Emotion & Memory

Learning Outcome:

Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process

Flashbulb memories make up a lot of important storytelling that goes on within cultures so we must know if they are reliable. Flashbulb (FB) memories give us a chance to situate memory within a sociocultural context. FB memories are related to language with the concept of narrative, the special type of story that aids meaning making. Finkenauer et al. (1997) believe that individual memory contents become social through interpersonal communication. FB memory research spans all three levels of analysis. It is a cognitive process, the brain is active, and culture acts as a mediator. The material is also relevant to the topic of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses often have flashbulb memories.

What are flashbulb memories?

Finkenauer et al. (1997) suggests that FB memories are distinctly vivid, precise, concrete, long-lasting memories of the personal circumstances surrounding peoples discovery of shocking events. Robert Sternberg (2006) suggests memories of an event that are so powerful that the person remembers the event as vividly as if it were indelibly (permanent) preserved on a film FB memories are different from memories about the actual event. Rather, FB memories bring out very clear personal memories of the context in which someone hears the news. This context is called the reception context and may be more important than the news of the real event. Time affects the forgetting curve for FB memories less than it does with other memories. In summary, flashbulb events are dramatic, unexpected, shocking, for example: When something very important happens (e.g. the world trade center collapsed) The death of someone close to you The death of a public figure (e.g. Princess Diana)

FB memories are memories that are exceptionally vivid, important events with emotional significance, resistant to forgetting over time.

The first theory about flashbulb memories: The photographic theory:

The idea that vivid memories are hard to forget has been around for a long time. The concept of flashbulb memories dates back to 1899 when F.W. Colegrove asked people to recall where they were when Lincoln was shot (Colegrove, 1899). Roger Brown and James Kulik coined the term flashbulb memory in their 1977 study. Brown and Kulik (1977) asked 40 white and 40 black Americans to fill out a questionnaire asking for their memories about the death or failed assassinations of nine historical figures, including JFK and Martin Luther King, an the shocking death of a personal acquaintance. In addition, data on consequentiality (level of personal relevance) and rehearsal (such as talking about the event or hearing about it in the media) was collected. Brown and Kulik hypothesized that black Americans would have greater FB memories for the leaders most associated with civil rights, which was believed to be of higher consequence. The hypothesis was confirmed. Consequentiality scores for personal shock were higher for those of historical figures among both white and black Americans with one exception. Among Black Americans, consequentiality scores for Martin Luther Kings assassination were higher than the shocking death of a personal acquaintance. Brown and Kulik concluded that Martin Luther King had great survival significance for black Americans. Brown and Kulik created the first theory about flashbulb memories, called the photographic theory of flashbulb memories, and explained it within a biological and evolutionary context. They thought that FB memories were strong because they elicited a Now Print neurophysiological mechanism. Brown and Kulik wrote that surprise, consequentiality, and rehearsal strategies were important to registering FB memories in the brain. If the news is a shock and is of great consequence to the individual, then it is likely compels frequent rehearsal. The event is on a persons mind and is the subject of conversations. But Brown and Kulik figured that rehearsals were probably no simple reproductions of the event. Rather they were constructions and a verbal narrative is likely to be created (p. 58). Brown and Kulik reasoned that FB memories must have evolved early in our species. Without mass media, a person only had his or her individual memories. Important events were printed neurologically and stored in the mind. Anything apart from the ordinary that is of consequence to survival must be stored and easily accessed. For example, while presidential assassinations were not on the minds of early humans, a predator invading ones territory was important. The event itself needed storing so the individual could keep their expectations of similar events easily accessible. But details of the persons whereabouts along with the level of consequence were also crucial for knowing what similar situations should be avoided. The Now Print mechanism must have evolved because of the selection value of permanently retaining biologically crucial but unexpected events. Brown and Kulik write that in modern times, culture has taken over the role of recording important events: humans do not need to retain them. However, we still automatically register startling events and seem attracted to them. Since Brown and Kuliks photographic theory, many studies have supported the existence of FB memories and newer theories have emerged to explain the creation and maintenance of them, including Finkenauers, Emotional-Integrative Model.

