CONSISTENCY, CONSOLIDATION, AND COGNITION IN …/67531/metadc271846/m2/1/high_re… · MEMORIES: A...

APPROVED: Adriel Boals, Major Professor Camilo Ruggero, Minor Professor Kim Kelly, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Chair of the Department of

Psychology Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate

School

CONSISTENCY, CONSOLIDATION, AND COGNITION IN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL

MEMORIES: A FLASHBULB MEMORY APPROACH

Amanda Kraha

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

May 2013

Kraha, Amanda. Consistency, consolidation, and cognition in autobiographical

memories: A flashbulb memory approach. Doctor of Philosophy (Experimental Psychology),

May 2013, 62 pp., 7 tables, 3 figures, references, 45 titles.

Flashbulb memories are highly vivid and long-lasting memories for events that are

emotionally significant and personally important. These memories are held in very high

confidence in accuracy over an extended period. In particular, individuals believe that they can

remember the personal details surrounding the event such as where they were and what they

were doing at the time the event occurred. Evidence from research, however, indicates that this

may not be the case.

The study of flashbulb memories has typically been confined to negative events such as

September 11, 2001. In the current study, we employ the methods of Talarico and Rubin (2003)

to investigate flashbulb memory formation to a positive event. The event is the assassination of

Osama bin Laden, which resonated as a highly positive event for many Americans evidenced by

the thousands of people flooding the streets of Washington, D.C. and New York City to

celebrate.

We examined various memory properties over a one-year period, including vividness,

rehearsal, belief in accuracy, and consistency. Results confirm the formation of flashbulb

memories to the assassination event, but results did not support many of the proposed

hypotheses. Some differences were found for different testing groups (i.e., immediate versus one

week delay), but these were not replicated at the one year follow-up. Overall, however, it is

believed that the current event, while still a flashbulb memory, was not a strong enough event to

stir strong emotions and form memories on par with 9/11.

ii

Copyright 2013

by

Amanda Kraha

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by an Academic Research Grant from Lafayette College and

the Small Grant Program from the University of North Texas.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1

Flashbulb Memories ........................................................................................................1

Affect and Flashbulb Memory Formation ........................................................................3

Consolidation Effects ......................................................................................................6

Purpose............................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 METHODS......................................................................................................... 10

Participants .................................................................................................................... 10

Materials ....................................................................................................................... 11

Open Ended Questions ....................................................................................... 11

Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (AMQ: Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2003) ................................................................................................................. 11

Other Features .................................................................................................... 12

Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 16

Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 16

Primary Analyses .......................................................................................................... 17

Replication ......................................................................................................... 17

Consistency ........................................................................................................ 18

Waves ................................................................................................................ 18

Predictors ........................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 20

Consistency ................................................................................................................... 20

Waves ........................................................................................................................... 20

Predictors ...................................................................................................................... 21

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 21

v

Overall Discussion......................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT NOTICE ................................................................... 30 APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................... 35 APPENDIX C STUDY MATERIALS ..................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX E FLASHBULB FAMILIARITY QUESTIONS .................................................. 51 APPENDIX F DEBRIEFING................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX G SONA SYSTEMS FORM ................................................................................ 55 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 58

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Study Response Rates .................................................................................................. 24

Table 2 Participant Study Characteristics ................................................................................ 24

Table 3 Participant Demographics ........................................................................................... 25

Table 4 Cronbach’s Alpha for Subscales .................................................................................. 25

Table 5 Time 1 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 26



vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page Figure 1. Diagram showing initial and follow-up sessions of data collection. Time 1 of Wave 1 was collected on May 2-4. Time 1 of Wave 2 was collected the following week, May 9-11. ..... 28

Figure 2. Flashbulb properties over time. .................................................................................. 28

Figure 3. Recruitment timeline. ................................................................................................. 29

1

CHAPTER 1

INRODUCTION

In the field of memory research, people are overconfident in the accuracy of their

memories in multiple instances. Eyewitness testimony is one such example. Despite its

unreliability, eyewitness testimony is a common source of evidence in identifying and convicting

suspects. Indeed, eyewitness testimony figured in more than 75% of convictions overturned by

DNA testing (Innocence Project, n.d.). For example, in 1998 Herman Atkins was convicted of

aggravated rape and robbery in California (Fradella, 2006). Eyewitness testimony contributed to

his conviction despite the fact that Atkins provided a solid alibi and personal testimony about his

activities that day. His wrongful conviction was later overturned. His case is just one of 250 such

cases found by the Innocence Project since its establishment in 1992 (Innocence Project, n.d.).

Brown and Kulik (1977) proposed another case where people are highly confident in their

memories. They called these flashbulb memories, a term that describes the vivid, intense

memories created by important events.

Flashbulb Memories

Typical examples of flashbulb memories include the assassination of John F. Kennedy

(Brown & Kulik, 1977), the start of Operation Desert Storm (Weaver, 1993), and the events of

September 11, 2001 (Talarico & Rubin, 2003). When Brown and Kulik (1977) first proposed the

idea, they assumed that these memories were highly accurate over time, much like a photograph.

While the authors acknowledged that some pieces would go missing, they held that details would

remain accurate over long periods. Recent research, however, has put this to the test and found

2

that this is not necessarily true (Winningham, Hyman Jr., & Dinnel, 2000; Weaver III & Krug,

2004; Talarico & Rubin, 2003).

In most flashbulb research, the vital issue is less the event itself than the subjective

elements and personal context evoked by the news. For instance, people can typically recall

where they heard the news of the event and the people whom they were with (Brown & Kulik,

1977; Bohn & Berntsen, 2007). Although individuals often believe that their flashbulb memories

are accurate, research has shown that these memories are often no more accurate than are those

for everyday events (Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Talarico & Rubin, 2003; Schmolck, Buffalo, &

Squire, 2000). Such research helps refute the hypothesis that special biological mechanisms are

involved in recalling details of flashbulb events, as proposed by Brown and Kulik (1977).

