Cognitive Approach - Emotion and Cognition - The influence of Emotion on Cognitive Processes

Question 1

Flashbulb Memory Theory

Answer 1

• Developed by Brown & Julik (1977)
• The even should be surprising, consequential or emotionally arousing
• A special mechanism than activates to create the memories
• The representations created by the special mechanism are
  
  • detailed
  • accurate
  • vivid
  • resistant to forgetting
• Reception context
  
  • place
  • ongoing activity
  • informant
  • own affect
  • other affect
  • consequentiality
• Rehearsal required to maintain the memory
• Distinct from everyday memories

Question 2

Flashbulb Memory Theory - Strengths

Answer 2

• The theory challenged our understanding of memory

and led to findings that different types of memory are processed in different parts of the brain.

Question 3

Flashbulb Memory Theory - Limitations

Answer 3

• Neisser argues that it is one’s level of confidence, not accuracy, which defines FBM.
• Several constructs in the study of FBM are problematic
• level of personal relevance, level of surprise, amount of overt rehearsal
• There are cultural differences that indicate that rehearsal may play the most important role in the development of FBM.
• Often with real-life research on the topic, it is
  impossible to verify the accuracy of memories.
• It is not possible to measure one’s emotional state at the time of an event - thus making it impossible to demonstrate a clear causal explanation.
• People do not always know that an event is important until later, so it is unclear how flashbulb memories could be created at the moment of the event.
• Neisser suggests that the memories are so vivid because the event itself is rehearsed and reconsidered after the event.
• According to Neisser, what is called a flashbulb memory may simply be a well-rehearsed story.

Question 4

Neisser & Harsch (1992)

Answer 4

Aim:
- Investigate people’s memory accuracy of the accident when the 7 astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger were killed in a tragic accident in 1986

Pps:
- 106 psychology students

Procedure:
- 24 hours after the accident
- pps given a questionnaire
- had to write about their memories when they first
heard of the incident
- how they heard
- what they were doing
- their emotional feeling
- 2.5 years later
- 44 of the og ppps answered same questionnaire
- also asked how confident they were in the accuracy of
their memory
- asked if they had filled out the questionnaire before
- Pps shown their og questionnaire

Results:

• 11/44 remebered they had filled out the questionnaire before
• 24 hrs vs 3.5 years after
  
  • mean score of crrectness of recall: 2.95/7
  • 11 pps scored 0
  • 22 pps scored <2
• 24 hrs after 21% reported they had heard it on TV
  
  • 2.5 years later 45% said they heard it on TV
• 40% had distorted memory
  
  • 25% were wrong about every major detail
  • 10% gave all the same details
• Pps were confident about their accuracy
  
  • no correlation between confidence and accuracy

Question 5

Bernsten & Thomsen (2005)

Answer 5

Aim:
- Investigate accuracy and calirt of falshbulb memories related to WWII

Pps:

• 145 older Danes
• 65 faculty members, staff and psychology majors

Procedure
- Pps filled in a questionnaire about their memories of
- the Danish occupation
- the Danish liberation
- Asked if they remembered
- where they were
- what they were doing when they learned the news
- If yes, asked to describe their personal context for
recieving the news
- with as much detail as possible

Results:

• 97.2% reported vivid memories for the invasion
• 95.9% reported vivid memories for the liberation
• The older pps remembered context-related details (weather, day of the week, time of an announcement) relatively accurately)
  
  • the control group generally refrained from answering
• Pps wuth reported ties to the resistance movement had more vivid, detailed and accurate memories than did those without ties