The Psychologists have reached a hypothesis about how flashbulb
memories are stored: after a weeks time, the memory becomes consistent. Later
details are incorporated into the already infused memory and alter it slightly,
and thereafter it stabilizes with the new biases included. Their conclusion is that the memory that
occurred as a “flashbulb” in one single instant is actually an accumulation of
reported memories within the week (or more) of the event. In summary, memories
are not as accurate as they may appear to us.
September 11th shook the entire nation and evoked
a reaction comparable to the assassination of Kennedy, in the respect that each
and every one of us remembers that day, and that moment. People described their
memories of that instant including knowing all of the news right away, the
aftermath, and the overall impact on the nation. Initially, Brown and Kulik had
the first proposal of a flashbulb memory, that it was created immediately and
perfectly saved and filed away.
What they did was record different subject’s flashbulb
memories of Sept. 11. Within 48 hours, 1 week later, 1 month later, 3 months,
and then finally one year later: A total of five times. They made three
different assessments:
1.
Self-reported: able to easily report memory with
no evaluation of truth.
2.
Memory accuracy: Memory compared with later
reports with earlier recollections (within 48 hours)
3.
Memory consistency: Memory compared with later
reports with earlier recollections (not within 48 hours)
The results showed that people were still relatively confident
as they assessed their memories, and while the memories stayed more or less
consistent, their accuracy decreased significantly after one year. This well
documented information proved that memories are not encoded in the instant they
are made.
This article concludes that Brown and Kulik’s proposal of
memories being pertinently stored the moment they are formed is inaccurate with
very convincing and copious data. With the installation of graphs, there is
visual data of this proof to further their hypothesis. It’s incredible that
memory really does distort over time – the accuracy graph between three months
and a year recollection were radically different, demonstrating a steady
decline from the 3-month point onward. This proves the mind is not as organized
as we once concluded, which wasn’t even all to long ago. Our mind is so
complex, it’s difficult to really fully understand exactly how it works:
especially memory. Through conducting surveys of an incredibly memorable event,
such as September 11th, it is easy to see that even those memories are
distorted over time. It doesn’t matter the importance or impact of the memory –
there will always be some inaccuracies. It would make sense that after a year,
people would really begin to stop remembering, because it is on their mind less
and less.
Often when I think of memory recollection, I think of (a)
early childhood memories and (b) dreams, particularly from childhood.
Obviously, as time interludes, things from the past become even more in the
past, so it’s understandable that recollection could fade. But not just fade,
to change. One particular connection that comes to mind is my earliest memory:
I was sitting in my stroller going for a walk with my parents around dusk. I
looked to the left at a tall electrical post, and a lightning bolt zipped
behind it. I don’t know if it was because the lightning bolt, but that’s what locked it
into my memory. I don’t recall anything after that until I was about three.
I spoke with my mom about this memory, and she asked me what
color the stroller was. I told her it was navy blue with tiny white dots. She
told me they only had that stroller when I was between one and two, which means
that’s how old I had to have been at the time.
The only issue I have with this series of data regarding
reconstruction of memory is addressed in my connection from above. I feel like
this data only applies to events that had withstanding consequences or later
resulting bias (ex. a bad breakup or tragedies). However, does this really apply
to a flashbulb memory of an emotionless instant, such as a lightning bolt
cruising behind an electrical post? Granted, there’s no easy way to recall if
the memory is accurate or not, unless a parent or peer was with you at the
scene.
So, the alternate Hypothesis I propose would be that the
flashbulb memory glitch is a legitimate trait of our memory recollection, but more
so with data only applies to events that had withstanding consequences or later
resulting bias.
Back to the September 11th survey subjects: it’s
possible that people went in some days in an emotional wreck (presumably the
results from 48 hours), or people who actually knew someone who worked in the
buildings. Someone who’s grandfather
worked in the North Tower would have a different view on the situation than a
citizen from Ohio who has never even been to NYC before.
Also, Psychology is always being updated, so someday soon
even, this data could be proven redundant even though the survey was conducted
in the past decade. Just sayin’.
If you’d like to read the article, here is a link to it.
Written by Charles A. Weaver III and Kevin S. Krug of Baylor
University.
--Betsy
No comments:
Post a Comment