One of the seminal studies of flashbulb memories for a negative event is that of Talarico

and Rubin (2003). They collected both flashbulb and everyday memory data immediately after

the September 11 attacks and then after either 7, 42, or 224 days. As a proxy for accuracy,

researchers examined consistency of memory reports obtained immediately after the event to

those obtained after a delay. This study found that consistency of the flashbulb and everyday

event memories did not differ. In addition, the ratings of vividness, recollection, and belief in the

accuracy of the flashbulb memories remained stable over time, whereas these ratings declined for

the everyday memories. This study is particularly interesting because it is one of the first to

examine flashbulb memories immediately after the event and again after a time delay, thus

empirically testing the presuppositions of accuracy over time set forth by Brown and Kulik

(1977). However, the role of accuracy in flashbulb memories, and their formation, is still a topic

of debate (Curci & Luminet, 2006).

3

Affect and Flashbulb Memory Formation

While the importance of the relationship between the emotional impact and flashbulb

memory consistency is well established (Luminet & Curci, 2009), little research exists on

flashbulb formation in relation to positive events, mainly for lack of opportunities to do so, since

events that are public, positive, and surprising are rare. The lack of research into positive

flashbulb memory is problematic, given the research suggesting that emotions provide the

interpretative framework for understanding events in our lives (Fivush & Baker-Ward, 2005).

Because memory for positive events fade more quickly than do their negative counterparts

(Walker, Skowronski, & Thompson, 2003) flashbulb memories may simply not form for these

types of events. Next, I discuss several studies that have attempted to examine the differences

between positive and negative flashbulb memories.

The first study was published by Scott and Ponsoda in 1996. The authors chose one

positive and one negative event per year from 1982 to 1999 based on a pilot study that was

conducted to determine the emotional valence, and equivalence, of the different events. They

then asked participants questions about these events, and how they received news of the events.

The participants were asked ten yes-or-no remember questions about each event, and then they

were asked to date each event. Additionally, the vividness of the memory was assessed. The

scoring of consistency in this study was very strict - participants were correct or they were not;

there was no flexibility to score in between (Scott & Ponsoda, 1996).

Scott and Ponsoda (1996) did not find any significant differences in consistency or

vividness between the positive event and negative event groups (Bohn & Berntsen, 2007). These

results could be due to the strict scoring of the questionnaires, or perhaps because the sample was

made up of college students who potentially would not have formed flashbulb memories for

4

events as early as 1982. Another consideration is the personal importance of the selected events.

What if the participants didn’t care about the event the researchers asked about? It is likely, in

this case, that the participant would not have a flashbulb memory for this. It is hard to pick an

event and expect everyone to have formed a significant memory of it (Scott & Ponsoda, 1996).

Another study that looked at the differences between negative and positive events was

conducted by A.I. Tekcan in 2001. The study included 25 women and 12 men that were asked

questions about their memories of being accepted into college (positive) as well as their memory

of the start of the Gulf War (negative). The researchers examined the details of the memory, the

emotional reaction to the news, and rehearsal of the news. The main dependent variable of the

study, however, was the extent of detail for the event. The researchers were very strict in the

scoring of this item. If the participant wrote a memory such as “I was with a friend,” this was

judged as not detailed enough. Instead of being scored with a zero as in Scott and Ponsoda

(1996), this type of response would receive a half point by the current authors. Some detail was

remembered, but not enough to consider it a “vivid” memory. In order to get a full point, the

detail needed to include some very specific aspect such as the friend’s name (Tekcan, 2001).

Tekcan (2001) found that there were important differences between the positive and

negative event memories. Participants rehearsed the positive event (acceptance to college) more

than they did the negative event (the Gulf War). Intuitively, however, this is not surprising given

that the positive event was a personal one, while the negative event was a more public event with

little personal consequentiality. Another potential reason that the negative event would be

rehearsed less is due to the negative feelings associated with the negative events. People

typically do not like to relive bad experiences, so it would make sense that the negative events

were discussed less often.

5

One previous study has come very close to the current study design, but that prior study

occurred retrospectively, decades after the initial events. Berntsen and Thomsen (2005) studied

the German invasion of Denmark (negative event) and the ensuing liberation (positive event).

The main purpose of this study was to see if flashbulb memories remained vivid many years

later. In addition, they looked at the accuracy of details such as the weather of the day and other

characteristics that people were likely to remember.

Participants were asked about their memories for both the invasion and the news of

liberation, but they were also asked to give a positive and negative personal flashbulb memory

for comparison. Questions on vividness were then given for each of these memories. The study

found that most people could remember details for both the invasion and the liberation, but they

had a harder time remembering details for the personal events. The authors noted that this could

be due to rehearsal. Also, memory for the negative event was more accurate than for the positive

event (Berntsen & Thomsen, 2005). Because reports were obtained long after the event occurred,

it is impossible to verify the personal context of the news. As such, while this is an important

study, I cannot measure all variables of interest due to the time delay.

Although these studies provide interesting information about the phenomena of positive

flashbulb memories, it is difficult to surmise a definitive framework of positive flashbulb

memory formation from them due to their conflicting results. Making the issue even more

complicated, each study uses a unique methodology with little in common other than the

phenomenon of interest, thus making meta-analytic techniques (Cooper & Hedges, 1994)

difficult. As such, one of the chief contributions of the current study is the adoption of existing

methodology (Talarico & Rubin, 2003) to provide comparison between different flashbulb

memory events. In fact, I am able to make a direct comparison between the current study and the

6

seminal Talarico and Rubin (2003) paper, including a comparison of general findings and

specific effect sizes. Given the conflicting nature of research existing on this subject, the current

study stands to make a significant contribution to flashbulb memory theory simply by providing

a direct comparison between these two studies, especially given that the previous event was

negative (September 11 attacks) and the current is positive (bin Laden’s assassination).

Consolidation Effects

An additional feature of the proposed study is an attempt to replicate a consolidation

effect during flashbulb memory formation. A consolidation effect refers to the supposed ‘settling

down’ of a memory. In other words, consolidation occurs while a person makes sense of an

event, creates a coherent account of the event, and then keeps this account as a memory. A

consolidation effect in flashbulb memory formation was first demonstrated by Weaver and King

(2004). They measured a large sample of college undergraduates at several points after the

September 11 attacks: within 48 hours, after one week, one month, three months, and one year.

