory (expect perhaps for some central details).	“Flashbulb” refers to the flashbulb used in photography, but the name may not be well-chosen as the photograph taken with a flashbulb preserves everything in the scene as it was at the time the picture was taken.
The theory has generated many research studies and the theory has been modified. The idea that emotional events are better remembered than non-emotional events is supported, but modified with the idea that the event should have specific personal relevance.	An FM is a “reconstructed memory” where the emotional importance of the event may influence the way the memory is reconstructed - particularly if it is discussed with other people over time (confabulation) or if the memory does not have particular personal relevance.