Finkenauers Emotional-Integrative Model of flashbulb memories

Finkenauer et al. (1998) Emotional-Integrative Model of flashbulb memoires distinguished between different components of emotions, something missing from other theories. Finkenauer suggest that the Brown and Kulik model has some support but no study examines all of the required components at one time. Brown and Kulik thought that novelty directly led to subjective emotion but this idea was never tested. The emotional-integrative model suggests that emotions are not simply subjective feelings or states of arousal - they are complex and involve information processing, response and regulatory components. Each component is important to creating a FB memory.

What happens when you have an emotion?

First, a cognitive appraisal is made of the situation. The person assesses the importance of the event to their survival, well-being and goals. Second, an individuals personal characteristics influence the cognitive appraisal. These include previous experiences and attitudes. Third, factors such as the novelty of the situation and whether it is consistent with a persons values are assessed. Fourth, if the event is personally relevant, the person prepares to respond adequately to this environmental challenge (p.12). The person is now in a state of readiness, which involves cognitive (such as narrowing of attention) and physiological changes (perhaps a motor response). Last, the person experiences a subjective emotion. Experiencing intense emotions compels a person to socially share their views and learn about others views. Rehearsing the event through narratives and media stories adds to the vividness of the memories. The more intense the emotion the more it is socially shared. The emotional integrative model distinguished between the different components of emotion. There are five parts to this theory the key is that it contains both direct and indirect pathways from the actual event to FB memories: 1. An appraisal of novelty leads to surprise, which directly affects the FB memory 2. If one appraises the event as novel and the event also has personal significance, a person experiences an intense subjective emotion the subjective emotion affect FB memories in two ways. First, the subjective emotions, in addition to surprise, contribute directly to the FB memory. Second, the emotions trigger rehearsal, the next step 3. The intensity of ones emotional state, and the FB memory trigger rehearsal of the event. Rehearsal takes place through narrating and listening to media accounts. Rehearsal has an indirect but important affect on the FB memory 4. The entire process is mediated by previously existing person characteristics, such as knowledge of the event, attitudes and values 5. The end product is the FB memory of the event Finkenuer et al (1998) tested the Emotional-Integrative Model against the other theories after King Baudouin of Belgium unexpectedly died of a heart attach in 1993. The Kings death had a great impact on the Belgian people because he was successful at unifying a country that was divided by culture and language. Participants were 394 French-speaking Belgians. Data was collected through a questionnaire seven to eight months after the death. The questionnaire asked about the different factors thought to contribute to FB memories, such as where and when a person was doing when the heard the news, memory of the event, rehearsal of the event, subjective emotion, surprise level, novelty level, importance level and level of sympathy. The research supported the Emotional-Integrative Model over the others. Brown and Kuliks model was not supported because there was no evidence that importance and subjective emotions directly determined the FB memory. Finkenuer et al. (1998) Full article: http://psicobiologia.campusnet.unito.it/didattica/att/4ab8.9646.file.pdf

Not everyone agrees that flashbulb memories are reliable

Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch (2000) suggest that memories become flashbulbs primarily through the significance that is attached to them afterwards. The term benchmark is a better description of the memories than the term flashbulb memory. The problems of eyewitness testimony are the same as those of FB memories: these memories are often wrong in the first place or are easily altered over time. Neisser believes that pondering the event, talking about them over and over with others (narrating), and hearing media reports are responsible for the vividness of the memories. Neisser and Harsch were concerned about how FB memory study results were interpreted by researchers. They conducted a study about memories of the Challenger crash and call into question the reliability of FB memories. Participants filled out a questionnaire about their recollections of the Challenger crash within 24 hours of the crash and then again three years later. Neisser and Harsch found more discrepancies than expected as well as high confidence levels that the memories were correct. Interviews were conducted with some of the participants to clarify the result. Of interest to the researchers was the surprise and disbelief some participants showed about the discrepancies between the two sets of data. Neisser expected that the interviews would revive correct original memories but his did not happen.