One group began testing after one week and consistency was assessed in comparison to this

report. The authors found that when initial interviews occur within 48 hours, flashbulb memories

evidenced more inconsistencies than do those where the initial report was obtained one week or

more after the event, while memory accuracy declined at the rate that would be expected for any

memory. In addition, confidence for these memories remains high over time. It seems that

immediate measurement captures people in the midst of making sense of the event

(Winningham, Hyman Jr., & Dinnel, 2000). This can be problematic because information is

continuously changing, thus altering the person’s memory of the event. After a brief

consolidation period, these memories stabilize into a consistent long-term memory.

7

The theory, however, is not without controversy. Several researchers, for example, have

failed to replicate Weaver III and Krug’s (2004) findings. One study that modelled this

methodology tested participants immediately or ten days after the event, with a follow-up seven

months later (Lee & Brown, 2003). This study found that the time delay before initial memory

reports did not result in a difference in memory consistency. In addition, another study tried to

replicate the consolidation effect with longer delays, but could not (Kvavilashvili, Mirani,

Schlageman, & Kornbrot, 2003).

Given the conflicting nature of these studies, the primary contribution is their unique

methodology (Neisser, 2003). No matter the results, the methodology of comparing memories

over time, but with a different initial testing time, provides an area ripe with research potential.

To explore this idea further, the current study will directly test the consolidation theory by

empirically comparing memories for the same event with initial memory reports obtained at two

distinct intervals.

The study of autobiographical memory, and flashbulb memories in particular, is an

important and applicable topic to a broad array of individuals and fields. Not only is

autobiographical memory important because of the central role it plays in the conception of the

self (Neisser & Fivush, 1994; Srull & Wyer, 1993), it is what people typically mean when they

use the term memory, making it the basis of psychologists’ ideas about memory in general

(Rubin, 1996). In fact, autobiographical memory is the presenting problem in most Alzheimer’s

cases, head injury, and memory loss in general. Further, autobiographical memory research is

increasingly pertinent to literature concerning eyewitness testimony, which, despite its

unreliability, is a common source of evidence in identifying and convicting suspects. Indeed,

8

eyewitness testimony figured in more than 75% of convictions overturned by DNA testing

(Innocence Project, n.d.).

Social psychology research further illustrates the inaccuracy of memories (Loftus, Miller,

& Burns, 1978) and how incredibly susceptible memory is to leading questions (Loftus &

Palmer, 1974). This is true even when eyewitnesses are extremely confident about the verity of

their recollections (Spiro, 1980). Likewise, flashbulb memories evidence high confidence but

show low consistency and accuracy over time. Further investigation into flashbulb memory

mechanisms enhance our understanding of flashbulb memories and reveal important information

about why eyewitness memories are held in such confidence, even when sometimes displaying

low levels of accuracy.

Unexpected major events that affect millions of people are typically negative (e.g.

assassinations, attacks, natural disasters). To date, only a handful of studies exist on positive

flashbulb events; but these events (e.g. first trip to the popular toy store Build-A-Bear and

joining a sorority) lack the gravity and widespread impact of the major negative flashbulb events

(Roehm Jr. & Roehm, 2007; Kraha & Boals, in press). The assassination of Osama bin Laden is

a rare instance of an event that is highly consequential, has national and international

implications, was unexpected, and is positive. For many Americans, particularly those of

college-age, bin Laden was the face of terrorism, making his death a joyous occasion in the

United States that provided a sense of relief and safety. In fact, terrorism has been such a part of

young Americans’ lives that they are commonly referred to as the “9/11 Generation.” Because of

this importance, I believe the event is a perfect opportunity for flashbulb memory examination.

No previous studies have used real-time examination and delayed follow-up to investigate the

consistency of positive flashbulb memories over time. The current study aims to fill this research

9

gap by applying the methodological approach from Talarico and Rubin (2003) to a positive

event, thereby addressing important theoretical questions relating to memory.

Purpose

I accomplished these goals by obtaining memory reports from two groups of participants:

one immediately (within 48 hours of the announcement) after the assassination of Osama bin

Laden, and the other one-week later. From there, I used the exact methodology of Talarico and

Rubin (2003) and randomly assigned participants to various follow-up times. I have several

questions involving proximity to the September 11 attacks, and previous knowledge of flashbulb

memories. I expect that the assassination of Osama bin Laden will be a positive event with

flashbulb-like qualities (i.e., vividness, high rehearsal, high confidence in accuracy). In addition,

due to consolidation effects, I expect memories initially collected after a one-week delay to be

more consistent over time. I do not expect previous knowledge of flashbulb memories to change

the degree to which individuals have faith in the accuracy over these memories over time.

Finally, I examined predictors of memory consistency over time. The hypotheses are as follows:

1. The positive event of the Assassination of Osama bin Laden is sufficient to create

highly detailed, vivid memories, as do other flashbulb memories.

2. Those memories that were initially reported after a one-week delay will show

higher levels of consistency over time when compared to the immediate (48 hour)

group.

3. Potential predictors of consistency of flashbulb memories over time are wave

(whether the initial test occurred immediately or after a one-week delay),

proximity to September 11, and following the search for Osama bin Laden.

10

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Data collection began in May of 2011 and concluded in May of 2012. Because of the

often surprising nature of flashbulb memories, data collection had to begin within 48 hours of the

event, in this case the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Immediate measurement of these

memories provides a baseline with which to compare, enabling me to track the rate of forgetting

over time. I did, however, continue to collect data from these initial participants through the

spring of 2012, thus providing a one-year longitudinal design capable of tracking these memories

over an extended period. Not only are the immediate memory properties of interest (i.e., those

obtained within 48 hours), but results obtained through delayed retesting are essential as Ill.

I recruited participants in various ways (on campus, psychology research pool, Facebook)

during the 48 hours following the assassination announcement (or for 48 hours, a week later, for

the second wave). Four hundred sixty participants completed both waves of initial data. I then

assigned the participants to one of three follow-up groups (7, 42, or 224 days after the first

session). Participants Ire compensated with either course credit or $5 for the initial testing

sessions, and $10 for the one-year follow-up. Follow-up-session data was collected within 48

hours of the target date, further ensuring that I exactly model the methods of Talarico and Rubin

(2003). Figure 1 shows participant timeline, recruitment, and attrition.

