Skip to content

Neisser And Harsch Evaluation Essay

Introduction

  • Introduce topic by explaining it in terms of the cognitive level of analysis and emotion 
    • The cognitive level of analysis aims to study the inner processes of the mind and how cognitive processes guide behaviour.
    • As such, within this level of analysis, emotion has been investigated in terms of its cognitive influences. 
  • Introduce theory of emotion 
    • One theory of how emotion may affect the cognitive process of memory is Flashbulb Memory (FBM) suggested by Brown & Kulik (1977). 
      • Theory of FBM involves how emotion affects memory by enhancing it. 
      • According tLe Doux, the arousal of emotion can facilitate the memory of events that occur during the aroused state; however, even though these emotional memories are emotions evoked by a particular event, the memories may not always be correct. (MOVE TO EVALUATION) 
  • Define Flashbulb Memory (FBM) 
    • Flashbulb Memories is a special kind of emotional memory, which refers to vivid and detailed (photographic-like) memories of highly emotional events that appear to be recorded in the brain as though with the help of a ‘camera’s flash.’ 
  • Explain the FBM 
    • Brown & Kulik (1977) also argued that the special biological memory mechanism of FBM is triggered when an individual usually encounters significant, often unexpected and emotional events or experiences (that has had exceeded levels of surprise and emotion) therefore creating a FBM of the immediate experiences surrounding the highly emotional (happy) experience or traumatic event. (*) 
    • FBM theory also have unique features distinguishing/that differ them from other memories in that they are more vivid, detailed, accurate, long-lasting, consistent and easily to remember. This is in contrast to normal memories, which most researchers are believed to be selective, unreliable and malleable (easily changed or distorted). 
  • *Give an example 
    • Some events stand out in the memory much more than others.
      • When the event happens, the person experiences a highly emotional state, extreme happiness, extreme sadness, etc. The result is that this event is imprinted on the memory. 
    • It can be personal or something that provokes worldwide interest, such as the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 or the death of Prince Diana in 1997. 

Main Study: Brown and Kulik (1977) 
Introduction of study  link to question: 

  • FBM was firstly demonstrated by Brown and Kulik in their main study occurring in 1977. 

Aims: 

  • To investigate FBM and how it works (to support their theory). 

Methods: 

  • Interviewed 80 Americans 
    • 40 African Americans 
    • 40 Caucasian Americans 
  • Had to answer questions about 10 events 
    • 9 of these events were mostly on assassinations or attempted assassinations of well-known American personalities
    • The last event was self-selected of personal events that included self-shock 
  • They were asked how much they rehearsed these events (overtly or covertly) 
    • Overly: rehearsal by discussing with other people 
    • Covertly: private rehearsing or ruminating 

Results: 

  • They found that J.F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 led to the most flashbulb memories of all participants (90% of participants recalled this in context and with vivid detail) 
  • African Americans recalled more FBM's of civil right leaders; e.g. the assassination of Martin Luther King more than the Caucasians recalled it (as a FBM) 
  • For the tenth event (which was self-selected) most participants recalled shocking events like the death of a parent 

Conclusions 

  • This study carried out by Brown and Kulik (1977) supported the theories of flashbulb memories whereby they were: 
    • Form in situations where we encounter surprising and highly emotional information 
    • Are maintained by means of overt rehearsal (discussion with others) and covert rehearsal 
    • (private) 
    • Differ from other memories in that they are more vivid, last longer and are more consistent and accurate 
    • Require for their creation the involvement of a specialized neural mechanism which stores information permanently in a unique memory system 

Evaluation:

  • State explanation of FBM in terms of how emotion can affect memory
    • FBM can be explained in how emotion can affect/influence memory by either enhancing it or impairing it. 
      • Enhanced memory leads to more vivid memories of the event (FBM) Impairing memory leads to 
      • Repression due to traumatic events
        • Repression is used to describe a certain type of memory, usually of a traumatic type, when information cannot be retrieved as a result of being locked out of our consciousness.
      • Mood dependent memory and depressive state 

  • Thus, outline --> state the purpose of your essay 
    • As such, this essay response will aim to evaluate FBM, with the use of supporting or studies or studies which oppose certain components of the FBM in order to uncover the validity of the theory.  

Body

  • State FBM theory component 1 
    • According tBrown and Kulik (1977), the event must be surprising and have real consequences for the person’s life. 

  • Outline evidence for this theoretical component of FBM 
    • Some studies have indicated that childhood memories with high emotional context, such as high school graduation can be as vivid and clear as flashbulb memories of less personal importance, such as national events, e.g. Rubin & Kuzin (1984). 

  • State FBM theory component 2 
    • Brown and Kulik also suggested that there may be a special neural mechanism which triggers an emotional arousal because the emotional event is unexpected or extremely important. 

  • Outline supporting evidence for this theoretical component of FBM 
    • At the time, it was only a hypothesis, but it is supported by modern neuroscience: in that emotional events are better remembered than less emotional events – perhaps because of the critical role of the amygdala. 

  • Outline arguing evidence for this theoretical component of FBM that the creation of FBM requires the involvement of a specialized neural mechanism which stores information permanently in a unique memory system 
    • Hard to identify (hasn't been identified)
    • How do we know about this (any evidence)
    • Further research and testings required to prove /support this theory 

  • State FBM theory component 3 
    • They also believed that this is a special type of memory because of the detail and accuracy with which the event is remembered and the fact that the structural form of the memory is always so similar. 

