Talk:Flashbulb memory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flashbulb memory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Youngstown State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elif Tunaboylu. Peer reviewers: Sydneywilkerson, Angelinafrances92118, HalleBieber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LucieCham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plan for Improvement

The history section—although not crucial to the article—is rather brief. We are planning on extending the history and evolution of the models of flashbulb memory. We would like to add details to Brown’s and Kulik’s theory on flashbulb memories. We also want to introduce other theories that have been relevant ot the formation of our current understanding of flashbulb memories. The following section details the four models of flashbulb memories (FBMs). We thought that applying the models to real life examples would add some clarity. For example, explaining memories of 9/11 using the photographic model, JFK’s assassination using the comprehensive model, the Virginia Tech shooting using the emotional-integrative model, and the Oklahoma City using the Importance-driven emotional reactions. The next section discusses several factors that influence the accuracy of the flashbulb memory. However, this section fails to address how the intensity of emotions, age, and culture affect FBMs. We aim to enhance the article by adding more detailed explanations, examples, and data.

Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Violetta Bogopolsky and Andrea Kunz[reply]

Untitled

on flashbulb memory. Dr.Mike P Kasu PHD

9/11

The article claims "most will claim to remember having witnessed media footage of the second plane crashing in to tower two shortly after the first, however, in reality, no footage of this was broadcast by any media source until the next day", but gives no evidence for this, and this compilation of live newscasts would seemingly prove this statement to be incorrect entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.31.42 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and now removed this statement. Thank you for your alertness! Lova Falk talk 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscrimnate Illumination"

Dear Dear "Indiscrimnate Illumination" What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

The article does a good job referencing scientific studies; however, the references could be more explicit. There are so many different studies referenced and specifying the lead author or the topic of each study would help the reader engage with the specific study better. It is hard to differentiate between the results of all the studies.

The lead

The lead is unclear and needs to be rewritten. However, without the source and without any prior knowledge of Flashbulb memory, I'm afraid I am not able to do it. Lova Falk talk 07:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It uses too many technical terms. Obviously written by someone studying psychology. It needs to be made more accessible to lay people. Cshay (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flashbulb memory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720033813/http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf to http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction between first two paragraphs in "gender" section, and possible explanation.

In the "Gender" section, the first paragraph says that men tended to have more detail in these type of memories, but then the second paragraph talks about a specific study on memories of a particular event that says the opposite. However I can't help but notice the event in question is an event that far more than most newsworthy events, is something that anyone would expect would leave a greater impression on most women, as it relates to a prominent man undergoing hearings which involved discussion of him sexually harassing a woman, and thus would expect significant deviation from normal gender differences from most other events that one could study like this.--108.86.123.83 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Differences

I agree the first two studies contradict each other. Additionally, the first study is worded in a way to suggest that the purpose of the study is to examine the gender differences in recall of flashbulb memories. However, gender differences do not explain the results of the study thus should be re-worded. The emphasis on the need for further research on gender differences should be emphasized. 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Information

I think this section is very short and needs a more elaborative explanation of the relationship between the number of rehearsals, change in the source of information and vividness of flashbulb memories. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section should include the contribution of source monitoring problem to the memory errors related to flashbulb memories. Thus, I think it would make sense to include a study related to this topic.

"In a study done by Dutch researchers, participants were asked about an event of El Al Boeing 747 crash on apartment buildings in Amsterdam. 10 months later the accident, participants were asked if they recalled seeing the television film of the moment the plane hit the building. According to the results, over 60% of the subjects said they had seen the crash on television, although there was no television film regarding the incident. If they said yes, there were asked questions about the details of the crash and most falsely reported that they had the fire start immediately. The study demonstrated that adults can falsely believe that they have witnessed something they actually have not seen themselves but only heard from news or other people. Even, they can go further to report specific but incorrect details regarding the event. It is important to note that the error rate in this experiment is higher than usually found in flashbulb experiments since it uses a suggestive question instead of the usual neutral ‘flashbulb memory question’ and unlike in typical flashbulb memory studies, subjects are not asked how they first learned about the event which doesn’t lead to critical consideration of possible original source. However, it demonstrates how even flashbulb memories are susceptible to memory distortion due to source monitoring errors." Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like all that you have added! You made it much more clear and succinct to the reader. One thing that I might add is more studies that support the idea of flashbulb memories. This would help to show how they are different from "regular" memories, as well as add more support to different types of events that have led to flashbulb memories. This may help the reader to better understand what they are. Katie24569 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a superb job of adding sources that are both relevant and intriguing to your article. I think this was a great addition to the article, so props to you! My only caution to you is that it is important to reinstate to readers that flashbulb memories are not any less vulnerable to alteration, so they are not actually like a "camera image"! Angelinafrances92118 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)angelinafrances92118[reply]

Critique of Research

In addition to this part, the difficulty of conducting experiments due to a lack of control over the empirical study, especially the control of the rehearsal of the event should be mentioned. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Feedback

I think you picked out great portions of the article for further clarification. I specifically like this addition of more information about source monitoring errors since this is one of the most important implications of flashbulb memories studies. I think the added paragraph is a well detailed summary of a study that shows how inferences can be injected into memories as new information is processed. It is also great that you added the portion about the possible weakness of the study so readers understand the robustness of the results. A possible suggestion would be to add some information about source monitoring errors surrounding 9/11 since that is such a widely remembered and impactful event for people around the globe. The study we covered in class testing the 54 Duke students would be interesting because it demonstrates how quickly this effect can take hold considering the students were tested a week after the attack and showed similar results.

Sydney Wilkerson 03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think your additions were very effective in creating an overall more informative and clear article. In particular, I think providing the section about the study surrounding flashbulb memories performed on the Duke students was a very effective means in further explaining the implications of flashbulb memories. In addition, I think this section provides a necessary clarification and example for readers to better understand the concept of a flashbulb memory. Overall I think new additions, could include other examples of flashbulb memories and their effects from other studies but I think this study is a very effective step in the direction of successfully fleshing out this article.

GMSmith30 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the changes you made to the Source of Information section are great and the inclusion of information about the El Al Flight 1862 crash under the section is important to understanding flashbulb memories. The inclusion of how the error rate in the El Al experiment is higher due to the suggestive nature is also a great addition and adds a lot to the article.

Wilchuskycb (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of the study on the 9/11 terrorist attacks gave a great real life example of the perceived accuracy of flashbulb memories. The distinction that the results point out between flashbulb memory and everyday memory adds clarity to the article. You could also include possible studies done on events similar in historical significance such as the JFK assassination or the Orlando nightclub shooting to see if the results are the same (HalleBieber (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Confused sentence in "Stability over time"

A trio of sentences in this section reads:

"A study conducted on the bombing in Iraq and a contrasting ordinary event showed no difference for memory accuracy over a year period; however, participants showed greater confidence when remembering the Iraqi bombing than the ordinary event despite no difference in accuracy.[24] Likewise, when memories for the 9/11 World Trade Center attack were contrasted with everyday memories, researchers found that after one year, there was a high, positive correlation between the initial and subsequent recollection of the 9/11 attack. This indicates very good retention, compared to a lower positive correlation for everyday memories.[25]"

The sentence starting with "Likewise" is confusing, as the sentiment in that sentence is actually the opposite of the previous one. The Iraq study showed that accuracy decreases over time; the 9/11 study showed "very good retention", which is the opposite idea.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, and these two studies do have conflicting results, then I think this section should be rewritten a bit to address the differences. If I (or the original writer) am misinterpreting the results, and the two studies actually agree, then this could be made more clear with better wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.149.177 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smithzorah, MatthewR02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Imlucero (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]