Participants

Participants consisted of 460 individuals, with the majority being students from the

University of North Texas, representing a wide variety of disciplines. Several participants were

removed because they did not discuss the memory asked of them (i.e., talking about 9/11 instead

11

of the assassination). In addition, a large percentage (44.5%) of the sample was aware of the

flashbulb memory phenomenon. Although this knowledge did not seem to influence current

study results much, these 102 participants were removed from further analyses to protect the

integrity of the sample. Thus, of the 460, 137 (38.1% male) completed all measures of interest in

the study. The mean age was 23.65 (SD = 7.37), with a range of 16 to 61. See Table 1 for full

response rates. Tables 2 and 3 include participant characteristics and demographics.

Materials

Open Ended Questions

To begin, I asked various open-ended questions about the assassination announcement. I

asked who the participant was with then they first heard the news, when they heard the news,

where they were, if there were others present, and what their dominant emotion was. In addition,

I asked if there were any other distinctive details that they would like to share. These questions

are typical to flashbulb memory studies (Conway et al., 1994; Tekcan & Peynircioglu, 2002;

Weaver III, 1993).

Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (AMQ: Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2003)

The AMQ was used to assess the key properties, language and narrative, and emotion of

the memories. Key properties involve things such as belief that the event occurred as

remembered, and is considered one of the definitive properties of autobiographical memory

(Conway, 1996). In addition, I assessed language and narrative by asking if the memory came

“in words or pictures as a coherent story or episode and not as an isolated fact, observation, or

scene.” Finally, I assessed emotion by asking about the current emotional intensity of the

12

memory, in addition to questions about the visceral response (i.e., “I feel knots, cramps, or

butterflies in my stomach”).

Other Features

Relative rating scales (see Talarico & Rubin, 2003) were used to assess rehearsal rates.

For these questions, participants indicated the degree to which they thought about, talked about,

and how often the memory came to them “out of the blue” (all rated from 1, not at all, to 7, more

than for any other memory). These items were averaged for an overall rehearsal measure. Field

versus observer modes of remembering were assessed by asking participants if they saw the

event “out of my own eyes rather than those of an outside observer” (from 1, not all, to 7,

completely). Table 4 includes Cronbach’s alpha for computed subscales.

Consequentiality

To assess consequentiality of the events, participants were asked to rate (from 1, not at

all, to 7, very) how common, unusual, special, ordinary, and expected the event was. In addition,

participants used the same rating scale to indicate how important the event was on personal,

family, national, and international levels. Finally, participants indicated the extent to which the

event had consequences for them, from 1, not at all, to 7, many consequences.

September 11 Questions

To assess the participant’s proximity to September 11, I asked about personal

connections to both Washington, D.C. and New York City, and if they knew anyone that was in

immediate danger during the September 11 attacks. I also asked if the participant identifies with

13

a country other than the U.S., and which country. Next, I asked if the participant, or anyone they

know, has or has ever served in the U.S. military. Finally, I asked if the participant had been

actively engaged in the search for Osama bin Laden, either before or after the assassination

announcement.

Familiarity

I asked participants if they were familiar with flashbulb memories. If participants

responded yes, they were led through a series of questions to assess the depth of their knowledge

concerning flashbulb memories. Then, I asked participants how they expected their everyday

memories and assassination memories to differ, and how they expected their memory for the

assassination to change over time.

Second Session

A second session, identical to the first, was conducted after 7, 42, or 224 days. The only

difference is that, in the second session, every day event memories were cued with the brief

description of the event provided during the first session. All participants completed the second

session online. Participants were invited—via e-mail, Facebook, and telephone—to complete the

subsequent phases of the study and received $5 compensation for doing so. All participants that

completed the one year follow-up received $10 for doing so.

Data Scoring

Two independent raters separately coded the open-ended questions for consistency. To do

this, I employed a method similar to Curci and Luminet (2006). With this scoring, answers that

14

are exactly similar received a score of three, answers with a minor gain or loss of information

received a score 2, answers with completely inconsistent information received a 1, and missing

data receive a 0. Inter- rater reliability was assessed and disagreements were resolved by

discussion (disagreement occurred for less than 15% of items). For example, a minor gain of

information would be if someone originally (during initial testing) said that they were at home

when they heard the news, but at follow-up they indicate that they were at home in their

bedroom. Likewise, a minor loss of information would be when someone originally said they

were in the living room, but then report that they were at home when they heard the news.

Procedure

After obtaining affirmative responses to the informed consent (Appendices A and B), I

assessed participants’ surprise when learning of Osama bin Laden’s death. Then I asked, via

online questionnaire, what participants were wearing that day, how they heard the news, how

often they have discussed and/or thought about the event, and who was present with the

participant at the time. I next had participants complete the Autobiographical Memory

Questionnaire (AMQ: Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2003) in response to the event. This

questionnaire includes items about the vividness of, and emotional reaction to, the event. I also

investigated whether participants remember the event through their own perspective or that of an

outside observer.

In addition, I asked these same AMQ questions in reference to a memorable everyday

memory from the three days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) preceding the assassination

announcement. These everyday AMQ questions allowed me to compare properties of the

15

memory of Osama bin Laden’s death to that of an everyday event that occurred at approximately

the same time.

To allow researchers to assess accuracy and consistency of the memories over time, I had

all participants complete one follow-up session, after either 7, 42, or 224 days (see Figure 3 for

follow-up diagram). During that session, participants answered the same questions they did

during the initial testing session. This design facilitates observation of the emergence of

inconsistent details over time (Talarico & Rubin, 2003).

Participants also answered questions about their proximity to the September 11 terrorist

attacks (i.e., military service, proximity to attacks, connections to New York or Washington,

D.C.) and their actual participation and/or general interest in the search for Osama bin Laden. It

makes intuitive sense that individuals most affected by the September 11 attacks would

experience the most joy over the death of Osama bin Laden; but further enquiry is necessary to

confirm this hypothesis. Full study materials can be seen in Appendices C through H.

16

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Data Preparation

To begin, I entered all data into the commonly used quantitative statistics program, SPSS.

All respondents that did not complete questions about the first flashbulb memory were removed

(i.e., completed less than 50% of total survey). From here, researchers initiated data cleaning,

looking for not only outliers but also invalid responses. For example, invalid responses would

include responses about September 11, 2001 to the question inquiring about an everyday event

for the weekend before the announcement of bin Laden’s assassination. Likewise, speaking

about the September 11 attacks when prompted to discuss bin Laden’s assassination would also

be considered an invalid response and were excluded from all data analysis. A total of 66 cases

were removed as a result.

