Talarico, J.M. & Rubin. D. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterize flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14, 445-502.
Hirst, W. & Meksin, R. (2008). A social-interactionist approach to the retention of collective memories of flashbulb events. In: O. Luminet & A. Curci (Eds.). Flashbulb Memories: New Issues and New Perspectives. Psychology Press.
Sharot, T. Martorella, E.A., Delgado, M.R., Phelps, E.A. (2007). How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11. PNAS, 104, 389-394.
Cohen, M., Mehl, M., & Pennebaker, J. (2004). Linguistic Markers of Psychological Change Surrounding September 11, 2001, Psychological Science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It seems natural that proximity to the WTC would affect ones experience of 9/11, and thus memory of the event. It makes sense that the Downtown participants of Sharot’s study would experience activation of the amygdala, as the towers falling posed an immediate threat as well as the significance felt by the larger community. The limbic system controls the fight of flight response, and thus it makes sense that recalling a traumatic event would reactivate this center. I’m curious as to whether people think that the experience of 9/11 can be characterized as traumatic only for those in immediate proximity. If so, perhaps activation of the amygdala on MRI scans could be indicative of traumatic memory, not necessarily flashbulb.
I’m not entirely convinced that a special brain mechanism is at work in the formation of flashbulb memories. Confidence and vividness are expressed as the most salient properties of these memories. I’m curious as to whether these factors stem from the simple fact that events of such magnitude and shocking nature as 9/11 are shared, and remarkably significant memories. It’s difficult to forget something that’s become part of our collective history, and which we all have a place in.
As I read, I kept wishing that there were a way to combine the Cohn et al. and Sharot et al. studies. In particular, I was curious as to what would be found if the descriptions of Sharot’s participants, written three years post 9/11 were ran through LIWC. As well, while I found it interesting that Cohn found such dramatic results among bloggers from across the country who weren’t necessarily affected directly by the 9/11 attacks, I would have liked to have seen as study of NYC residents. I found it interesting that such a large scale crisis mirrored, in many ways, personal reactions to private tragedy. The spike in social interaction over the two weeks following 9/11, which tapered off, as well as the short lived negative emotions and enduring psychological distancing are reminiscent of the coping process when dealing with the death of a loved one.
I really liked the Hirst and Meksin article, which dealt with the media’s influence on remembering and forgetting flashbulb memories. It is really interesting to see how large a role the media plays in influencing how we remember things. The article mentions how the media is responsible for telling people what to rehearse. I think this can be both a good and a bad thing. If you are rehearsing certain details based on the way it is given to you via the media (for example spending more time talking about the specific details they mention more often in your personal recount of the event) it can take away from the personal memory of the event, but since the media tells you what to rehearse, I also believe it can cause your memory of the event to be more permanent since it is similar to the way life scripts structure events. In the beginning of the article, when they talked about collective memories, I wondered how memories of 9/11 would vary from state to state, so I was really interested to see the result of the experiment the article mentioned, which tested the memories those in New York, California, and Hawaii had of 9/11. The results made sense, but aside from how well the memory is remembered, I wonder how the people in these different places discussed them differently. It is also interesting how these memories taper off. So where is the point in which the memory tapers off and why does it begin to taper off at this point?
Another point that was continually brought up in the flashbulb memory articles was how people who are physically at the event have memories that are much more vivid than those who just heard the news. In addition to the obvious fact that they were there and were able to create their own memories before hearing what the media had to say, I also think their memories are much more vivid because at the time most believed their lives were at stake, which added to the vividness of the memory and causes it to be more permanent.
Sharot et al. found that those participants who were further downtown rated their memories for the September 11th attacks higher than those who were further uptown. This is most likely accurate as they saw the events unfold first hand as opposed to watching it on a TV or hearing about it over the phone.
I was slightly confused then, about which definition of flashbulb memories they were using. While those participants who were downtown have a clearer memory of what they remember, shouldn’t this be classified differently as they learned about this experience by actually experiencing it as opposed to learning about it? The discussion on the different definitions of flashbulb memories was therefore especially interesting. The authors suggest that a sense of vividness and confidence are the most appropriate words to describe a flashbulb memory. I think this is appropriate given that this memory is tested on the basis of how much you remember about a certain tragic or historical event and the detail in which you remember what you saw or how you learned about the event.
Hirst and Meksin discuss the role of the media on rehearsing events and how are memories may change after following the media. I think the media could potentially play a positive role in the way we remember public events such as the 9/11 attacks, but they often adjust the ways we remember certain events. As we continue to have access to the media and not the initial event, our memories are often reshaped, therefore “erasing” our previous memories and creating new ones. The most interesting thing about this phenomenon is that we are not aware that it is happening, we merely think that the memory we have is the one we had to begin with.
