Реферат: Do Flashbulb Memories Differ Essay Research Paper
Do Flashbulb Memories Differ Essay, Research Paper
?Our past is preserved in a variety of
memories of very different nature? (Salaman, 1970)
There are many proposed divisions and
sub-divisions of human memory, such as working memory, procedural memory,
semantic memory or episodic memory. Many of the systems seem to overlap, with
each having varying functions related to the maintenance of what is essentially
human life. For example, episodic and autobiographical memory fundamentally
share the same functions. One of the many functions is what Tulving (1983)
called ?Mental time travel?, the ability to experience past event.
Autobiographical memories are thought to be structured at different levels of
temporal and spatial specificity that together are used as reference for the
construction of ?self?.. This mental time travel can take place through
different hierarchic levels of autobiographical organisation. The hierarchy
level can be as general as ?university? or as specific as remembering the topic
of conversation with a certain person on a certain day (Cohen, 1998).
Autobiographical memories are therefore seen as being autonoetic in that they
carry information about the context in which they were experienced. One
example of an extreme form of contextual specific memory is the death of
Princess Diana. Many people especially the media ask a common question such as
?what were you doing when you heard the news?.. Many people claim to be able to
remember such major moments with unusual clarity and vividness, as if the
events were etched on their minds throughout their lives. The question is
whether these ?flashbulb memories? are functionally different to all other
types of memory such as autobiographical memory.Brown & Kulik (1977), introduced the term
flashbulb memory to describe memories that are preserved in an almost
indiscriminate way. They postulated that these flashbulb memories were indeed
different from ordinary memories, with some defining characteristics. Although
these memories are thought to be photographic in their clarity and detail, they
do not preserve all features of an event. Conversely Brown & Kulik proposed
that idiosyncratic event details are remembered. These details help form what
has been described as a ?live? memory in that the ?reception field? is
remembered including ?where?, ?when? and ?who with? factors of an event. Brown
& Kulik (1977) studied memories for important events such as the death of
John F Kennedy. They found that irrelevant details were often recalled and it
appeared that they had retained ?a brief moment of time associated with an
emotional event? (Smyth et al, 1994). Brown & Kulik suggested that
flashbulb memories are formed by the activity of an ancient brain mechanism
evolved to capture emotional and cognitive information relevant to the survival
of an individual or group. To summarise, flashbulb memories FMs are
thought to be an unique survival mechanism distinct from other form of memory
in their clarity, longevity and attention to idiosyncratic detail. These characteristics of flashbulb memories
can be mapped onto issues concerning memory. As with many memory systems, the
argument over the distinctiveness of flashbulb memories involves encoding,
storage and retrieval. These issues
relate to many issues within Flashbulb memory such as their formation,
accuracy, consistency and longevity. It appears that these processes are
interrelated with each process being dependent on another. In terms of FM formation, Brown & Kulik
thought that the clarity and detail of FMs is correlated with the emotion,
surprise and personal consequentiallity of the event. They also thought that
surprise initiates FM formation, while personal consequentiallity determines
the elaborateness of the resulting FM. As support for this they found that more
blacks had FMs associated with the death of Martin Luther King compared to
whites. Apparently this was due to an increased emotional personal
consequentiallity felt their part of society.
Therefore self referring prior knowledge of surprising important events
is thought to support privileged encoding of FMs compared to other mundane
memories. In support for this Livingstone (1967) proposed that when an event
passes a certain biological criterion, the limbic system discharges into the
reticular system, which further discharges throughout the cortical hemispheres.
This firing above a certain level has been termed the ?now print? mechanism.
This system can be seen as being rather like the flash going off on a camera.