These incomplete and invalid data were removed and copied to an excel data log,

ensuring that researchers can examine any differences in these responders from others. Once data

was cleaned, all relevant coding occurred and variables created. For these steps, I made sure that

the data structure matched that of Talarico and Rubin (2003) to ensure exact comparison.

Outliers were dealt with on a case-to-case basis. However, none of the participants

displayed a pattern of extreme scores on more than three variables, so no cases were removed.

This allows me to keep the maximum power possible, without removing too many cases of data.

Descriptive statistics for Time 1 can be seen in Table 5, Time 2 in Table 6, and the year follow-

up in Table 7.

17

Primary Analyses

The first necessary analysis is to compare those who complete a follow-up session to

those that do not. Independent samples t-tests comparing completers versus non-completers did

not reveal any statistically significant differences in any of the flashbulb or everyday event

properties, all p’s > .05. Further analyses reveal no differences on age, ethnicity, personal

importance, global importance, or surprise by completion status, all p’s > .05. Crosstabs chi

square revealed differences in gender by completion status, p = .002. It seems that more females

(78.3%) completed a follow-up than males (52.9%), while more males (47.1%) did not complete

a follow-up compared to females (21.7%).

Replication

One main goal of the current study is to replicate the results of Talarico and Rubin

(2003), who found flashbulb memory formation to the September 11 attacks. I hope to expand

this finding to the current, potentially positive, event of the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

To address the first hypothesis that the assassination of Osama bin Laden will create flashbulb

memories, I conducted one sample t-tests to compare current study memory ratings to those

provided in Talarico and Rubin (2003). To control for multiple tests, I employed a Bonferroni

correction, thus reducing the p-value in proportion to the number of tests conducted.

Differences emerge when comparing Time 1 current study means to Talarico and Rubin

(2003) on recollection, with Talarico and Rubin (2003) scores (M = 4.50, SD = 1.24) showing

higher levels of recollection than the current study (M = 3.03, SD = 1.73), p < .001, Cohen’s D =

.976. The same pattern emerges with vividness (M = 4.99, SD = 1.07) versus current study (M =

4.39, SD = 1.7) results, p < .001, Cohen’s D = .422. Comparisons between previous study (M =

18

5.94, SD = .97) and current study (M = 5.78, SD = 1.12) means on belief did not reveal

statistically significant differences, p = .098. Despite these differences, however, scores were still

above the midpoint on the 7-point scale, suggesting that this event produced a flashbulb memory.

This method is similar to Talarico (2009). Tables 6 and 7 show descriptive statistics at Times 2

and 3, while Figure 2 plots these variables to show changes over time. As can be seen from the

figure, ratings for belief in accuracy persist despite increasing time delays, further supporting

that these were flashbulb memories.

Consistency

To further examine my first hypothesis that the assassination of bin Laden will create

flashbulb memories that are not consistent over time, I employed an ANOVA to examine the

effects of wave (immediate versus one week delay) and group (7, 42, and 224 day delay for

second session) on memory consistency. For Time 2, there were no differences by wave (p =

.642) but there were differences by group (p = .030, η2 = .077) and there was a group by wave

interaction (p = .011, η2 = .099). However, pairwise comparisons did not reveal differences,

likely due to low power. For the one year follow-up, there were no differences by wave (p =

.563), group (p = .189) or group by wave interaction (p = .161).

Waves

To examine the second research hypothesis that consolidation effects will lead to more

accurate memories, I utilized multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA’s) to determine the

effect of wave (Wave 1 versus Wave 2) on consistency, belief in accuracy, vividness, and

rehearsal. For Time 2, a MANOVA following a non-significant Box’s test revealed statistically

19

significant differences in consistency, belief in accuracy, vividness, and rehearsal by wave, F(4,

78) = 3.39, p = .013, η2 = .148. Post hoc tests revealed that the differences were for belief in

accuracy and rehearsal (both p’s = .024). For belief in accuracy, individuals that answered

questions immediately had higher scores (M = 5.76, SD = 1.09) than those in the one-week delay

group (M = 5.00, SD = 1.39). The same pattern emerged with rehearsal, with those in the

immediate group reporting higher levels (M = 2.84, SD = 1.34) of rehearsal than those after a

delay (M = 2.00, SD = .93).

For the year follow-up, a MANOVA following a non-significant Box’s test revealed

statistically significant differences in consistency, belief in accuracy, vividness, and rehearsal by

wave, F(4, 45) = 4.64, p = .003, η2 = .292. Post hoc tests reveal that differences are in vividness,

with the immediate measurement group (M = 3.62, SD = 1.60) reporting higher levels of

vividness than the delay group (M = 1.81, SD = .86).

Predictors

In an attempt to advance the theory of flashbulb memory, I examined one further research

question. To examine the third research hypothesis that wave, proximity to September 11, and

following the search for Osama bin Laden can predict accuracy over time, I conducted a multiple

regression analysis. Statistical assumptions were tested via skew, kurtosis, and visualizations and

no violations were found. However, regression models with personal and global importance and

following the search predicting consistency at Times 2 and 3 were not statistically significant,

both p’s > .05.

20

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

Results support the formation of a flashbulb memory to the assassination event, but

current study means were slightly lower than those reported in Talarico and Rubin (2003). This

makes sense, however, given that the event reported in Talarico and Rubin (2003) occurred in

the United States and affected almost everyone in the country, while the assassination of Osama

bin Laden was overseas and had minimal impacts to everyday life for the average American.

Consistency

In an attempt to explore the variables that influence consistency over time, ANOVA’s

were conducted comparing the waves (immediate and one-week delay) and groups (7, 42, and

224 day follow-up groups) on consistency. Unfortunately, no statistically significant differences

were found. It is expected that this is due to low power after splitting participants into the various

comparison groups. In addition, group sizes were vastly different, impacting the acceptability of

these statistical results, if any had been found.

Waves

When investigating the consolidation results found in Weaver and Krug (2004), my

results did not replicate. The current study’s failure to replicate Weaver and Krug’s 2004

findings is in line with several other studies that were not able to replicate original findings (see

for example Lee & Brown, 2003). Results indicated differences in belief in accuracy and

rehearsal at Time 2, and vividness after a year delay. Unfortunately, the results from Time 2 did

not persist at the year delay, which would have provided evidence for consolidation effects.

