Loading…
Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses
The consistency of flashbulb memories over long delays provides a test of theories of memory for highly emotional events. This study used September 11, 2001 as the target event, with test–retest delays of 2 and 3 years. The nature and consistency of flashbulb memories were examined as a function of...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of memory and language 2009-11, Vol.61 (4), p.556-572 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553 |
container_end_page | 572 |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 556 |
container_title | Journal of memory and language |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Kvavilashvili, Lia Mirani, Jennifer Schlagman, Simone Foley, Kerry Kornbrot, Diana E. |
description | The consistency of flashbulb memories over long delays provides a test of theories of memory for highly emotional events. This study used September 11, 2001 as the target event, with test–retest delays of 2 and 3
years. The nature and consistency of flashbulb memories were examined as a function of delay between the target event and an initial test (1–2
days or 10–11
days), and the number of initial tests (1 or 2) in 124 adults from the general population. Despite a reliable drop in consistency over the long delay periods, mean consistency scores were fairly high and the number of memories classed as ‘major distortions’ was remarkably low in both 2003 (9%) and 2004 (7%). The results concerning memory fluctuations across the re-tests and the qualitative analysis of ‘major distortions’ are consistent with the
wrong time slice hypothesis which explains the development of distortions by hearing the news from multiple sources on the day of the flashbulb event [Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In: E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.),
Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb memories” (pp. 9–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]. However, no support was obtained for the
consolidation hypothesis [Winningham, R. G., Hyman, I. E., & Dinnel, D. L. (2000). Flashbulb memories? The effects of when the initial memory report was obtained.
Memory, 8, 209–216]: memories of participants who were initially tested 10–11
days after September 11 were not more consistent than memories of participants tested 1–2
days after the event. In addition, the number of initial tests in September 2001 (one or two) and self-reported rehearsal did not have any beneficial effects on consistency. Together, these findings indicate that flashbulb memories may be formed automatically and consolidated fairly soon after an emotional event. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.004 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85706113</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ861752</ericid><els_id>S0749596X09000746</els_id><sourcerecordid>61838599</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU-LFDEQxRtRcFz9AIKHIOit2_zpdBI9ybCrKwseVPAW0umKkyHdaZOelbn6yTftDHvwoKcK9X71qMqrqucENwST7s2-2Y-hoRirBosG4_ZBtSFYdTWWlDysNli0quaq-_64epLzHmNCuKCb6vc2TtnnBSZ7RNEhF0ze9YfQoxHGmDzktfsF5gXGHhIiBMXbUkOcfqABgjnmt-h6nIO3ZvHFC7mYkC2PGPzwp4XMNKBfaR1Y_AgoFxbQ7jjHZQcZ8tPqkTMhw7Nzvai-XV1-3X6sbz5_uN6-v6ltK_FSK0YFYYKCZNBK4SzrKbVDL1WLe2cMN0QNmDDaWtMahg0lrO-dFF3nmOKcXVSvT75zij8PkBc9-mwhBDNBPGQtucAdIey_YEckk1ypAr78C9zHQ5rKEZoSjhkX7epGTpBNMecETs_JjyYdNcF6zU7vdclOr9lpLHTJrsy8OhubbE1wyUzW5_tBSgvM6LrAixMHydt7-fKT7IjgtMjvznL51lsPSWfrS9Iw-AR20UP0_1jiDl2WuNM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215035743</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><creator>Kvavilashvili, Lia ; Mirani, Jennifer ; Schlagman, Simone ; Foley, Kerry ; Kornbrot, Diana E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kvavilashvili, Lia ; Mirani, Jennifer ; Schlagman, Simone ; Foley, Kerry ; Kornbrot, Diana E.</creatorcontrib><description>The consistency of flashbulb memories over long delays provides a test of theories of memory for highly emotional events. This study used September 11, 2001 as the target event, with test–retest delays of 2 and 3
years. The nature and consistency of flashbulb memories were examined as a function of delay between the target event and an initial test (1–2
days or 10–11
days), and the number of initial tests (1 or 2) in 124 adults from the general population. Despite a reliable drop in consistency over the long delay periods, mean consistency scores were fairly high and the number of memories classed as ‘major distortions’ was remarkably low in both 2003 (9%) and 2004 (7%). The results concerning memory fluctuations across the re-tests and the qualitative analysis of ‘major distortions’ are consistent with the
wrong time slice hypothesis which explains the development of distortions by hearing the news from multiple sources on the day of the flashbulb event [Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In: E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.),
Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb memories” (pp. 9–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]. However, no support was obtained for the
consolidation hypothesis [Winningham, R. G., Hyman, I. E., & Dinnel, D. L. (2000). Flashbulb memories? The effects of when the initial memory report was obtained.
