week 19

review of emotions and cognitive processes

10 February 2016

19.01 Emotions Project Collaboration Part 2

https://docs.google.com/a/thinkglobalschool.com/document/d/1lGscYMieo97DSsTvMQ2l
Ivz8hqPP8bAsKmSqxDHxj1I/edit?usp=drive_web
Evaluate one theory of how emotions may affect one cognitive process.
o

Advice about how to answer a question based on the learning outcome,

using relevant studies effectively.
Brown and Kulik (1977)
explain the flashbulb theory

Advice:

ensure to mention the researchers, the year, and the level of analysis.
o Brown and Kulik 1977, CLOA
explain the study, including the aim, type of study, participants, procedure, results,
and conclusions
after showing proof of knowledge, you must show your understanding of the theory
using the studys conclusions.
o explain that flashbulb memories are formed when

highly emotional information is encountered.

give context of the theory and explain it in other words

o in this case, the theory was proposed based on the findings of this research
explain key terms
o flashbulb, amygdala, false memories, etc.
show evidence of critical thinking - application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
provide an evaluation of the experiment, including methodological, ethical, and
gender/cultural considerations.
develop the paper in an organized and focused manner
meet the demands of the command term
o evaluate: make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations

19.02 Formative ERQ: Emotions and Cognitive Processes

As you read, you will see that much cognitive research in the area of emotion and memory has
focused on flashbulb memory. Flashbulb memories, according to Brown and Kulik (1977), are
formed when we encounter highly emotional information. In this activity you will write a draft of an
essay that responds to the following ERQ:

Evaluate one theory of how emotions may affect one cognitive process.
o Review pp. 88-92 of the Course Companion eText and pp. 28-30 of the
Pamoja Supplementary eText.

Evaluate one theory of how emotions may affect one

cognitive process

intro:
flashbulb memories are remembered vividly due to the recording in the brain like a cameras
flash
cognitive level of analysis reviews the operations of the mind and the effects on behavior
emotion can be studied at the CLOA to see how it influences cognitive processes, such as
memory
supporting the flashbulb theory: emotions impact the way people think
people may attempt to delete a traumatic event from their memory, which results in false
memories
memory is sensitive topic and unreliable
memory is either enhanced or repressed through rehearsal depending on overt or covert
rehearsal.
this theory was first studied by Brown and Kulik in 1977

flashbulb memory was suggested by Brown and Kulik (1977). Flashbulb memory is
a special kind of emotional memory, which refers to vivid and detailed memories of
highly emotional events that appear to be recorded in the brain as though with the
help of a cameras flash
may be a special neural mechanism which triggers an emotional arousal because
the event is unexpected or extremely important
emotional events are better remembered than less emotional eventsperhaps
because of the critical role of the amygdala
overlaps between CLOA and BLOA
o biological correlates to mental processes and behaviour

Name: Natalie Cassello

16 February 2016

Teacher: Helen Loughran

IB Psychology
Learning Outcome
Evaluate one theory of how emotions may affect cognitive processes.
Brown and Kuliks (1977) study of memories of the Kennedy assassination is an important
empirical study about flashbulb memory theory. Neisser (1982), Neisser and Harsch (1992) and
Talarico and Rubin (2003) are also important studies in any evaluation of this theory. At least two
of these studies should be included in your essay.
Level of Analysis

Investigator/s

Date

CLOA

Brown and Kulik (1977)

1977

Description (Aim, Type of study, Participants, Procedures, Findings and Conclusions):

The aim of these interviews was to investigate if shocking events are recalled in more detail
compared to other events. There were 80 participants from the US who were asked questions
about 10 different events, 9 public and 1 self-selected personal maintained through discussion
and how often they had rehearsed the information about the event (overtly- with others, or
covertly- privately). It was found that people seemed to remember more vividly where they
were, what they were doing, and how they were feeling when they first heard the news about a
traumatic event. 90% of participants were able to recall these details relating to the
assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 and 73 of the participants also claimed that they
experienced flashbulb memories with the personal event they had chosen, which happened to
be a death of a close relative in most trials. African Americans also remember more about
assassinations of civil rights leaders than Caucasians. The researchers concluded that there is
a neural mechanism of amygdala, which accounts for highly physiological emotional arousal of
the autonomic nervous system due to unexpected or important situations.
Evaluation
Methodological Considerations