Evidence supporting Flashbulb Memory 

Supporting Study 1: Conway et al (1994) “UK and non-UK on Flashbulb Memory” 

Introduce study --> link to question 
  • There has been some research untFBM such as by Conway et al. (1994).
Aim:
  • To test the theory of Flashbulb Memory
Methods:
  • Participants were either UK or non-UK undergraduates 
  • Was based on the resignation of Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister,1990) 
  • Participants were asked and interviewed about the event a few days after the event 
  • They were asked again 11 months after the event 
Results: 
  • They found that 86% of UK participants still had FBM of the resignation of Margaret Thatcher 
  • While there were fewer non-UK participants (29%) had flashbulb memories of the event 
Conclusions:
  • Thus, Conway claimed that this event met the criteria for FBM for British people as it was an unexpected and highly significant event pertaining to their culture, therefore arousing deep emotions, influencing the special neural mechanisms and therefore creating FBM of the event.
Evaluation:
  • Strengths :
    • Ecologically Valid: real event 
    • Interview: in depth qualitative data
      • Not focussed (don't have specific questions Questionnaire) o
  • Limitations
    • Distress in having to remember a tragic event 
    • Some methodology was not controlled
Connection of study to question
  • Suggests that flashbulb memories exist and are different from normal memories 
  • However, they may only exist for events with personal significance 

Evidence arguing against Flashbulb Memory 

Arguing Study 1: Neisser and Harsch (1992) 

Introduce study --> link to question 

  • One of the most significant research arguing the validity and accuracy of FBM is by Neisser (1982), and later on by Neisser and Harsch (1992). 
  • Neisser questioned the idea of FBM’s, in which he suggested that the memories are so vivid because the event itself is rehearsed and reconsidered after the event. 
  • According tNeisser, FBM may simply be a narrative convention. He explained this idea by saying that flashbulb memories are governed by the conventions of a storytelling schema, following a specific structure. In other words, when we recount important events, we do by using conventional storytelling techniques. 
  • Neisser also argued that FBM’s are subject to the same types of inaccuracy and forgetting as any other memories. 
Aim: 
  • To investigate the accuracy of flashbulb memory
Methods:
  • Participants were asked to report on the circumstances of their learning about the challenger space disaster on 1986. 
  • Neisser and Harsch investigated people’s memory accuracy of the incident 24 hours after the accident and then again two years later. 
Results: 
  • 1 day after the disaster, 215 of the participants reported that they heard about the disaster on television 
  • Those that recalled 2 and a half years later, 45% said they heard it on T.V 
  • Clearly, their memories of how they learned the news about the challenger disaster changed over time 
  • Assuming that participants' memories were more accurate one day after the disaster, it can be concluded that their memories about how they had heard about the news had deteriorated significantly during the subsequent two and a half years.  o
Conclusions:
  • Connection of study to question
    • This thus suggests that FBM are not reliable (as influenced by post-event information). 
    • Neisser and Harsch claimed that such findings suggest that FBM's may just be ordinary memories 

Arguing Study 2: Wright (1993) “Hillsborough Disaster and (5 months) recall 

Introduce study --> link to question: 
  • Another study investigating the accuracy of FBM was by Wright (1993)
Aim:
  • To investigate the accuracy of FBM
Methods:
  • Interviewed people about the Hillsborough disaster 
  • After 5 month he asked participants to recall what had happened at this event/disaster 
Results: 
  • After five months, memories were vague, and subject to systematic biases. 
  • Found that memories were a blend of their own real experiences, and information that had come after the event. 
Conclusions: 
  • Thus concluding that flashbulb memory is no different to any other type of memory 
  • Shows that the memory that is “flashbulb” can decay over time, unlike as assumed 
Connection of study to question 
  • This study shows that FBM is no different than any other type of memory.

Arguing Study 3: McCloskey et al (1988) “Challenger Disaster and (9months) recall”

Aim:
  • To test the accuracy of flashbulb memory
Methods:
  • Participants were interviewed and asked questions about the explosion of the challenger a few days after 9 months 
  • Also asked on personal memories 
Results: 
  • It was found that there were discrepancies over time between what was recalled shortly after the accident and what was remembered nine months later. 
  • There were inaccuracies in the memories. 
Conclusions: 
  • FBM can be forgotten and thus cannot be considered as a special memory, but are products of ordinary memory mechanisms.
Evaluation
  • Strengths:
    • The type of methodology used was interview thus questions asked in the experiment were not focused thus could vary from participant to participant
  • Weaknesses:
    • Ethics
    • Not ecologically valid because the Challenger was deemed not personal/emotional therefore not meeting the criterion of FBMs.

Connection of study to question
  • Does not support this theory of flashbulb memory 
    • Differ from other memories in that they are more vivid, last longer and are more consistent and accurate 
  • This study showed that flashbulb memories are not different as they don't last as long as assumed by Neisser. 

Conclusion 

  • In conclusion, FBM (affected by emotion) can influence the recall of memories. 
    • However, it is hard to test accuracy of memories as the evidence is very retrospective
  • Overall Strengths: The majority of research into flashbulb memories is naturalistic. It all involves people’s
  • reactions and memories formed from real life events. Therefore there is high in ecological validity.
  • Overall Weaknesses: However, the studies can lack reliability as they cannot really be replicated. Therefore, we cannot test to see how consistent the results are. Also, much of the research is retrospective, and there is the issue that we cannot reliably measure how accurate people’s initial memories are.

Neisser and Harsch

Neisser and Harsch (1992)

Testing the Flashbulb Memory theory

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 related 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 in 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.