Memory, 8, 209–216]: memories of participants who were initially tested 10–11
days after September 11 were not more consistent than memories of participants tested 1–2
days after the event. In addition, the number of initial tests in September 2001 (one or two) and self-reported rehearsal did not have any beneficial effects on consistency. Together, these findings indicate that flashbulb memories may be formed automatically and consolidated fairly soon after an emotional event.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.004</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMLAE6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition & reasoning ; Consolidation hypothesis ; Emotional memories ; Emotional Response ; Emotions ; Flashbulb memories ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Learning. Memory ; Memory ; Psychological Patterns ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reliability ; September 11 ; Time Perspective ; Trauma ; Wrong time slice hypothesis</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2009-11, Vol.61 (4), p.556-572</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,31197,31246,31247</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ861752$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22200329$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kvavilashvili, Lia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirani, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlagman, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Kerry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kornbrot, Diana E.</creatorcontrib><title>Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>The consistency of flashbulb memories over long delays provides a test of theories of memory for highly emotional events. This study used September 11, 2001 as the target event, with test–retest delays of 2 and 3
years. The nature and consistency of flashbulb memories were examined as a function of delay between the target event and an initial test (1–2
days or 10–11
days), and the number of initial tests (1 or 2) in 124 adults from the general population. Despite a reliable drop in consistency over the long delay periods, mean consistency scores were fairly high and the number of memories classed as ‘major distortions’ was remarkably low in both 2003 (9%) and 2004 (7%). The results concerning memory fluctuations across the re-tests and the qualitative analysis of ‘major distortions’ are consistent with the
wrong time slice hypothesis which explains the development of distortions by hearing the news from multiple sources on the day of the flashbulb event [Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In: E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.),
Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb memories” (pp. 9–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]. However, no support was obtained for the
consolidation hypothesis [Winningham, R. G., Hyman, I. E., & Dinnel, D. L. (2000). Flashbulb memories? The effects of when the initial memory report was obtained.
Memory, 8, 209–216]: memories of participants who were initially tested 10–11
days after September 11 were not more consistent than memories of participants tested 1–2
days after the event. In addition, the number of initial tests in September 2001 (one or two) and self-reported rehearsal did not have any beneficial effects on consistency. Together, these findings indicate that flashbulb memories may be formed automatically and consolidated fairly soon after an emotional event.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Consolidation hypothesis</subject><subject>Emotional memories</subject><subject>Emotional Response</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Flashbulb memories</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Learning. Memory</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Psychological Patterns</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>September 11</subject><subject>Time Perspective</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Wrong time slice hypothesis</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU-LFDEQxRtRcFz9AIKHIOit2_zpdBI9ybCrKwseVPAW0umKkyHdaZOelbn6yTftDHvwoKcK9X71qMqrqucENwST7s2-2Y-hoRirBosG4_ZBtSFYdTWWlDysNli0quaq-_64epLzHmNCuKCb6vc2TtnnBSZ7RNEhF0ze9YfQoxHGmDzktfsF5gXGHhIiBMXbUkOcfqABgjnmt-h6nIO3ZvHFC7mYkC2PGPzwp4XMNKBfaR1Y_AgoFxbQ7jjHZQcZ8tPqkTMhw7Nzvai-XV1-3X6sbz5_uN6-v6ltK_FSK0YFYYKCZNBK4SzrKbVDL1WLe2cMN0QNmDDaWtMahg0lrO-dFF3nmOKcXVSvT75zij8PkBc9-mwhBDNBPGQtucAdIey_YEckk1ypAr78C9zHQ5rKEZoSjhkX7epGTpBNMecETs_JjyYdNcF6zU7vdclOr9lpLHTJrsy8OhubbE1wyUzW5_tBSgvM6LrAixMHydt7-fKT7IjgtMjvznL51lsPSWfrS9Iw-AR20UP0_1jiDl2WuNM</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Kvavilashvili, Lia</creator><creator>Mirani, Jennifer</creator><creator>Schlagman, Simone</creator><creator>Foley, Kerry</creator><creator>Kornbrot, Diana E.