Flashbulb memory

Shockingly and emotionally charged events tend to be remembered more vividly and in more detail than other events.

Brown and Kulik (1977) Said that flashbulb memories are accurate and are immune from being forgotten. They said that this is because there is an activation of a special neural mechanism that 'prints' details permanently in the memory. For this to happen, there must be high emotionality and consequentiality. There is some evidence for this 'special mechanism'. Conway et al. in 1994 found that flashbulb memories are not simple stronger versions of normal memories. They tested this by looking at the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, and seeing how many brits and non brits remembered it after 11 months. A higher proportion of brits remembered as it had high consequentiality for them. Wright, Gaskell and Muircheartaigh however found that only 12% remembered the event vividly after 18 months.

Difficulties with the 'special mechanism'

• Winningham, Hyman and Dinnel (2000). They tested the memory for the O.J. Simpson acquittal. People were tested both immediately, after 1 week and then 8 weeks later. Those who showed high consistency should be regarded as having flashback memories.
• Memories change over the first few days. Forgetting is initially rapid, then there is further learning post-event.
• Talarico and Rubin (2003). Few studies have assessed the retention for both flashback and everyday memories. On the 12th september 2001, students memories of september 11th and of a recent everyday event was tested. This was repeated 3 times: 7, 42 and 224 days later. Vividness of flashback memories was retained for 32 weeks. This was measured on a 7 point scale. Flashback memories showed no more consistency than everyday memories with regard to the number of details recalled however.
• There is therefore some discrepancy between beliefs in strength of flashback memories and accuracy.