However this view is criticised on the grounds that this ?biological level? is
not specifically identified. In a further criticism Neisser (1982c) has
claimed that FMs are not specially encoded and therefore not unique. Neisser
proposed that FMs were Simply ordinary memories made clearer and longer lasting
by frequent rehearsal after the event. This argument seems quite logical, as
particularly in this global age the media and society frequently replay and
retell events of extreme public attention or emotion. Flashbulb memories could
therefore be seen as memories that have be actively reconstructed to such an
extent that they can be clearly replayed in our minds. Flashbulb memories are
seen by Neisser not as a special evolutionary mechanism, but as a method of
promoting the integration of an individual within a society. In this
reconstruction, personal consequentiallity is applied after an event once is
importance is measured within society. This also questions the validity and accuracy
of ?flashbulb memories? in that they are memories actively reconstructed and
transformed over time. Neisser & Harsch (1992) measured flashbulb memories
of the shuttle challenger explosion. They found that after one day 9 subjects claimed
to have learned of the event from television, however 34 months later this
figure had risen to 19. As a further nail in the coffin for Brown and Kulik’s
flashbulb memory hypothesis Christianson & Loftus (1987) found that high
emotion served to narrow attention to focus to the central aspects of an event
a the expense of peripheral details. This would seem to indicate that the
idiosyncratic details associated with flashbulb memories are more
reconstructive, as the periphery surrounding an event is filled in on
rehearsal. At this point it may appear that flashbulb
memories are little more than a cultural phenomenom involving an enhancement of
ordinary memories and therefore not different from them. McCloskey et al (1988)
have pointed out that ordinary memories can be accurate and long lasting due to
frequent rehearsal. FMs are therefore may be ordinary memories retained to some
unusually high standard of clarity.However there has been a considerable
backlash in support of uniqueness of flashbulb memories. Various researchers
have pointed to the fact that personal consequentiallity was not measured within either the
challenger or other such studies. As already demonstrated by Brown and Kulik
(1977), emotional consequentiallity is a dominant factor in the formation of
FMs as seen in their comparison of FMs for Malcom X between blacks and whites.
In a similar study, Conway (1994) measured FMs of the resignation of Margaret
Thatcher. Conway took measures immediately and around 9 months. Conway found that
over 86% of British subjects had complete and accurate memories fitting the
description of FMs. Conversely only 29% of non-British subjects had ?FM?
memories. In a comparison of three studies of important news events such as the
resignation of including his own and the San Francisco earthquake (Neisser,
Winograd, and Weldon, 1991), Conway (1995) concluded that FMs may be mediated
by importance and/or emotion, but not rehersal. Conway used these studies as
support for the idea that encoding is special for flashbulb memorie and that
they are not purely the production of elaborate rehersal. Although Conway found In terms of accuracy of
flashbulb memories. Rehearsal is thought to serve different
functions for different memories. Smyth et al (1994) noted that some memories
successfully remain with us accurately for many years. They furthered that
these extended memories could be distinguished between memories that have used
over a period of time and emotionally charged flashbulb memories. Conway (1995)
suggests that rehearsal may serve to prevent these ordinary memories from
decaying while rehearsal within flashbulb memories acts to elaborate. It may be that ordinary memories require
preventative rehearsal due to their instability. Conway (1995) believed that
most autobiographical memories are unstable and dynamic requiring effortfull
maintenance. Conway & Anderson (1993) believe that ordinary memories are
constructed from different types of autobiographical knowledge and not directly
accessed as in a ?memory unit?.. Flashbulb memories however are believed to
represent tightly organised and dense autobiographical knowledge. FMs are
therefore thought to be different to ordinary memories in their specificity of
knowledge and organisation within the brain.have suggested that there are In terms of
accuracy, Conway has pointed to the fact that Brown and Kulik never claimed
that FMs were perfect. Examples of personal FMs, those experienced
solely by individuals support Conway?s arguments of the speciality of encoding
being independent of rehearsal. Christianson and Nilson (1989) site the
unfortunate case of a rape victim who developed amnesia, supposedly motivated
as a removing the event from memory. However the victim was jogging a year
later when a sudden flashbulb memory or flashback was experienced. This was
cued by the victim noticing a similar brick pattern to that seen during the
attack. According to Conway and Brown & Kulik,
the differences between ordinary memory and FMs would be self evident in this
sort of incident. Due to their dense organisation, FMs can be compared to a
tightly wound spring in that they are hollistc.The issue of flashbulb memories being
indellible It appears therefore that FMs may as first
thought have a unique encoding mechanism that is independent of rehearsal.
