5. Emotion and Cognition

Key concepts:

Memory: is the process which the information is encoded, stored, and retrieved.

·      Encode – the input of information into the memory system

·      Stored – is the retention of stored information

·      Retrieved – getting information out of memory storage

Flashbulb memory theory: A physiological process that facilitates the creation and consolidation of FBMs.

Flashbulb memory: is a highly detailed, exceptionally vivid "snapshot" of the moment when a

surprising and emotionally arousing event happened.

·      It is usually a memory of a very surprising circumstances, and it resist to forget.

·      The formation of Flashbulb memory requires both the emotional arousal from the event, and the personal importance of the event.

o   The former helped the memory of the circumstance to rehearse more times which strength the memory.

o   The latter will help individual to maintain a clear memory because the personal consequences determine the intensity of emotional reactions.

·      The mechanism of maintenance: after the event has been imprinted in memory, it needs to be sustained. Maintenance of flashbulb memory is achieved through overt (conversation with other people) and covert (replaying the event in own’s memory) rehearsal.

·      Special-mechanism hypothesis claims that the flashbulb memory only forms when the emotion arousal exceeds a critical level of surprise, when it triggers a biological memory mechanism. Stimulus – amygdala – hypothalamus – pituitary gland – adrenal gland – adrenaline. (HPA axis)

 

Strengths:

·      Supporting research studies.

·      There is biological evidence that supports the role of emotion in memory formation - for example, McGaugh & Cahill (1995) and Sharot (2007).

·      Can to some extent explain why emotionally charged memories are often more vividly remembered over time

Limitations:

·      Construct validity of FBM: Personal relevance, level of surprise and level of rehearsal are very difficult to measure.

·      Neisser argues that it is one’s level of confidence, not accuracy, which defines FBM.( FBMs are more vivid but not more accurate. )

·      There are cultural differences that indicate that rehearsal may play the most important role in the development of FBM.

·      Often with real-life research on the topic, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of memories.

·      The supporting research studies have some significant flaws and are lacking in internal validity.

 

Studies:

 

McGaugh & Cahill

·      Aim: To study the role of emotion on the creation of memories.

·      Design:

o   Participants were divided into two groups to saw 12 slides of story.

o   First condition: boring story, second condition: a traumatic story about a boy involving in a car accident.

o   Two weeks later, memory for specific details of the story were tested by multiple-choice questions.

·      Result & Conclusion:

o    Participants who had heard the more emotionally arousing story demonstrated better recall of specific details of the story.

·      Link-back:

o   This potentially demonstrate that emotional arousal could positively influence the encoding of memory.

o   This is also corresponded to the claim of flashbulb memory that the emotion and surprise are two key variables for the FBM creation.

·      Evaluation:

o   Control over EV. Have random allocation which reduce the participant variability. Lab setting which have control over environmental factors. Infer causation, on the story to the memory creation.

o   Low ecological validity. In lab condition, not close to real-life setting, nervous. In real-life, there are no such cognitive task that requires people to do multiple-choice question on the detail of a story, artificial in nature.

 

Neisser & Harsh

·      Aim: to determine whether flashbulb memories are susceptible to distortion.

·      Design:

o   44 valid responses from university students.

o   First questionnaire in less than 24 hour the Challenger disaster happened. Write description about how they heard.

o   2.5 years later, took the same questionnaire again. Asked to rate confidence.

·      Result & Conclusion:

o   There were major discrepancies between the two questionnaires with a high level of confidence.

o   Flashbulb memories can be affected by reconstructive memory and the misinformation effect.

·      Link-back:

o   This study cast doubt on the reliability of flashbulb memory. This is because the participant failed to remember the Challenger disaster event consistently.

o   One possible explanation could be that the formation of flashbulb memory is too strict, the Challenger disaster event didn’t account as a flashbulb memory for those students because it missed a personal importance.

o   Otherwise, this result tends to disclaim that flashbulb memory is unforgettable.

·      Evaluation:

o   High ecological validity. Real-life event not faked. The challenger disaster event is real, which means the result can be better applied to real-life setting. The participant filled in the questionnaire in familiar surroundings, not lab, makes their response realistic.

o   Lacks control – extraneous variable Lack control. The study is a naturalistic experiment, which means that it has no control over the extraneous variables. There is a gap between the event and the study, participant may be exposed to media.

 

Yuille & Cutshall

·      Aim: to determine whether leading questions would affect the memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene.

·      Design:

o   Recruit 13 participants who eyewitnesses the shooting event.

o   Divide 2 group, one use “A”, another use “THE”. Saw broken headlight of car, and yellow panel?

·      Result & Conclusion:

o   It was found that eyewitnesses were actually very reliable

·      Link-back:

o   The flashbulb memory is indeed unforgettable.

o   The crime scene is scary which one’s emotional arousal exceeds the critical value of surprise. This further leads to the formation of flashbulb memory.

o   Results are accurate. Memory is reliable

·      Evaluation:

o   High ecological validity. Real-life event not faked. The participant experienced the event by themselves not through watching video or word description. The result derived can be apply to real-life setting.

o   Lacks control – extraneous variable exists. There is a gap between the event and the study, participant may be exposed to media. The result is not accurate.