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses</title><author>Kvavilashvili, Lia ; Mirani, Jennifer ; Schlagman, Simone ; Foley, Kerry ; Kornbrot, Diana E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Consolidation hypothesis</topic><topic>Emotional memories</topic><topic>Emotional Response</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Flashbulb memories</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Learning. Memory</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Psychological Patterns</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>September 11</topic><topic>Time Perspective</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Wrong time slice hypothesis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kvavilashvili, Lia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirani, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlagman, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Kerry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kornbrot, Diana E.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kvavilashvili, Lia</au><au>Mirani, Jennifer</au><au>Schlagman, Simone</au><au>Foley, Kerry</au><au>Kornbrot, Diana E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ861752</ericid><atitle>Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>556</spage><epage>572</epage><pages>556-572</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><coden>JMLAE6</coden><abstract>The consistency of flashbulb memories over long delays provides a test of theories of memory for highly emotional events. This study used September 11, 2001 as the target event, with test–retest delays of 2 and 3
years. The nature and consistency of flashbulb memories were examined as a function of delay between the target event and an initial test (1–2
days or 10–11
days), and the number of initial tests (1 or 2) in 124 adults from the general population. Despite a reliable drop in consistency over the long delay periods, mean consistency scores were fairly high and the number of memories classed as ‘major distortions’ was remarkably low in both 2003 (9%) and 2004 (7%). The results concerning memory fluctuations across the re-tests and the qualitative analysis of ‘major distortions’ are consistent with the
wrong time slice hypothesis which explains the development of distortions by hearing the news from multiple sources on the day of the flashbulb event [Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In: E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.),
Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb memories” (pp. 9–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]. However, no support was obtained for the
consolidation hypothesis [Winningham, R. G., Hyman, I. E., & Dinnel, D. L. (2000). Flashbulb memories? The effects of when the initial memory report was obtained.
Memory, 8, 209–216]: memories of participants who were initially tested 10–11
days after September 11 were not more consistent than memories of participants tested 1–2
days after the event. In addition, the number of initial tests in September 2001 (one or two) and self-reported rehearsal did not have any beneficial effects on consistency. Together, these findings indicate that flashbulb memories may be formed automatically and consolidated fairly soon after an emotional event.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.004</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0749-596X |
ispartof | Journal of memory and language, 2009-11, Vol.61 (4), p.556-572 |
issn | 0749-596X 1096-0821 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85706113 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals; ERIC; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Cognition & reasoning Consolidation hypothesis Emotional memories Emotional Response Emotions Flashbulb memories Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Learning. Memory Memory Psychological Patterns Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reliability September 11 Time Perspective Trauma Wrong time slice hypothesis |
title | Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T22%3A00%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Consistency%20of%20flashbulb%20memories%20of%20September%2011%20over%20long%20delays:%20Implications%20for%20consolidation%20and%20wrong%20time%20slice%20hypotheses&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Kvavilashvili,%20Lia&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=556&rft.epage=572&rft.pages=556-572&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft.coden=JMLAE6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61838599%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-93271372e83e487fc3b22cdb8940bfaa5a19d01324ca4a30a213bbf8766f39553%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215035743&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ861752&rfr_iscdi=true |