The brain and flashbulb memories

Davidson et al. (2005) conducted one of the five experiments available about the brain and flashbulb memories. Their study suggests that the frontal lobes are important for FB memories. Using a test-retest and a quasi-experimental design, patients with medial temporal lobe diencephalic (MTL/D) damage and patients with frontal lobe (FL) damage were compared to health controls on their memory for both event (details of the attacks) memories and source where, when, and/or from whom they had learnt the information for the 11th September attacks. Davidson et al. had 2 hypotheses: First patients with MTL/D damage would have the most impairment for event memories, more than those with FL damage. Second, MTL/D-damaged patients would have reliable source memories when they also had reliable event memories, but were uncertain if the FL-damaged patients would have source memory impairment. Method: 45 participants made up the 3 groups 14 with MTL/D damage; 13 with FL-damage and 18 healthy controls. Data was collected with a FB memory questionnaire administered in an interview, with questions about both event and source memories. The first set of data collected between three and 30 days after the attacks. The second set of data was collected six months later.

Findings:
1. Long-term memory impairment was fond only in the MTL/D-damaged patients. This is

consistent with earlier research. Long term event memories were just as reliable in the FL-damaged patients as they were in normal controls 2. MTL/D-damaged patients, even though they retained fewer long-term event memories, retained slightly more source memoires than FL-damaged patients. 3. FL-damaged patients were inconsistent in their ability to recall source information, however, FL damage varied considerably in participants, so possible the greater the damage, the more likely the person was to recall fewer source memories Davidson et al. wondered if specific sub-regions of the FL would give scientist more information about the brain and source of FB memories. In addition, there may be certain conditions under which persons with FL and MTL/D damage have source and event memory impairment. Both are good areas for future research. Davidson et al (2005) Full article available:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2349094/

Video:

Elizabeth Phelps, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at NYU, explains her research Memories of 9/11: Surveys of Americans' memories immediately after the attacks and how they recalled those same memories years later. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM4KIw_2YPw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evj6q0eCdd8

References
Chen, I. (2011) How Accurate Are Memories of 9/11? Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=911-memory-accuracy Davidson, P. Cook, S., Glisky, E., Verfaellie, M., Rapcsak, S. (2005) Source Memory in the Real World: A Neuropsychological Study of Flashbulb Memory. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 April 28. Full article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2349094/ Dewey (2012) Flashbulb Memories http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/flashbulb_memory.html Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Gisle, L., El-Ahmadi, A., Van der Linden, M., Philippot, P. (1998) Flashbulb memories and the underlying mechanisms of their formation: Toward an emotionalMemory & Cognition Volume 26, number 3, pages 516-531. Full article: http://psicobiologia.campusnet.unito.it/didattica/att/4ab8.9646.file.pdf Hurst et al. (2009) Long-Term Memory for the Terrorist Attack of September 11: Flashbulb Memories, Event Memories, and the Factors That Influence Their Retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Volume 138, No. 2, pages 161176 http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/09_JEPG_V138No2.pdf McCloskey, M., Wible, C., Cohen, N. (1988) Is There a Special Flashbulb-Memory Mechanism? http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf Pappas, S. (2011) Live Science Senior Writer: Do You Really Remember Where You Were on 9/11? http://www.livescience.com/15914-flashbulb-memory-september-11.html

Sharot, T., Martorella, E., Degado, M., & Phelps, E. (2007) How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Volume 104(1): 389394.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1713166/
Young, E. (2008) Inside the brain, Memory, Neuroscience and psychology, Discovery Magazine: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/affective-brain/documents/Media/DiscoverMagazine_14102008

Research Studies
Brown and Kulik (1977)
Aim: to investigate the idea of flashbulb memories; that on days of personal significance, that day is illuminated in their minds where minor details such as conversations, smells, actions, etc are vividly remembered. Procedures: participants were asked a series of questions testing their memories of ten major events, such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 (14 years earlier) Findings: memories for such events were particularly vivid, detailed and long lasting. People usually remembered where they were when they heard of the news, how they heard it, what they and others were doing at the time, and the emotional impact of the news on themselves and those around them. Conclusion: flashbulb memories are special and quite different from other memories. They allow people to remember minor details of an event that they would otherwise forget. Evaluation: Other events such as leaving college or a first romance can be recalled in the same way as flashbulb memories suggesting that flashbulb memories are no different from ordinary memories. Flashbulb memories are sometimes inaccurate.

