Theory: Flashbulb Memory Cognitive process: Memory 3.9 Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process. Theory: Flashbulb Memory Cognitive process: Memory

What do you think? Is our memory better for events that we are emotional affected by? Write down your thoughts to be shared with the class. Critical Thinking

Flashbulb Memory Theory The theory of Flashbulb memory was first proposed by Brown & Kulik (1977). They defined flashbulb memory as a highly detailed, exceptionally vivid "snapshot" of the moment when a surprising and emotionally arousing event happened. Flashbulb Memory Theory

Flashbulb Memory Theory They postulated the special-mechanism hypothesis, which argues for the existence of a special biological memory mechanism that, when triggered by an event exceeding critical levels of surprise, creates a permanent record of the details and circumstances surrounding the experience. This implies that flashbulb memories have different characteristics than "ordinary memories." They also argued that the memories are resistant to forgetting Flashbulb Memory Theory

Flashbulb Memory Theory Today the most commonly accepted model of flashbulb memory is called the importance-driven model. This model emphasizes that personal consequences determine intensity of emotional reactions. Flashbulb Memory Theory

Brown and Kulik, 1977 Make a GO for this key study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001002777790018X Brown and Kulik, 1977

Aim Brown & Kulik proposed that some events can be remembered as though our mind had photographed them - what they called flashbulb memories. They argued that these memories were caused when the event not only was surprising, but was of personal relevance to the life of the individual. They also argued that there must be a biological mechanism that led to the creation of these memories, but the following study did not investigate a biological component. The aim of their classic 1977 study was to investigate whether surprising and personally significant events can cause flashbulb memories. Procedure The researchers asked 40 black and 40 white American male participants to fill out a questionnaire regarding the death of public figures - such as President John F Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr - as well as of someone they personally knew. They were asked a series of questions about the event including: Where were you when you heard about the event? Who was with you when you head about the event? What were you doing when you heard about the event? How did you find out about the event? How did you feel when you heard about the event? (to indicate level of emotion) How important was this event in your life? (to indicate personal relevance) How often have you talked about this event? (to indicate rehearsal) The study was carried out in 1977. President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Brown and Kulik, 1977

Results The researchers found that 90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day when these events occurred. Most participants had very detailed memories of the death of a loved one. However, there was a difference in their memories of teh assassination of public officials, based on the personal relevance of the event to the participant. 75% of black participants had flashbulb memories of the murder of Martin Luther King, compared to 33% of white participants. Brown and Kulik

Social desirability effect You will see here that when people are questioned about an important national event, they may say what they believe that they are supposed to say - a demand characteristic known as the social desirability effect. Video-Lie Witness News Social desirability effect

Evaluation of Brown and Kulik, 1977 The study was one of the first to attempt to empirically test the existence of flashbulb memories.  It has led to a large amount of further research. The procedure could be replicated, allowing us to determine if the results are reliable. The questionnaire was retrospective in nature - that is, it was self-reported data that relied on the memory of the individual and could not be verified for accuracy by the researchers. Compare tis to Neisser & Harsch's prospective study. The actual level of surprise or emotion at the moment of the historical event cannot be measured or verified. It is not possible to actually measure the role of rehearsal in the creation of the memories. Social desirability may have played a role in the responses given by the participants. The study shows sampling bias; it is difficult to generalize the findings as only American males were studied. The study had both gender and cultural bias.  More recent findings show that collectivistic societies may have lower rates of FBM. Evaluation of Brown and Kulik, 1977

Neisser and Harsch, 1992-Complete GO with handout Other studies:

