I found the Schacter reading very interesting because so many of the points that he was making using experimental data seemed to put into words what I experienced in my own life. The flashbulb memories section was interesting because I have always wondered about why they occur. I still remember where I was when I found out Princess Diana died, which is so weird because I had only heard about her once or twice before, and her death had no real affect on me or my life. Schacter talked a lot about how the emotional aspect of the event is what makes it stick out in your mind and what allows you to remember it clearly even after many years. He also briefly touches on how the rehearsals of the events are the other reason why flashbulb memories occur. I didn’t feel like he placed enough importance on that side of it. Many of the memories he talked about were momentous events that affected a lot of people. When something like that happens, there is a general sense among people that it is something that everyone will remember and be affected by.
When I heard that Princess Diana died, my mom told me at that same time that it would be something that I would always remember and then preceded to tell me about how she will always remember where she was when she found out that JFK was shot. This general ideal among a community about an event has to have some affect on individuals and their memories of the events. Maybe it makes them feel the need to have more vivid memories than they actually have so they are swayed in that direction, or maybe it just makes the event have more emotional weight than it otherwise would. Since my memory of the Princess Diana’s death definitely did not carry any emotional weight, this other aspect seemed to be a strong contributor to my later memory.
Kind of along those same lines, I had some trouble with the experiments about flashbulb memories that Schacter described. The experiments where the participants were asked to write down the situations that they were in when they found out about some traumatic event seemed like they would be very inaccurate gauge for some of what they were testing. If the person was told to write down what they experienced, then the added importance that was placed on the event would have an affect on their memories as well as their later recall of the memories. Also, the act of writing it down seems like it would aid in later recall, something which most people don’t do with their flashbulb memories. It just seems like the act of conducting the experiment would skew the results. There would be no way around that fact though, since in order to confirm the accuracy of the memories the subjects must first write them down.
6 comments:
I think Pillemer and your analysis of his chapter below below do very well to support your criticisms of Schacter's experiments. For someone to relate a visual memory by the use of language (though clearly that's the only way, really) would in a sense be putting the dual memory model to work; any story that one could come up with to match the image in a flashbulb memory would presumably rob the memory of that very identity, as writing it down makes it less of simply a singular, fixed mental image and more of a linear episode. And more importantly, as I think you touch on a bit in your Pillemer analysis, the fact that people are constantly learning new things and integrating new memories means that a description of a flashbulb memory after the fact, especially long after, will almost certainly not be the way that it would have been described in the moment. The flashbulb is on one side of the dual memory and there really is no way to create an appropriately accurate story to take up the other side. In most everyday cases, relating to simply episodic and not true flashbulb memories, this is of course not really a problem, and is actually helpful, in that the way one relives and relates his or her memories becomes unique and integral in his/her personality and schema. However, for the purposes of this experiment, it is definitely a confounding factor. And now I end with the same problem that you did - is there even any other way to perform these experiments?
I also think it's really important to note the influence of the 'outer' world on the emotions of a given event. I still remember the moment that I learned of the OJ Simpson trial. I had no idea who OJ Simpson was. Also, perhaps because of the media and movies and the "American Culture" or something I wasn't at all surprised by the idea of a murder being on the news. What really stood out to me, I can still remember today, was how my grandma was reacting to the news. I remember what struck me most was the attention my family members were giving to the event. However, I think it's only fair to note that, despite this memory feeling less emotional than one of, say, losing a close relative, there is a distinct emotional attachment through the interaction with the world around me. My unusually high emotional arousal for this situation was not directly tied to the event itself, but rather to the corresponding reactions of my family members. I would guess that if I had been watching the tv myself that day I wouldn't remember today hearing that story.
On another note: The reason I didn't have qualms with Schacter's flashbulb memory experiments is because he shows that despite people writing down the events some are still likely to forget them. For example, even though people initially wrote down their reactions and memories to the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, only the students who had a higher emotional attachment to the situation accurately remembered the event when questioned later. This wouldn't have been the case if enough emotional stimulation was attached to the event through the questioning the students were put through.
The issue of culturally constructed levels of importance that Bailey brings up is very important. It ties in directly to the studies we discussed last class about experiments where children remembered things in museums that their mothers talked to them about. One of the factors at work here, I think, is that when the two were engaged in a conversation about an exhibit, the child perceived a higher level of social significance for that item. The trusted authority figure with much life experience (the parent) thought the item was important enough to have a conversation about, so it must be important. This seems to be what happened with Bailey when his mother told him that he would remember this for the rest of his life. I had a similar experience: around age 3, my grandfather and I missed our flight and were put up in an airport hotel. When we got into the room, we talked about how this was something I would never forget. And I still haven't. That memory was written onto me by the conversation with my grandfather.
However, I have no memory at all surrounding my whereabouts at the time of Princess Diana's death. I have an alibi, though: those who I was close to weren't very deeply emotionally affected by her death, so we probably hardly spoke of it at all.
Sorry this is late - I tried to post this last night but somehow it didn't appear
While we're on the subject of Princess Diana, I have a very clear memory (which I hope is correct) of hearing about her death. However, this may be because my dad (being a British citizen) was very interested in it and we watched the TV coverage of it pretty much nonstop for the next several days. My parents also had the TV on when I woke up that morning, which was very unusual. Strangely enough, I have no particular emotion connected with hearing about her death even though I remember the scene very clearly. It all seems very detached when I think back on it. These readings have made me wonder if my recollection of her death is not as accurate as I think it is.
I don't actually remember how I found out Princess Diana died, I remember seeing the news that entire week about scandals and the funeral, and the mourners. It wasn't an event that had a monumental effect on my life, probably because it wasn't talked about in my home.
The concept of a flashbulb memory is interesting because there are so many factors that go into them. The event itself has to be important to the person remembering the event. It could be life changing or minor but the person will remember it, even if the details shift a little bit over time. I also think it's significant that if the details do shift, the person does not always recognize the shift. There was the example of the man who remembered his wife being present when he heard news. How long after the event did that shift of information take place? What allows for this to occur and what significance to the shifts have? I think it's very important that a person is unaware of the change, they don't realize that they're memory has shifted in the least.
I also wondered if repeating the memory would help preserve it or help it shift. If you believe you are repeating the same flashbulb memory over and over again, will this cause the details to become fixed, or will you elaborate on emotions and the significance of the event with general story telling?
Post a Comment