Flashbulb memories are highly vivid memories of learning about a shocking or emotional event. Early studies found that people had accurate memories of the context and their reactions to significant events like the JFK assassination. However, later studies found that flashbulb memories lack consistency and accuracy over time, even if confidence in the memories remains high. While emotional events may be more memorable initially, repeated testing has shown that flashbulb memories are reconstructive and details can change substantially within a few years of the event.

1. Warm Up Discussion
 Use information from the article from last class, your
interviews, and your general knowledge on cognition to
discuss the following questions.
1. Share the stories that you heard about from 9/11 with your
group. How confident was your interviewee in their
memories?
2. What are the goals of terrorist? To what extent do the way
that people responded to 9/11 relate to this?
3. How do emotional events impact our decision making?
Why does this happen?

2. Flashbulb Memories

3. Learning Outcomes
 Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive
function.
 To what extent to which a cognitive process is reliable.
 We are learning about what flashbulb memories are and
discussing if they are reliable.
 We are learning this because it allows us to better understand the
nature of our memories.
 We should be able to use evidence from studies to evaluate the
strengths and limitations of the theory.

4. Flashbulb Memories
Highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memories
of learning about a shocking or emotional 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. This one is
for you
Bonica!
And TRIUMPH!

8. Example…My Mom
 JFK Assassination: November 22, 1963 (54 years ago)
 Note: Video does not load online…

9. Brown and Kulik (1977) Study
Aim: To investigate whether shocking events are
recalled more vividly and accurately than other
events.
Method: Asked 80 (40 white and 40 black)
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 when hearing about shocking
events. Whites remembered JFK better while
Blacks remembered MLK.
 More likely for unexpected & personally relevant events.
 Explain: How and why does this relate to the strengths and
limitations of the theory?
Critical Thinking?

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 as Brown and Kulik predicted.
Explain: How and why does this relate to
the strengths and limitations of the theory?
Critical Thinking

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

14. Add Info from New Yorker
Article/Have People read New
Yorker…
 Article in bookmarks…Jane the Virgin

15. Hirst et al. (2015)
Aim: To investigate the consistency and confidence
of flashbulb memories over a long period.
Method
 Had participants from around the nation take surveys on
9/11 within a week of the attack.
 Had participants take the same survey three more times.
 1 year, 3 years, 10 years.
 Compared the results for consistency and confidence of
memories.
 Examined how engagement with Media, Conversations,
residency, personal impact, and emotional intensity
impacted remembering.

16. Hirst et al. (2015)
Findings:
Consistency Confidence
• Large decrease in accuracy of
memory within the first year. Little
change between year 1 and year
10.
• The key Factors/influences had
little impact on consistency of
memories.
• Errors in memories were more
likely to be corrected after years
due to impact of media sources
(movies & documentaries).
• Confidence remained high
throughout the study.
• Conversations and Media
engagement led to stronger
feelings of confidence.

17. Hirst et al. (2015)
Conclusions: Even traumatic memories
and those implicated in a community’s
collective identity may be inconsistent
over time and these inconsistencies can
persist without the corrective force of
external influences.
Explain: How and why does this
relate to the strengths and limitations
of the theory?
Critical Thinking?

18. 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?
To what extent are flashbulb memories
accurate?

19. Evaluate:
Let’s Make a D.E.A.L.
 Use the following acronym to help you evaluate key theories.
Describe the theory
Evidence explanation (studies)
Application (real-world applications)
Limitations (of studies and theory as a whole)
 When discussing limitations, you can use the counterclaim/rebuttal
model.

20. Strengths Limitations
Evaluate Flashbulb Memories
Explains why
emotional events
are more
memorable.
Theory has been
modified to say that
the event must
have personal
relevancy.
Does not fully
account for the
reconstructive
nature of memory.
Memories often
lack consistency or
accuracy despite
having high
confidence.