Cognitive Level of Analysis

1. Cognitive Level of Analysis Session 13: Flashbulb Memories

2. Welcome back! • Assignment deadline!

3. What have we covered so far? • Biological Level of Analysis: the principles, research methods, ethics, hormones, neurotransmitters, the impact of genes, localisation, interactions with cognition, brain imaging techniques, evolution • Cognitive Level of Analysis: the principles, research methods, ethics, schema theory, models of memory, cultural factors in memory, reliability of memory, theories of emotion, interaction with biological factors, brain imaging

4. What’s next? • Flashbulb memories (CLOA) • Sociocultural level of analysis: • Social identity • Formation of stereotypes • Group norms • Compliance techniques • Conformity • Culture and behaviour

5. To do list • Internal Assessment proposal • Extended Essay proposal • Semester 2 Exams: 1 Paper (SL) 2 Papers (HL)

6. Reflections • What do I feel confident about? • What do I feel less confident about? • What am I proud of? • What would I like to do differently?

8. Task • In as much detail as you can, describe the circumstances in which you first learned about the 2011 Japan earthquake • Are there any local, state, national or international events that you would also consider to be very vivid memories for you? If so, please list those events. • Do you have other very vivid memories about events that were personally important to you, though might not have had local, state, national or international importance? If so, please list those events.

9. Today’s learning outcomes Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process

10. Theory of Flashbulb Memory Brown and Kulik (1977) • Flashbulb memories are a type of episodic memory • It is assumed that they are highly resistant to forgetting • This means that the details of the memory will remain intact and accurate because of the emotional arousal at the moment of encoding. This is a very controversial theory!

11. Definition of a Flashbulb Memory • A highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memory of the moment a person is delivered the news of a shocking event • The “flashbulb” indicates that the event will be registered like a photograph (i.e. accurate in detail)

12. What the theory says… • According to Brown and Kulik (1977) we remember because of two things: • The emotional arousal at moment of encoding • Memory often rehearsed as it is important or emotionally salient to individual. This makes the memory more accessible and vividly remembered over time

13. What the theory says… • Brown and Kulik suggest that there are six important features of FM that people remember in detail: • Place (where they were when they found out) • Ongoing activity (what they were doing) • Informant (how they learned about the incident) • Own affect (how they felt) • Others’ affect (how others felt) • Aftermath (importance of the event & consequences)

14. Research on Flashbulb Memories

15. Brown and Kulik (1977) Aim: To investigate whether shocking events are recalled more vividly and accurately than other events Procedure: • Questionnaires • 80 participants (40 black and 40 white Americans) • Asked whether they recalled vivid memories of hearing about various assassinations or attempted killings of national or international figures that had occurred within a decade.

16. Brown and Kulik (1977) Results • Participants had vivid & shocking memories of where they were, what they did, and what they felt when they first heard about political assassinations • All participants (n=80) had a good recall of Kennedy’s assassination, BUT they found that black participants had a better recall of Medgar Evers (a civil rights worker) death • This shows importance of relevance of the information– culture seems to influence things

17. Brown and Kulik (1977) Conclusions Suggested that FM is caused by a neural mechanism which triggers an emotional arousal because the event is unexpected or extremely important

18. Evaluation of Brown and Kulik (1977) • The reliance on retrospective data questions the reliability of this study. People tend to interpret an event from their current perspective. • Other research indicates that although FM is emotionally vivid it is not necessarily accurate in regards to details • The photographic model of FM has been challenged by many other researchers

19. Cahill & McGaugh (1998) • Proposed that the reason FM occurs is because of the release of hormones during times of high emotion. • This arousal helps the animal or human to respond to a situation (survival behaviour). • However, these hormones also have an effect on memory by making memories more vivid, and enhancing recall. • This would be an adaptive behaviour as the vivid recall of an emotional event may help the animal or human cope with any similar situation in the future. • This is supported by their research (Cahill & McGaugh, 1995) which has shown that injecting rats with adrenaline leads to better recall on a learning task.