Ethical Considerations

Gender/Cultural
Considerations

People dont know if an event

is important until rehearsal.
Influence of post event
information.
Flashbulb memories can be
considered as a storytelling
schema.
Cognitive appraisal affects the
reaction emotionally.
(appraisal= evaluation based
on significance) (primary
appraisal stressful
environment, secondary
individual emotion-focused
coping)
May be unreliable because
data is collected
retrospectively.
Many interviews make it
ecologically valid, but hard to
replicate memory.
May be researcher bias based
on qualitative verbal interviews.

When asking participants questions, its

important to be sensitive due to the
highly emotional situation.
No participant protection due to the
highly sensitive topic of sudden deaths.

All participants
were Americans.
40 African
Americans and
40 Caucasians.
Cannot be
generalized.

Studies that challenge flashbulb memory theory

Researchers

Brief description of study

What criticisms did they make about

Brown and Kuliks theory?

Study 1
Neisser and
Harsch 1993

The aim of this study was to investigate

the reliability of memory, specifically
flashbulb. Participants were asked

The event is reconsidered during

rehearsal and labeled as significant.
Flashbulb memories follow a

Study 2
Talarico and
Rubin 2003

about their reaction to the 1986

Challenger space shuttle disaster 24
hours and 2 years after the accident. It
was found that participants were
confident with their responses, but in
the second trial, 40% had distorted
thoughts. Only 21% of participants
reported hearing about the crash on
television after a day, but two years
later, 45% said they heard about it from
television. They also claimed to be at
events that were not even taking place
at the time.

narrative convention with a

storytelling schema in order to
remember who, what, when, and
how the event occurred, which
makes them vivid and long lasting,
yet not accurate.

On September 12th, 2001, 54

university students recorded their
memory of first hearing about the
terrorist attacks of September 11th and
also for their memory of a recent
everyday event. This was the first study
to test flashbulb memory, but use
everyday events as a control. They
provided self-ratings for vividness,
recollection, and belief. After being
tested again 1, 6, or 32 weeks later,
ratings of accuracy of memories
seemed to decline only for everyday
memories, but not highly emotional
events. Results support that flashbulb
event reliably enhances memory
characteristics such as vividness and
confidence. In other words, intense
emotions create a sense of confidence,
but not accuracy as current attitudes
and appraisals have an impact on the
reconstruction of memory.

Emotional memories are associated

with confidence, but unreliability and
inaccuracy of the events. Post event
information and evolved attitudes
influence memory. Reconstructions
are based on current appraisals,
however this is only a correlation
between changes in appraisal and
emotional memory.

The cognitive level of analysis reviews the operations of the mind and the effects on behavior.
Emotions can be studied at the CLOA to see how it influences cognitive processes, such as
memory. One theory which was found created while investigating how emotion affect cognitive
processes is the flashbulb memory theory. Flashbulb memories are thought to be the most vividly
remembered in detail due to the emotional impact on the way people think and seem to be a
recording in the brain like a cameras flash. This theory was first suggested and studied by
Brown and Kulik in 1977, however was cross-examined in the studies of Neisser and Harsch of
1993 and Talarico and Rubin of 2003 based on the unreliability of memory.
In 1977, Brown and Kulik conduct interviews regarding questions about highly emotional life
events. The aim of these interviews was to investigate if shocking events are recalled in more
detail compared to other events. There were 80 participants from the US, 40 African American
and 40 Caucasian American, who were asked questions about 10 different events, 9 public, such
as assassinations or attempts of murders, and 1 self-selected personal maintained through
discussion and how often they had rehearsed the information about the event. Rehearsal was
observed to be either conducted overtly, with others, or covertly, privately. It was found that
people seemed to remember more vividly where they were, what they were doing, and how they
were feeling when they first heard the news about a traumatic event. 90% of participants were

