Hockenbury Discovering Psychology 5th txtbk

Forgetting247charged national events have provided a unique opportunity to study flashbulbmemories. On September 12, 2001, psychologists Jennifer Talarico and David Rubin(2003, 2007) had Duke University students complete questionnaires about theterrorist attacks on the United States that had occurred the previous day. The studentswere asked such questions as: “Where were you when you first heard thenews?” “Were there others present, and if so, who?” “What were you doing immediatelybefore you first heard the news?” For comparison, the students also describedsome ordinary, everyday event that had occurred in their lives at about thesame time, such as attending a sporting event or party.Students were randomly assigned to a follow-up session either 1 week, 6weeks, or 32 weeks later. At the follow-up sessions, they were asked to describetheir memories of the ordinary event as well as their memory of the 9/11 attacks.They were also asked to evaluate the accuracy and vividness of their memories.Then, the researchers compared these accounts to their reports on September12, 2001. All of the students were tested again in late August2002—almost a full year after the attacks.How did the flashbulb memories compare to the ordinary memories?Were the flashbulb memories more likely to be preserved unchanged overtime? Not at all. Both the flashbulb and everyday memories gradually decayedover time: The number of consistent details decreased and the numberof inconsistent details increased. However, when the students rated the memory’svividness, their ability to recall the memory, and their belief in thememory’s accuracy, only the ratings for the ordinary memory declined. Inother words, despite having the same level of inconsistencies as the ordinarymemories, the students perceived their flashbulb memories of 9/11 as beingvivid and accurate.Although flashbulb memories can seem incredibly vivid, they appear to functionjust as normal, everyday memories do. We remember some details, forget some details,and think we remember some details (Curci & others, 2001; Squire &others, 2001). What does seem to distinguish flashbulb memories from ordinarymemories is the high degree of confidence the person has in the accuracy of thesememories. But clearly, confidence in a memory is no guarantee of accuracy. We’llcome back to that important point shortly.Flashbulb memories are not immune toforgetting, nor are they uncommonlyconsistent over time. Instead,exaggerated belief in memory’saccuracy at long delays is what mayhave led to the conviction thatflashbulb memories are more accuratethan everyday memories.JENNIFER TALARICO AND DAVID RUBIN (2003)Memories of Traumatic Events If you arelike most Americans, you have vivid memoriesof watching media coverage of theterrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.Although such “flashbulb” memories areemotionally charged, they are not necessarilymore accurate than memories of morecommon events (Talarico & Rubin, 2007).ForgettingWhen Retrieval FailsKey Theme• Forgetting is the inability to retrieve information that was onceavailable.Key Questions• What discoveries were made by Hermann Ebbinghaus?• How do encoding failure, interference, and decay contribute to forgetting,and how can prospective memory be improved?• What is repression and why is the topic controversial?Forgetting is so common that life is filled with reminders to safeguard against forgettingimportant information. Cars are equipped with beeping tones so you don’tforget to fasten your seatbelt or turn off your headlights. Dentists thoughtfully sendbrightly colored postcards and call you the day before so that your scheduledappointment doesn’t slip your mind.