20. Criticism for FM • Neisser (1982) is critical towards the idea of flashbulb memories, as certain memories are very vivid because they are rehearsed and discussed after the event • According to Neisser what is referred to as a flashbulb memory may just be a narrative convention • Flashbulb memories may just be guided by our schema of storytelling following a specific structure e.g. place, activity, informant and affect

21. Neisser and Harsch (1992) • Conducted a real life study on peoples’ memory of the Challenge disaster • The Shuttle Challenger  disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, the Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. • This disaster was watched on live TV by thousands of horrified spectators.

22. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Aim: to test theory of FM by investigating extent to which memory of a shocking event would be accurate after a period of time

23. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Procedure: • 106 students in an introductory psychology class given a questionnaire and asked to write a description of how they heard the news. • Also answered 7 questions related to where they were, what they were doing etc. • Participants answered questionnaires less than 24 hours after disaster • 2 ½ years later, 44 of the original participants answered the questionnaire again • They were also asked to rate on a scale of 1-5 how confident they were about the accuracy of their memories and were asked whether they had completed the questionnaire before

24. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Initial account: “I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started talking about it…the schoolteacher’s students had been watching and I thought it was so sad…I went to my room and watched the TV…I got all the details from that.” Follow up account: “When I first heard…I was sitting in [my] dorm with a roommate watching TV. It came on a newsflash and we were both totally shocked. I was really upset and went upstairs to talk to a friend of mine and then I called my parents.”

25. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Results • Only 11 out of 44 remembered that they had filled out the questionnaire before • Major discrepancies between original questionnaire and follow up questionnaire. Table of Follow up account scores • Average level of confidence for follow up was 4.17

26. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Results challenge predictions of FM theory and question 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 two questionnaires Exam tip: You could also use this study as evidence for LO: Discuss reliability of memory

27. Neisser and Harsch (1992) Evaluation • Study was conducted in a natural environment and has a higher ecological validity that laboratory experiments on memory • Participants were psychology students who participated in exchange for course credits and may not be representative • The degree of emotional arousal when witnessing a shocking public event may be different from experiencing a shocking event in your personal life. This could influence how well people remember a certain event.

28. consistency confidence Diana everyday everyday Diana Imm. 10 weeks Imm. 10 weeks Platania & Hertkorn (1998) – recall for death of Princess Diana Accuracy was measured by comparing the consistency of an account given immediately and those given later. Confidence was a self-rating on a scale of 1 to 10.

29. Conway et al (1994) • Criticised Challenger research. Proposed it did not have personal significance to the participants. • Tested people’s memories immediately after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, and again after 11 months. • Conway suggested FM exists, • and are different than normal memories. • However, they may only exist for events with personal significance.

30. Sheingold & Terry (1982) • Found that participants had very good memories for highly personal events such as the birth of a brother or sister. • These accounts remained consistent over time. • Therefore, it may be that flashbulb memories have to have emotional importance for the person, something which the Hillsborough or Challenger disasters may have lacked. • This provides evidence for flashbulb memories as they should be memories which are consistent and unchanging. However, although the memories were consistent over time, there is no way to tell how accurate they were to begin with.

31. Evaluation of FM theory • Evidence for FM is mixed. Although some research suggests that memories of emotional events are more accurate whereas others suggest that is our confidence in flashbulb memories characterises our perceived accuracy and vividness of the events and flashbulb memories are subject to the same inaccuracies as everyday memories. • Despite controversy the theory led to further research and has been modified over time. Some researchers now suggest FM memory does exist but event needs to be of personal significance

32. Evaluation of FM theory • We are more likely to discuss important emotional events overtime therefore better memory may merely be due to more rehearsal rather than the emotion itself

33. Draw Three Columns For Against Evaluation • In the appropriate column write the name/s of the researchers and one word to jog your memory of their theory/study