McCloskey et al. 1988

McCloskey et al. (1988) found that people who were asked to recall the challenger explosion recalled an increasing amount of inaccurate details over time. People who tend to forget these small details or make minor errors are suggested that the event was not as personally important to them as it was to other people. Aim: to test the accuracy of flashbulb memories Procedure: people were interviewed a few days after the explosion and the American space shuttle challenger in 1986 about their memories surrounding the event. - The same people were then interviewed after nine months. Finding: - There were inaccuracies in their memories - There were discrepancies between what was recalled shortly after the accident and what was remembered nine months later. Conclusion: So called flashbulb memories are subject to the same type of inaccuracy and forgetting as other memoires. Therefore, so called flashbulb memories are not special memories but are products of ordinary memory mechanism. Evaluation: This was not an artificial laboratory study, people were asked to recall a real event they had witnessed on TV or heard about through the media. On the other hand, Conway and colleagues reject the idea that flashbulb memories are simply strong versions of ordinary memories. They have claimed that the challenger accident did not meet the criteria for flashbulb memories. This challenges to the concept of Flashbulb memory.

Davidson et al. (2005)

Davidson et al. (2005) conducted an experiment to determine the role of different FB memories. Their study suggests that the frontal lobes are important for FB memories. They predicted that patients with MTL/D damage would have the most impairment for the event itself (more than those with FL damage). However, they predicted those MTL/D damaged patients who had that had reliable source memories would also have reliable event memories. They were unclear if the FL damaged patients would have source memory impairment. Aims: To test which area of the brain is more important for (1) The event itself (details of the attacks on the World Trade Centre) (2) The source information (where they were, when, how they learnt about the attack) Method: Using a test-retest method, 45 participants made up the 3 groups: Group 1: 14 with MTL/D (medial temporal lobe diencephalic) damage Group 2: 13 with FL (frontal lobe) damage Group 3: 18 healthy controls.

Procedures: participants were asked a series of questions using a questionnaire administered in an interview, including questions about the event and source information about the attack on the world trade centre on September 11th. The first set of data was collected between 3 and 30 days after the attack, the second set of data was collected 6 moths later.) Findings: 1. Long-term memory impairment was found only in the MTL/D-damaged patients. This is consistent with earlier research. Long term event memories were just as reliable in the FLdamaged patients as they were in normal controls 2. MTL/D-damaged patients, even though they retained fewer long-term event memories, retained slightly more source memoires than FL-damaged patients. 3. FL-damaged patients were inconsistent in their ability to recall source information, however, FL damage varied considerably in participants, so possible the greater the damage, the more likely the person was to recall fewer source memories

Davidson et al. wondered if specific sub-regions of the FL would give scientist more information about the brain and source of FB memories. In addition, there may be certain conditions under which persons with FL and MTL/D damage have source and event memory impairment. Both are good areas for future research.

Summary of evaluation points for flashbulb memories Neisser proposed that the enduring nature of FBM a result of rehearsal and reworking after the event We use the conventions of storytelling recounting important event It is difficult to check the accuracy of flashbulb memories There is nothing different about them for example, Neisser himself was sure he was listening to the baseball when pearl harbor was bombed in WWII, but it couldnt have been possible because it wasnt in the baseball season Furthermore, The McCloskey et al. (1988) study also proposes that flashbulb memories are not special memories Relatively little evidence for FMBs as a distinct memory process. Despite the great feeling of accuracy (having confidence in recall), FB memories are just as prone to forgetting & change as other episodic memories