Pilemer et al (1988)? emotionIn conclusion, the distinction between FMs
and ordinary memories is in clear in places unfortunatly this difference is not
universal. There seems to be a fine line between vivid autobiographical
memories and flashbulb memories. There seems to be many factors influencing
flashbulb memory formation, however these have been broken down primarily to
personal consequentiallity, importance of an event and emotion. Surprise is
thought to be a significant factor that combines with the other three to
promote the ideal conditions for flashbulb memory formation. Conway (1994) has
concluded that during events importance interacts with emotion to form FMs.
Conway?s evaluation does not describe how vivid autobiographical memories may
represent different systems to flashbulb memories. The personal problem I have concerning the
distinctiveness of FMs was encountered recently. Whilst typing an essay, I
experienced an extremely vivid flashback to a time I had stopped in a service
station in Australia. I distinctly remember buying a green ice lolly, and what
the view was like out of the window. This event had little impact on my life
and I remember being completely relaxed at the time. I had been travelling for
a while and these stops were frequent enough to not be a ?first time
experience? and at the time could be considered mundane. On reading the
literature I struggled to find concrete information to ascertain if this
experience was a FM or just a very vivid autbiographical memory. The experience
had not been rehearsed, yet was brought back spontaneously with incredible
clarity more than two years on. Supporters of FMs would argue that this memory
In terms of long term potentiation this memory may LTP put in buffer zone activated by levels of
arousal or attention that were high for the entire trip. Once back in England,
the whole of that experience may have been related to personal importance and
Current life plans (Conway, 1995) and therefore what was not seen as important
at the time may have become so a few months later. Similarly my memories of
university so far seem quite vague, however it may that once my life plans
change in the future, some of these memories may be afforded flashbulb quality.
Perhaps many of these memories are of flashbulb quality, but are not remembered
at the moment as such as they have little consequence in an environment that is
constant. In my opinion there is a sliding continuum in
terms of flashbulb memories and other autobiographical memories. As mentioned,
autobiographical memories are thought to be arranged in a hierarchic structure
that involves levels of general and minuate. In my opinion, FMs represent the
formation of extreme memories that require little thought to remember. In this
way FMs may be qualitively different to ordinary memories, in that they are
simply higher on the scale of specificity. My argument therefore is that yes
flashbulb memories are different from ordinary mundane autobiographical memory.
As vivid memories are also distinct from mundane memories, FMs in my opinion
are not unique in their formation, longevity and clarity. Conway argued that the distinction of FMs and
autiobiographical memory is the reconstructive quality of ordinary memories.
However studies of patients within intensive care units (Jones, Griffiths &
Humphris, 2000) have shown that in the understandable unpleasant emotions
coupled with drugs enhances memory for internal events such as hypnogogic
hallucinations. Attention shifts during these hypnogogic images from the
external to the internal. Patients show poor recall for their external
environment, but vivid memories for the hallucinations and nightmares. Although
the authors use Conway?s suggested four variable interaction to explain the
events in terms of emotion and personal consequentiallity, the fact that these
vivid memories were constructed and not infact viewed independently may weaken
the difference between FMs and other autobiographical memories. It seems that FMs have been applied to so
many extreme memory phenomenon that they are a class of their own. Mauricio
& German (1999) have claimed that
to see flashbulb memories as being unique
and without parallel in psychology is wrong. They argue that psychologists should
consider flashbulb memories as being members of a ?broad family of experiences
that include drug flashbacks, palinopsia, palinacusis, posttraumatic memories,
and the vivid and haunting memories experienced by subjects with some forms of
mental disorder?.. As the longevity and accuracy of memories involved with
posttraumatic stress disorder has been questioned (Baddeley, 1997)In conclusion there is considerable evidence
that humans do have memories that are extremely vivid, clear and long lasting.
However these FMs themselves