21

Instead, the differences disappear by the one-year follow-up, making these results tricky to

understand. It appears that that the difference in immediate testing versus a delay has short term

effects on belief in accuracy and rehearsal, while perhaps the delay has impacts on vividness

after a year delay. Given that these results did not replicate over time, however, it is believed that

this was a chance finding and results should be replicated in a separate study before drawing any

conclusions.

Predictors

Given the competing theories of consistency in flashbulb memories (see Curci &

Luminet, 2006), the current study attempted to investigate determinants of consistency over time.

It is possible that consistency varied due to differing study and event characteristics across

previous research. To explore this idea, the current study employed a multiple regression with

personal and global importance, as well as interest in following the search for Osama bin Laden,

as predictors. Unfortunately, no statistically significant relationships were found. The

determinants of consistency are currently unknown in existing literature, and future research

should attempt to parse out this complicated phenomenon in an effort to make sense of the

competing theories in the field surrounding accuracy of these memories over time.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study, and perhaps of studying positive events in the

context of flashbulb memories. To begin, participants rated this event as less positive over time,

reflecting the tendency that has been found in other autobiographical memory research (Walker,

Skowronski, & Thompson, 2003). Perhaps because of this emotional fading, this event was rated

22

as less vivid with lower rates of rehearsal over time. Consolidation effects were not found either,

which could be a consequence of the decreased emotionality of this event compared to that of

more typical flashbulb memories. While I believe that the event caused flashbulb memories, I do

not believe that these memories are on the same level of more typical flashbulb studies (such as

9/11). Instead, I suspect that flashbulb memories are not an all-or-nothing phenomena, but rather

occur on a continuum. At the extreme of this continuum are events such as 9/11. However, there

can be less emotional events, such as visits to a popular and unique store (Roehm Jr. & Roehm,

2007), collegiate transitional events (Talarico, 2009), or rushing for a sorority (Kraha & Boals, in

press). The current event of the assassination of Osama bin Laden falls on the less extreme side

of this continuum, which likely caused the lack of statistically significant relationships in the

current study.

Another limitation of the current study is the sample obtained. While researchers

attempted to obtain a large and diverse sample, time restrictions made this endeavor incredibly

difficult. As a result, the majority of participants came from the University of North Texas

undergraduate research participation pool. This has several implications, the first being that most

participants were geographically located in Texas. It would have been interesting to have a

sample of individuals that lived closer to the locations of the 2001 attacks. Theoretically, these

individuals would have high personal investment in the search for Osama bin Laden and would

be more likely to form an intense memory to his death. However, future research is needed to

verify these assumptions, as the current research was not able to.

In addition, the mean age of the study (about 24) was rather young, which means that

participants were very young (around 13) during the 2001 terrorist attacks. It is quite possible

that my sample not old enough to completely understand the complexity and importance of the

23

2001 events, which would theoretically make them less likely to follow the search, and less

likely to react strongly to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. It would have been interesting

to investigate the proposed hypotheses with an older sample, particularly one with participants

that were adults when the 2001 attacks occurred. Unfortunately, the current study was unable to

obtain this type of sample.

Future research should incorporate events that can turn out positive or negative

depending on an individual’s characteristics, which could include sporting events (Breslin &

Safer, 2011). Future attempts to extend flashbulb memory theory to positive events would

provide further evidence of the differences and similarities between these events and the more

commonly studied negative events, which would provide important insights into

autobiographical memory.

Overall Discussion

Previous research in the arena of flashbulb memory have largely focused on negative

events such as the assassination of JFK and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the current study, I

attempted to apply the flashbulb theory to a positive event, with mixed results. My study

combined multiple methodologies, which is likely its strongest point as current research adopts

multiple methodologies that are very different in nature. Moving towards a combination of

existing methodologies will greatly advance research on this complicated phenomenon.

Emotions are said to provide the interpretative framework for understanding events in our

lives (Fivush & Baker-Ward, 2005), and it holds that autobiographical memory is a large part of

the self-concept. It makes sense, then, that these two issues should be investigated to uncover the

interplay between them.

24

Table 1

Study Response Rates

Wave Initial 7-Day 42-Day 224-Day One Year

1 334 54.5% 44.1% 37.8% 28.1%

2 126 34.1% 35.7% 39.5% 15.1%

Table 2

Participant Study Characteristics

Full Sample

n Valid % Which Wave?

Immediate 97 70.8

One Week Delay 40 29.2

Follow-up Group

7 Day 53 38.7

42 Day 42 30.7

224 Day 42 30.7

Know Anyone in Danger on 9/11?

Yes 21 15.6

No 114 84.4

Do You Have Friends/Family in the U.S. Military?

Yes 81 60.0

No 54 40.0

Have You Served in the U.S. Military?

Yes 7 5.2

No 128 94.8

Have You Followed the Search for Osama bin Laden?

Yes 18 13.3

No 117 86.7

Did You Celebrate the Death of Osama bin Laden?

Yes 35 35.7

No 101 74.3

Do You Have Family/Friends in D.C. or NYC?

Yes 38 27.7

No 99 72.3 Note. Frequencies not summing to 137 reflect missing data.