able to recall these details relating to the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 and 73 of
the participants also claimed that they experienced flashbulb memories with the personal event
they had chosen, which happened to be a death of a close relative in most trials. African
Americans also remember more about assassinations of civil rights leaders than Caucasians.
From all of these results, the researchers concluded that there is a neural mechanism, which
accounts for highly physiological emotional arousal of the autonomic nervous system due to
unexpected or important situations. The critical role of the amygdala is thought to be responsible
for emotional events being better remembered than less emotional events, which shows the
overlap between the CLOA and BLOA. Biological correlates, such as connections of the brain,
can be made to mental processes and behavior, such as memory and recalling.
There are many points of evaluation of this study. Methodologically, flashbulb memories can be
considered as a storytelling schema as there are so many factors of influence. People dont know
if an event is important until rehearsal, which by the point of the interviews could have been
influenced by post event information. Also, cognitive appraisal (evaluation based on significance)
affects the reaction emotionally. The primary appraisal in this scenario would create a stressful
environment and the secondary appraisal revolves around individual emotion-focused coping and
finally the reappraisal would include the recall of the event. Ethically, there was no participant
protection due to the highly sensitive topic of sudden deaths. When asking participants
questions, its important to be sensitive due to the highly emotional situation. However, they were
most likely debriefed, gave their informed consent, no deception was used, identity of participants
was kept confidential, and they were able to withdraw from the interview at any time. Referring to
the gender and cultural considerations, the data collected retrospectively cannot be generalized
because all participants were Americans of both genders, including 40 African Americans and 40
Caucasians.
Studies that challenged the flashbulb theory include Neisser and Harsch 1993 and Talarico and
Rubin 2003. The aim of the Neisser and Harsch study was to investigate the reliability of memory,
specifically flashbulb. Participants were asked about their reaction to the 1986 Challenger space
shuttle disaster 24 hours and 2 years after the accident. It was found that participants were
confident with their responses, but in the second trial, 40% had distorted thoughts. Only 21% of
participants reported hearing about the crash on television after a day, but two years later, 45%
said they heard about it from television. They also claimed to be at events that were not even
taking place at the time, proving that flashbulb memories may not be categorized correctly. During
the interviews the event was reconsidered during rehearsal and labeled as significant. The
results showed that flashbulb memories follow a narrative convention with a storytelling schema
in order to remember who, what, when, and how the event occurred, which makes them vivid and
long lasting, yet not accurate.
On September 12th, 2001, 54 university students recorded their memory of first hearing about the
terrorist attacks of September 11th and also for their memory of a recent everyday event in
Talarico and Rubins study of 2003. This was the first study to test flashbulb memory, but use
everyday events as a control. They provided self-ratings for vividness, recollection, and belief.
After being tested again 1, 6, or 32 weeks later, ratings of accuracy of memories seemed to
decline only for everyday memories, but not highly emotional events. Results support that
flashbulb event reliably enhances memory characteristics such as vividness and confidence. In
other words, intense emotions create a sense of confidence, but not accuracy as current attitudes
and appraisals have an impact on the reconstruction of memory. Emotional memories are
associated with confidence, but unreliability and inaccuracy of the events. Post event information
and evolved attitudes influence memory. Reconstructions are based on current appraisals,
however this is only a correlation between changes in appraisal and emotional memory.
Although Brown and Kulik were able to suggest the flashbulb theory in 1977, it has continually
been disproved because of the unreliability of data collected retrospectively. Many interviews
make the study ecologically valid, but interview studies investigating correlations between
memory are hard to replicate. Also, there may be a slight researcher bias based on qualitative
verbal interviews. The flashbulb theory shows the emotional impact on the way people think, but

false memories may influence the memory due to the attempt to delete a traumatic event from
their memory. This sensitive topic is unreliable in most situations and allows memory to either be
enhanced or repressed through rehearsal depending on whether it is rehearsed overtly or
covertly.

19.03 CLOA Empirical Studies Checklist Continued

19.04 Psych Terms Wiki: Emotions and Cognitive Processes