Flashbulb memories (FBMs) can be defined as episodic memories and recollections of autobiographical events that are formed when an individual experiences intense emotions generating from a surprising public event. FBMs are referred to as special memories that are cognitively processed and stored as explicit recollections and are vivid, long lasting and consistent remembrances retained throughout life. (Goldstein, 2014). This phenomenon was first proposed by Brown & Kulik (1977) whereby they argued FBMs are resistant to change like photographs. How FBMs are cognitively processed and stored has been passionately debated and thus has led numerous researchers to advance their understanding of the mental processing of FBMs and to evaluate the impact
…show more content…
In contrast to Brown & Kulik (1977) theory on Flashbulb Memories being vivid and consistent like photographs, a noteworthy study conducted by Neisser & Harsch (1992) argued the accuracy and validity of FBM (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). They investigated the concept the reason memories are so intense of the shocking incident itself is that it continues to be rehearsed and reviewed by the individual after the event. According to Neisser & Harsch (1992), FBMs are exposed to the same forms of forgetting and inconsistencies as normal autobiographical memories. In Neisser & Harsch’s study, they aimed to investigated the erroneousness of FBMs. Subjects were asked to report on the reception of their learning about the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster. They investigated subjects’ accuracy of the incident within 24 hours of the event and again three years later. 24 hours after the incident, nearly 8% of subjects confidently reported they learned about the news from the television and after re-testing 3 years later, 42% of participants reported to hearing about the disaster from the television, which was a 39% drop in consistency (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). If subjects’ memories the day after the event were more precise it can be concluded their recollections about how they heard about the disaster was deteriorated significantly during the three years after they were re-tested. Neisser & Harsch findings propose that FBMs are not reliable as suggested by Brown & Kulik and additionally, they are influenced by post-event information individuals encounter after an incident has occurred. Furthermore, Neisser & Harsch argued their findings imply FBMs may be ordinary memories and they are not resistant to being distorted and decay over time. Adding weight to Neisser & Harsch argument that FBMs are no
In contrast to Brown & Kulik (1977) theory on Flashbulb Memories being vivid and consistent like photographs, a noteworthy study conducted by Neisser & Harsch (1992) argued the accuracy and validity of FBM (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). They investigated the concept the reason memories are so intense of the shocking incident itself is that it continues to be rehearsed and reviewed by the individual after the event. According to Neisser & Harsch (1992), FBMs are exposed to the same forms of forgetting and inconsistencies as normal autobiographical memories. In Neisser & Harsch’s study, they aimed to investigated the erroneousness of FBMs. Subjects were asked to report on the reception of their learning about the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster. They investigated subjects’ accuracy of the incident within 24 hours of the event and again three years later. 24 hours after the incident, nearly 8% of subjects confidently reported they learned about the news from the television and after re-testing 3 years later, 42% of participants reported to hearing about the disaster from the television, which was a 39% drop in consistency (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). If subjects’ memories the day after the event were more precise it can be concluded their recollections about how they heard about the disaster was deteriorated significantly during the three years after they were re-tested. Neisser & Harsch findings propose that FBMs are not reliable as suggested by Brown & Kulik and additionally, they are influenced by post-event information individuals encounter after an incident has occurred. Furthermore, Neisser & Harsch argued their findings imply FBMs may be ordinary memories and they are not resistant to being distorted and decay over time. Adding weight to Neisser & Harsch argument that FBMs are no