25

Table 3

Participant Demographics

Full Sample

n Valid %

Gender

Male 51 38.1

Female 83 61.9

Ethnicity

White/ Caucasian 98 76.0

Black/ African American 17 13.2

Asian 9 7.0

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 .8

Multiracial 4 3.1

Table 4

Cronbach’s Alpha for Subscales

Time 1 Time 2 One Year

Belief

.509 .603 .510 Recollection

.812 .760 .737

Rehearsal

.810 .868 .857 Visceral Reaction

.828 .941 .721

Vividness

.880 .775 .871 _______________________________________________________

26

Table 5

Time 1 Descriptive Statistics

N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis

Flashbulb Belief 137 1.0 7.0 5.781 1.116 -1.15 2.05

Recollection 136 1.0 7.0 3.033 1.727 .43 -.92 Rehearsal 136 1.0 7.0 3.488 1.490 .27 -.75 Valence 132 1.0 7.0 4.640 1.396 -.05 -.47 Visceral 136 1.0 6.3 1.481 .808 2.78 10.22 Vividness 135 1.0 7.0 4.395 1.737 -.47 -.61 Personal Importance 137 1.0 7.0 3.982 1.700 .05 -.81 Global Importance 136 1.0 7.0 6.158 1.211 -1.90 3.70 Surprise 137 1.5 7.0 5.787 1.046 -1.09 1.83 Everyday Event Belief 115 2.0 7.0 5.783 1.212 -.94 .24 Recollection 117 1.0 7.0 3.154 1.734 .34 -.78 Rehearsal 116 1.0 7.0 3.195 1.474 .51 -.06 Valence 117 1.0 7.0 5.150 1.661 -.48 -.77 Visceral 116 1.0 4.0 1.425 .740 1.95 3.25 Vividness 118 1.0 7.0 4.412 1.684 -.53 -.51 Personal Importance 117 1.0 7.0 4.086 1.789 .16 -.97 Global Importance 117 1.0 7.0 2.692 2.355 .98 -.75 Surprise 117 1.0 7.0 4.088 1.838 .12 -1.22

Table 6


N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Flashbulb

Belief 90 2.0 7.0 5.672 1.166 -.91 .62 Recollection 92 1.0 6.5 2.609 1.388 .69 -.39 Rehearsal 87 1.0 7.0 2.720 1.357 .88 .53 Valence 89 2.0 7.0 4.270 1.136 .75 .65 Visceral 91 1.0 5.8 1.462 .915 2.58 6.95

(table continues)

27

Table 6 (continued). N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Vividness 91 1.0 7.0 3.802 1.375 -.15 -.31 Personal Importance 93 1.0 7.0 3.505 1.680 .31 -.74 Global Importance 93 1.0 7.0 6.129 1.408 -2.02 3.78 Surprise 93 3.0 7.0 6.021 .900 -.79 .08

Everyday Event Belief 81 1.5 7.0 5.475 1.242 -.70 .38

Recollection 80 1.0 7.0 2.900 1.584 .48 -.49 Rehearsal 80 1.0 7.0 2.708 1.674 .81 -.13 Valence 81 1.0 7.0 4.784 1.551 -.23 -.49 Visceral 82 1.0 5.0 1.482 .987 2.14 3.43 Vividness 82 1.0 7.0 3.874 1.677 -.38 -.77 Personal Importance 82 1.0 7.0 4.043 1.986 -.02 -1.17 Global Importance 82 1.0 7.0 2.329 2.106 1.37 .33 Surprise 82 1.0 7.0 4.156 1.704 -.02 -.87

Table 7


N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Flashbulb

Belief 52 1.5 7.0 5.087 1.375 -.54 .10 Recollection 52 1.0 7.0 2.423 1.337 1.18 1.52 Rehearsal 52 1.0 6.0 2.423 1.214 1.19 1.22 Valence 52 2.0 7.0 4.365 1.039 .93 1.20 Visceral 52 1.0 4.0 1.361 .642 2.28 5.67 Vividness 52 1.0 7.0 3.378 1.656 .29 -.75 Personal Importance 52 1.0 7.0 3.817 1.669 .18 -.83 Global Importance 52 2.0 7.0 6.414 1.065 -2.25 5.33 Surprise 52 4.0 7.0 5.995 .874 -.46 -1.03

Everyday Event Belief 51 1.0 7.0 5.255 1.430 -.66 .31

Recollection 51 1.0 7.0 3.098 1.778 .56 -.79 Rehearsal 51 1.0 7.0 2.860 1.815 .60 -.92 Valence 51 1.0 7.0 4.304 1.697 -.07 -.52

(table continues)

28

Table 7 (continued). N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Visceral 51 1.0 5.0 1.610 1.059 1.89 2.53 Vividness 51 1.0 7.0 3.850 1.962 -.10 -1.20 Personal Importance 51 1.0 7.0 4.167 1.881 -.17 -1.01 Global Importance 51 1.0 7.0 2.804 2.544 .86 -1.15 Surprise 51 1.5 7.0 4.797 1.846 -.39 -1.19

Figure 1. Diagram showing initial and follow-up sessions of data collection. Time 1 of Wave 1 was collected on May 2-4. Time 1 of Wave 2 was collected the following week, May 9-11.

Figure 2. Flashbulb properties over time.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Time One Time Two One Year

FB Belief

FB Recollection

FB Vividness

29

Figure 3. Recruitment timeline.

Assassination Announcement

Wave One, Time One n = 334

May 2-4, 2011

Wave One, 7- Day n = 61

lost n = 51 May 9-11, 2011

Wave Two, Time One n = 126

May 9-11, 2011

Wave Two, 7- Day n = 14

lost n = 27 May 3-4, 2011


lost n = 62 June 13-15, 2011


lost n = 27 June 20-22, 2011


lost n = 69 December 5-7, 2011

Wave Two, 1 Year n = 19

lost n = 107 May 9-11, 2012

Wave One, 1 Year n = 94

lost n = 240 May 2-4, 2012


lost n = 26 December 12-14 2011

30

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT NOTICE

31

University of North Texas Institutional Review Board

Informed Consent Notice

Before agreeing to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and understand the following explanation of the purpose and benefits of the study and how it will be conducted.

Title of Study: Memories for the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

Principal Investigator: Adriel Boals, University of North Texas, Department of Psychology.

Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to examine what types of information people remember about specific emotional events. These memories are referred to as “Flashbulb” memories. Most studies of flashbulb memories have examined negative events, such as 9/11 and the Challenger explosion. The current study will examine a potentially positive flashbulb memory. Study Procedures: This is a two- session study. The second session will occur after 7, 42, or 224 days. We will contact you when it is time to complete the follow-up session. During today’s session, we will ask you to complete a questionnaire about your personal experience of hearing about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. You will be asked to complete these same questions for an everyday memory from this same weekend. Then you will complete a brief demographic questionnaire. We expect today’s session to last approximately 20 minutes. During the follow-up session, you will complete the same Memory Questionnaire after a time delay. We expect the follow- up session to last 20 minutes. Foreseeable Risks: There are no foreseeable risks involved in this study. Benefits to the Subjects or Others: This study is designed to help us better understand the extent to how well people can recall details of important events after a time delay. Compensation for Participants: You will receive $1 for your participation today. You will receive between $1 and $10 for completing the 2nd session. You will be informed of the exact amount when we contact you about the 2nd session.