In the article by Talarico and Rubin, flashbulb memories are argued to be enhanced by vividness and confidence but are no more accurate an average memory related to everyday life. The decay of the two different memories are basically the same, but the emotional ties and whether the stories were in pieces or fluid separate the two types of memories. At the end of the article, the authors pose a question about “why people are so confident for so long in the accuracy of their flashbulb memories.” (page 460) Is it the strong emotions associated with the memories that cause a person to believe that the flashbulb memory is more accurate? Strong emotions generally do result in more attention to detail. It was stated in the article that the more detail that was included in the retelling of the memory resulted in making the memory seem more accurate. Do flashbulb memories have more detail than the everyday memory? Did the subjects remember the same amount of detail about each memory but fail to retell the small details because it was not connected to a shocking event?
It is interesting to note that in the study, more flashbulb memories were seen, and actually slightly increased, through their own eyes while everyday memories became observer memories over time.
The linguistic article focused on the word choice in diaries and journals online before and after 9/11. After a stressful event such as this, would word-choice in speaking also be influenced? If someone is writing about it to share in a public forum, then the person is also most likely speaking about it somewhere else. It would be interesting to see if speaking patterns would change momentarily because of the event, or if our speaking patters are so ingrained by now that even if we experience something shocking or traumatizing we don’t change the way that we speak.
Media plays a huge role in flashbulb memories. Flashbulb memories are remembered more easily that event memories because of the extreme media attention that is given to them, and the talk and coverage that goes on around them. Flashbulb events are associated with communities rather than individuals, and after such tragic events such as the September 11th terrorist attacks, communities come together and talk with one another and try to cope with the aftermath of it. They look towards others and use conversation with others to work through the event and heal the pain associated with it. Although media coverage can determine how much we talk about a flashbulb event, it is just one form of social sharing. Conversation is another way of rehearsal and of keeping the event alive. However, the initial burst of media coverage plays a critical role in creating a strong memory for the event, and if there isn’t subsequent coverage after the event and enhanced rehearsal, then the memories will start to fade. 9/11 is one event, along with others, that is recognized every year on its anniversary. Not that any of us Americans would forget about 9/11 on September 11th each year if there wasn’t that media coverage, but having that whole day devoted to media coverage on the event and remembering everyone who was lost allows us to go back to that place in time when we first heard about it, and to devote time to reminiscing about it.
Members of different communities assign different levels of emotional attachment to a flashbulb event. In America, we are reminded every year with extensive media coverage about the Septermber 11th attacks and the issue itself comes up frequently in conversations and classrooms across the country, being that it is an event that took place in New York City and in the United States. However, in other countries in the world there is no anniversary event for 9/11 as it does not relate to their communities. I’m sure that on the day of 9/11 there was media coverage of the event going on in every part of the world, but it is likely that it quickly got put to the side and each countries breaking news replaced it. There is no doubt that it was not just New Yorkers or Americans that were affected by the event. It was so incredibly shocking and startling that I’m sure the whole world was in shock and disbelief the day of the event. The fear from 9/11 definitely spread globally and to this day, eight years later, there are people who won’t set foot on an airplane as they are reminded each year of the horrible attacks. The media has us remember things in a certain way, and the media made us become fearful for what terrorist attack would happen next after 9/11.
It is common that with traumatic events occurring in other parts of the world that we’re not at all related to and have no connection with, that we find it easy to let it slip from memory and detach ourselves from the event. However with the September 11th terrorist attacks, I feel that the event affected not only Americans but it affected an extensive amount of people globally. It obviously affected Americans and individuals who lost someone in the event more significantly than others however, it did release a great amount of fear onto the world as it was the first major terrorist attack on the United States and seemed to imply the beginning of something horrible. With continual media coverage each year of the event and as it is still constantly talked about and put into movies and television shows, we are reminded that there is always the possibility of another terrorist attack. Of course we can’t live our lives in fear of what could possibly happen, however the fact that an attack could happen anywhere at any time still frightens people into not being able to take the subway or not being able to get onto a plane.
This study demonstrated an intriguing use of technology by using online journals, as opposed to bringing people into a laboratory setting and asking them to write about their feelings. There was also the added bonus of being able to access the journal entries written prior to September 11th, so an honest analysis could be conducted and not just what the subjects reported to remember feeling before the event. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count is also an appropriate tool for gauging the deeper psychological feeling behind certain word choices, feelings which might not have been explicitly stated by the writer. The journals were analyzed through LIWC for the two weeks before September 11th and six weeks after, and intended to judge the users emotions, cognitive processing, social responses and psychological distances. They found that there was a comparable linguistic shift in both people who were severely affected by the tragedy and people who barely mentioned it. While the psychological distancing remained elevated for the six week time period, the other categories returned to baseline within two weeks after the event. I was a livejournal user at the time myself, living in a suburb close to New York City and knowing several people who had been in proximity to the towers, so the event had been profoundly meaningful, even at the age of twelve. Even so, while looking back on my writing at the time, there were several entries of confusion and fear, but sooner than expected I was writing about everyday events, wanting to restore feelings of normalcy and comfort.
Post a Comment