Video 1: 9/11 Flashbulb Memories Video 2: How our brains 9/11 Events

Aim To determine the potential role of biological factors on flashbulb memories. Procedure This case study was conducted three years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan. The sample was made up of 24 participants who were in New York City on that day. Participants were put into an fMRI. While in the scanner, they were presented with word cues on a screen. The list of words is listed in the chart below. In addition, the word "Summer" or "September" was projected along with this word in order to have the participant link the word to either summer holidays or to the events of 9-11. Participants’ brain activity was observed while they recalled the event. The memories of personal events from the summer served as a baseline of brain activity for evaluating the nature of 9/11 memories. After the brain scanning session, participants were asked to rate their memories for vividness, detail, confidence in accuracy and arousal. Participants were also asked to write a description of their personal memories. Only half of the participants actually reported having what would be called "flashbulb memories" of the event - that is, a greater sense of detail and a strong confidence in the accuracy of the memory. Those that did report having flashbulb memories also reported that they were closer to the World Trade Centre on the day of the terrorist attack. Participants closer to the World Trade Centre also included more specific details in their written memories. Results Sharot and her team found that the activation of the amygdala for the participants who were downtown was higher when they recalled memories of the terrorist attack than when they recalled events from the preceding summer, whereas those participants who were further away from the event had equal levels of response in the amygdala when recalling both events. The strength of amygdala activation at retrieval was shown to correlate with flashbulb memories. These results suggest that close personal experience may be critical in engaging the neural mechanisms that produce the vivid memories characteristic of flashbulb memory. Evaluation The study is correlational in nature and does not establish a cause and effect relationship. which would explain how hte memory is actually attributed to activity in the amygdala. Research by McGaugh & Cahill supports the role of the amygdala in the creation of emotional memories. The environment of the fMRI and the task that the participants are asked to do is highly artificial - and thus low in ecological validity. Although the study demonstrates the role of the amygdala as a result of proximity to the event, it does not explain why some people have vivid memories after seeing the events on television or the Internet. The sample size is small and culturally biased. Research indicates that individualistic cultures are more likely to have flashbulb memories than collectivistic cultures. This makes the findings difficult to generalize. As this study is a case study, it is difficult to replicate. However, there are several similar experiences - for example, the 2015 earthquake in Nepal or the 2011 tsunami in Japan - which could be studied to determine whether the results are transferable. Sharot et al, 2007

Criticism of the theory There are two key criticisms of the Flashbulb Memory theory. Neisser & Harsch (1992) challenged Brown & Kulik’s theory with their "Challenger Disaster Study." The researchers gave a questionnaire to individuals immediately after the event, and then three years later. They found that individuals’ accounts had changed considerably. But when he interviewed the individuals, they all felt very confident that this memory was “just like yesterday.” Neisser found that confidence in no way correlates with accuracy of a memory. He also argued that the results indicated that post-event information had led to memory distortion. This means that the participants had actively processed (rehearsed) the information and not simply created a "photograph" of the event. Finally, he argued that when we are surprised by something, we do not know whether the event is important or relevant to us personally until after we have processed it. Cultural dimensions also seem to play a role in flashbulb memories. Kulkoffsky et al (2011) looked at the role of culture in Flashbulb memory in five cultures: China, Germany, Turkey, the UK and the USA. Participants were given five minutes to recall as many memories as they could of public events occurring in their lifetime. They were then asked to complete a "memory questionnaire" for each event where they were asked if they remembered where they first heard of the event. If so, then they were asked a series of questions to determine the extent of the FBM. They were then asked to answer questions about the importance of the event to them personally. The researchers found that in a collectivistic culture like China, personal importance and intensity of emotion played less of a role in predicting FBM, compared with more individualistic cultures that place greater emphasis on an individual's personal involvement and emotional experiences. Because focusing on the individual's own experiences is often de-emphasized in the Chinese context, there would be less rehearsal of the triggering event compared with participants from other cultures - and thus a lower chance of developing a FBM. However, it was found that national importance were equally linked to FBM formation across cultures. Criticism of the theory

The strengths and limitations of Flashbulb Memory Theory are: There is empirical evidence that supports the role of emotion on memory formation - for example, McGaugh & Cahill or the Danish study. There is biological support for the theory, although the research is correlational in nature and does not demonstrate cause and effect. The biological mechanism is not well explained. Neisser argues that it is one's level of confidence, not accuracy, which defines FBM. There are cultural differences that demonstrate that rehearsal may play the most important role in the development of FBM. Often with real life research on the topic, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of memories. Summarize:

1. According to Flashbulb memory theory, which emotion is responsible for the creation of these memories? 2. What is meant by the importance-driven model? 3. Why might demand characteristics have played a role in Brown & Kulik’s interview study? 4. What did Phelps find about people who were close to ground zero? 5. Sharot’s study seems to confirm Phelps’ study. What word do we use to describe when a study confirms or supports the results of another study? 6. What did de Quervain’s study in Rwanda teach us about Flashbulb memory? 7. What does cultural research seem to indicate about FBM?

Remember that the topic of this lesson is "the effect of emotion on one cognitive process." In order to do well on an exam question, you should be able to do the following: Define Flashbulb memory. Identity the emotion - surprise - which theoretically plays a role in Flashbulb memory. Describe 2 - 3 studies.  I would recommend the original study by Brown & Kulik, one study that supports Flashbulb memory (Sharot or McCaugh & Cahill) and one that challenges Flashbulb memory (Neisser & Harsch) Evaluate the studies. Discuss why it is difficult to know whether flashbulb memory actually exists. Exam tips