Flash Bulb Memory Theory example essay topic

The Role That Emotion Plays In Forgetting It is undeniable that emotion plays a massive part in the memories that we possess, both short and long term. However the way in which our personal feelings and biases shape our recollections is an issue of much contention. Sigmund Freud offered a questionable viewpoint when he proposed repression as the cause of inaccuracy, whereas the flash bulb memory theory relates the vividness of an issue to its emotional and social impact. The validity of these arguments is often dubious as there can be difficulties in proving that studies have sufficient credibility. Although there is indubitably a link between the strength of a memory and the emotion that the event evoked, experiments designed to prove these theories struggle to provide tangible evidence that their hypothesis is correct. Another debatable area is whether or not memory would be enhanced if people were incapable of emotion.

Would this lead to robotic accuracy in recalling a situation, or would a lack of sentiment eliminate the idea of a flash bulb memory and hinder memory as a whole? It is fair to say that the majority of people will have a photographic, still frame, memory of certain moments. This is what we call a flash bulb memory and the idea that this method of recognition, particularly of highly emotive events seems to be a fairly accurate assumption. The flash bulb memory is a supremely detailed and vivid recollection, usually of great personal, social and / or cultural relevance. People often report that they have a specific image in their mind that epitomizes their emotion at the time.

The process supposedly occurs entirely naturally in reaction to tragedies such as September 11th or bereavement as well as celebratory events, winning the world cup or passing an exam for example. In 1994 Conway et al conducted an experiment concerning the existence of a type of photographic memory. They concentrated on the hypothesis that the closer an issue is to your heart, the more likely a person is to develop a flash bulb memory. Conway et al used the 1990 resignation of Margaret Thatcher as their emotive stimulant and supposed that Britons had a higher likelihood of formulating a snapshot in their minds than other nationalities. The predictions proved to be emphatically correct, 86 percent of Britons had a vivid recollection compared to only 29 percent of non- British citizens. First impressions indicate that the study is fairly bland therefore does not risk morality or deceive in any way.

Conway et al were able to accumulate the set of results that they anticipated and so from that point of view they had succeeded. However the methodology does seem to have one major detractor. It is difficult to see how they could possibly have distinguished accurately and consistently between a flash bulb memory and a regular memory. With only the description of the participant to work with, the line that separates the two types will inevitably blur. Having said this the study does seem to support the relation of memory to social and cultural relevance because there is a significant difference in the percentages of British and non- British. It also backs up the flash bulb memory as a function of emotion in memory although this remains dependant on interpretation.

(Flash bulb or regular memory). Conway's study however does not appear to have the accuracy and validity to ultimately be convincing. The experiment falls victim to basic frailties, the main one of which being that it is far too vague. It identifies only two groups of people- British and non- British and fails to make any other distinctions such as age or political views e.g. the party they support. To criticise further, none of the British people are likely to have known Margaret Thatcher personally and so have no reason to have any more of an affiliation with her than foreigners.

Surely their main concern would be her policies and the way she affected society, even non- British people living in the UK would share these concerns. This argument severely tarnishes the relevance of the study. As for questions to whether a flash bulb memory exists or not, how vivid, short and precise does a memory have to be in order to be considered flash bulb? Most people will be able to recall several events of varying importance and it would not be unusual to remember a small amount of anything remotely emotive. For example a football fan will generally recall a specific moment in each result, does this constitute a flash bulb memory? To compound the invalidity there does seem to be a simple alternative to the study of Conway et al. why did they not distinguish between men and women?

As the first female British prime minister it is blatant that women would have a greater affiliation with her and this may have provided greater credibility. Is it possible that certain people had simply created a fictional memory that they believed to be flash bulb because they felt that, as Britons, they had a responsibility to recall such monumental event accurately? Overall although the study does seem to support the notion that flash bulb memories exist, it appears to be far too general and sloppily thought out to gain the utmost credibility. There are several outstanding variables left uncontrolled and the issue of whether flash bulb memories exist is surely more scientific than Conway et al would have us believe. The study fails to provide sufficient evidence that it distinguishes accurately between types of memory and this is another reason why it lacks validity. Although it seems perfectly acceptable that instant photographic memory exists, Conway et al made a substandard attempt at proving it.

