Sample response

Psychologists have argued that our memory is not a “snapshot” of the past and that we often distort our memories as a result of post-event information.  This means that when we are exposed to other information after the original event, that new information changes our memories.  However, researchers have shown that this is not always true.  The Flashbulb Memory Theory argues that when a memory is created of an event that is both emotional and of personal importance, it is more likely to be vivid, accurate and not distorted by post event information.

One study that showed this was carried out by Yuille and Cutshall.  After a robbery in Vancouver, a group of eyewitnesses gave their story to the police.   The witnesses had seen the thief shoot the owner of the shop and then watched as the police killed the thief.  Four months later the eyewitnesses were asked to take part in a study of memory.  They were asked to write down all they could remember from the day of the crime.  They were also asked if they had seen the yellow panel on the car – but the panel was blue.  The researchers found that the post-event information (the leading question) did not distort their memories.  In addition, their retelling of the event was highly accurate when compared to the original reports.  The event was both emotional and personally important (they could have been killed).  This is good evidence that flashbulb be memories may exist.  The study is strong because it is a field study, done under naturalistic conditions.  But it would be difficult to replicate the study, so it is not possible to eliminate participant variables in determining why the individuals were able to recall the event so well.  It could also be that they rehearsed the story in retelling it often over the past few months. 

McGaugh and Cahill wanted to see if the fight or flight response which happens when we are afraid would help in creating a flashbulb memory.  In their study, they had two groups.  Both groups watched a series of slides – but one group heard a boring story about a boy visiting a hospital and the other group heard a traumatic story of the boy having his legs severed and reattached.  When they were asked two weeks later to recall details of the slides, those that heard the traumatic story remembered significantly more details.  The researchers then had a third group that heard the traumatic story but also received a beta-blocker which blocks the receptor sites for adrenaline on the amygdala.  They found that there was no difference between their recall and the recall of the boring story group.  It appears that adrenaline may play a role in the accuracy of memory.  This seems to support the role of emotion in the creation of flashbulb memories.  However, this study was done under highly controlled conditions and thus lacks ecological validity.  In addition, it was only two weeks later.  It is not clear how long these memories could be accurate.

A final study was done by Sharot et al.  She wanted to see if there was a difference in memories between those who were in Manhattan or not on the attack on 9/11 five years after the event.  In her study, she had participants who had been in Manhattan and who had not been in Manhattan.  She first had them describe where they were and what happened on 9/11.  She asked them to rate how strong their memories were.  She then had participants lie in an fMRI while words were flashed in front of them.  They were asked to either think of some objects with regard to summer or to September.  She found that the participants who were downtown had more activity in their amygdala than the other group. In addition, they reported having stronger memories.

It appears that there is biological support for the theory of Flashbulb memories and that even after five years, the amygdala is more active in the recall of the memories.  This study used participants who had really experienced a traumatic event, unlike the study by McGaugh and Cahill.  Yet, it is still a concern that the study has low ecological validity – being asked to recall memories of 9/11 while in an fMRI is not a normal situation.  It is important, however, in this study that the results were about the activity of the amygdala so this simply shows that the recall of memories is different for those who were in downtown Manhattan.  It is not possible to verify the accuracy of their memories, which is something that could be done in the Yuille and Cutshall study.  But the Y & C did not have evidence of the response of the amygdala.

There is cognitive and biological support for the theory of Flashbulb memories.  It appears that fear and/or surprise, combined with personal relevance, has a key role in forming highly reliable memories. 

823 words