Sharot et al (2007)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To determine the potential of biological factors on flashbulb memories.

Question 2

Method

Answer 2

• 24 participants of both genders.
• Quasi-experiment, conducted 3 years after 9/11 on people in New York on the day of 9/11.
• Participants were put into an fMRI and presented with word cues on a screen.
• The word ‘Summer’ or ‘September’ was projected alongside word cue in order for participant to link to Summer holidays or 9/11 events.
• After brain scan, participants rated their memories for vividness, detail, confidence in accuracy and arousal.
• Only half of participants reported having ‘flashbulb memories’ of the event and those that did reported being closer to the World Trade Centre on the day of the terrorist attack.
• They also included more specific details in written memories.

Question 3

Findings

Answer 3

• Found that activation of the amygdala for participants who were downtown was higher when they recalled memories of the terrorist attack than when they recalled events from the preceding Summer.
• Those who were further away from the event had equal levels of response in the amygdala when recalling both events.
• Strength of amygdala activation at retrieval correlated with flashbulb memories.
• Results suggested that close personal experience may be critical in engaging the neural mechanisms that produce the vivid memories characteristic of flashbulb memory.

Question 4

Strengths

Answer 4

• Demonstrates the role of the amygdala as a result of proximity to the event.
• Due to the nature of the task, demand characteristics are not really possible.

Question 5

Limitations

Answer 5

• Study is correlational in nature and does not establish cause and effect.
• Highly artificial environment and task, therefore low ecological validity.
• Does not explain why some people have vivid memories after seeing events on TV or the Internet.
• Sample size is small and culturally biased. Difficult to generalise.