The idea of repression into the unconscious was first proposed by Sigmund Freud and it focuses on the theory that memories too damaging to enter the conscious are repressed in order to free the mind of a troublesome past. Although Freud suggested the process was totally uncontrollable others have labelled it controlled forgetting to enhance self-esteem and confidence. This can be related to the everyday example of selective memory which concentrates more on the exaggeration of positive events rather than the repression of negative ones. Whichever form of repression occurs it seems the central idea is that memory is warped by a fear of previous happenings and the willingness to distance oneself from traumatism.

Myers and Brewin set out to prove that someone with a repressive personality would take longer to recall an aspect of their past. They took twenty-seven students and declared them either repressors or non- repressors. They did this by questioning them on their youth, evaluating levels of anxiety and defensiveness and making a judgement based particularly on relationships with parents. They found that those earlier labelled repressors took longer to recall experiences. Myers and Brewin employed astounding methodology that came under heavy criticism, not least because the study was massively unethical. The repercussions of delving into a traumatic youth could have caused a lifetime of damage to the participants and any amount of debriefing would be insufficient.

The experiment also lacked ecological validity as the participants were taken away from their environment and asked to answer questions concerning entirely different circumstances. To continue, as well as being unscientific, the study also fails to address additional variables such as the mood of the participants. However, does the end justify the means? It is undeniable that Myers and Brewin achieved the anticipated results. This suggests that repression does exist- why else would so-called repressors find difficulties in locating memories? There appear to be gaps in their youth.

In retrospect it seems that the repressors were taking time to delve deeper into themselves to find the area in concern. However it is also possible to find points disputing Freud's hypothesis. One way of contending the theory is to argue that repressors should be quicker to give an answer because they will have considered their past before and if they were in denial they are likely to have a replacement memory for the disturbing one that they could call upon almost instantly. As a non-repressor would have looked less analytically back at their past perhaps they should take longer. Also as well as being highly unethical to label someone a repressor, it is unlikely that they will have been completely accurate with their assumptions, hence compromising the validity of findings. As well as this they show no evidence that confounding variables have been considered.

For instance differences in personalities will lead to questions triggering different emotions and responses. Overall Myers and Brewin seem to have arrived at the results they had previously anticipated but their methodology and results seem questionable, and as well as lacking ecological and ethical validity they make a plethora of possibly inaccurate assumptions. Although they put forward a strong argument for repression, they fail to convince that a memory, however traumatic, can be totally forgotten. Instead they suggest that over time an unwanted memory may become distorted to form a more socially acceptable thought and those memories are simply made over rather than repressed.

To evaluate it is apparent that emotion plays a massive role in the accuracy and vividness of a memory. As Conway et al suggested it seems to trigger a photographic frame of an event. However rather than trying to prove that flash bulb memory does exist, it may be more reasonable to accept that distinguishing between flash bulb memory and regular memory is near impossible and recognise that emotion is conducive to vivid snapshots that are part of overall memory rather than the two being mutually exclusive. In stark contrast to Conway's bland and morally correct study, Myers and Brewin pushed the boundaries in an attempt to prove repression.

However, whereas Conway et al were let down by being so overly ethical in their study that the results were altogether uninteresting, Myers and Brewin compromised their findings with an unethical, ecologically invalid study based on assumptions and questioning that unbending in response to differing personalities. Both studies have analysed the role that emotion plays and have achieved very dubious results. For this reason it appears that emotion plays a relatively negative role in memory and a very active role in forgetting. Although it is a hindrance to memory emotion shapes the way that we live our lives and the decisions we make. As Freud proposed, it would have a negative affect on our self-esteem if we could remember everything that happens but as things stand it seems that humans are able to strike a good balance. The majority of us are enthused by good memories, therefore moral is kept high.

This is brought into perspective by negative memories that create a balance and keep our feet on the ground. In conclusion although emotion hinders the accuracy of memory, it surely enhances the effects that memory has on our lives.