Procedures for Maintaining Confidentiality of Research Records: Your participation in this study will be confidential. You will be assigned a study ID number and you will not be identified by name in any of the data recording or analysis kept in computers. Your name and corresponding ID number will kept in a file, which will be stored separately from your responses and kept in a locked file. Your name will also be on this consent form that will be kept in a separate place from the data. The confidentiality of your individual information will be maintained in any publications or presentations regarding this study. Consistent with Texas state laws, if you mention acts of child abuse, we are required to report such acts to the state authorities.

32

Questions about the Study: If you have any questions about the study, you may contact Dr. Adriel Boals at telephone number 940-369-8443. Review for the Protection of Participants: This research study has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Institutional Review Board (IRB). The UNT IRB can be contacted at (940) 565-3940 with any questions regarding the rights of research subjects.

Research Participants’ Rights:

Your signature below indicates that you have read or have had read to you all of the above and that you confirm all of the following:

• Dr. Adriel Boals or a research assistant has explained the study to you and answered all of your questions. You have been told the possible benefits and the potential risks and/or discomforts of the study.

• You understand that you do not have to take part in this study, and your refusal to participate or your decision to withdraw will involve no penalty or loss of rights or benefits. The study personnel may choose to stop your participation at any time.

• You understand why the study is being conducted and how it will be performed.

• You understand your rights as a research participant and you voluntarily consent to participate in this study.

• You have been told you will receive a copy of this form.

________________________________ Printed Name of Participant ________________________________ ____________ Signature of Participant Date

For the Principal Investigator or Designee:

I certify that I have reviewed the contents of this form with the subject signing above. I have explained the possible benefits and the potential risks and/or discomforts of the study. It is my opinion that the participant understood the explanation.

______________________________________ ____________

Signature of Principal Investigator or Designee Date

33

University of North Texas Institutional Review Board

Online Informed Consent Notice

Before agreeing to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and understand the following explanation of the purpose and benefits of the study and how it will be conducted.

Title of Study: Memories for the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

Principal Investigator: Adriel Boals, University of North Texas, Department of Psychology.

Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to examine what types of information people remember about specific emotional events. These memories are referred to as “Flashbulb” memories. Most studies of flashbulb memories have examined negative events, such as 9/11 and the Challenger explosion. The current study will examine a potentially positive flashbulb memory. Study Procedures: This is a two- session study. The second session will occur after 7, 42, or 224 days. We will contact you when it is time to complete the follow-up session. During today’s session, we will ask you to complete a questionnaire about your personal experience of hearing about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. You will be asked to complete these same questions for an everyday memory from this same weekend. Then you will complete a brief demographic questionnaire. We expect today’s session to last approximately 20 minutes. During the follow-up session, you will complete the same Memory Questionnaire after a time delay. We expect the follow- up session to last 20 minutes. Foreseeable Risks: There are no foreseeable risks involved in this study. Benefits to the Subjects or Others: This study is designed to help us better understand the extent to how well people can recall details of important events after a time delay. Compensation for Participants: You will receive 1 credit as compensation for your participation today. Participants who are asked to complete the 2nd session one week from today will receive 1 research credit for completing the 2nd session. Participants who are asked to complete the 2nd session at 42 or 224 days from today will be paid between $1 and $10 for completing the 2nd session. These participants will be informed of the exact amount when they are contacted about completing the 2nd session.

Procedures for Maintaining Confidentiality of Research Records: Your participation in this study will be confidential. You will be assigned a study ID number and you will not be identified by name in any of the data recording or analysis kept in computers. Your name and corresponding ID number will kept in a file, which will be stored separately from your responses and kept in a locked file. Your name will also be on this consent form that will be kept in a separate place from the data. The confidentiality of your individual information will be maintained in any publications or

34

presentations regarding this study. Consistent with Texas state laws, if you mention acts of child abuse, we are required to report such acts to the state authorities.

Questions about the Study: If you have any questions about the study, you may contact Dr. Adriel Boals at telephone number 940-369-8443. Review for the Protection of Participants: This research study has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Institutional Review Board (IRB). The UNT IRB can be contacted at (940) 565-3940 with any questions regarding the rights of research subjects. Research Participants’ Rights: You have read or have had read to you all of the above and that you confirm all of the following:

• You understand the possible benefits and the potential risks and/or discomforts of the study.

• You understand that you do not have to take part in this study, and your refusal to participate or your decision to withdraw will involve no penalty or loss of rights or benefits. The study personnel may choose to stop your participation at any time.

• You understand why the study is being conducted and how it will be performed. • You understand your rights as a research participant and you voluntarily

consent to participate in this study. • Your decision to participate or to withdraw from the study will not have a

negative effect on your course grade.

Yes, I agree to participate

35

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS

36

In this study we are trying to find out about the properties of emotional autobiographical memories. To do this we will ask you to recall your experience of hearing about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden this week. We will also ask you to record a description of another memory from your life in the few days before the attacks (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday). Please do not record any proper names (for people or places) or other information that would let us know who you are or who was in the memory - use an initial if necessary.

For each of these memories, you will be asked to rate specific properties or characteristics of remembering and of the memory itself. Each question asks you to circle a number between one and seven on a rating scale. For each rating scale, please think about the memory for a while before answering the questions. All rating scales are anchored at 1 and 7 with their logical extremes. Please circle only one number for each rating scale. The keyword for each question is in bold. Because we may continue this experiment in another session later in the term, we ask for your contact information. Please note, you are under NO obligation to participate in these additional sessions. Full Name: ____________________________________________________________________ UNT Email: _________________________________________________________________ Commonly used Email: _________________________________________________________ Summer Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________________ Fall Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________________ Cell Phone: _____________________________________________________________________________ May we contact you on Facebook? Yes No If yes, what is your Facebook username: _____________________________________________________________________________ May we follow you on Twitter? Yes No If yes, what is your Twitter username: _____________________________________________________________________________

37

APPENDIX C

STUDY MATERIALS

38

Please describe in detail how you first heard about the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Feel free to use initials for people or places that you do not wish to identify. Who or what first told you the information? When did you first hear the news? Where were you when you first heard the news? Were there others present, and if so, who? What were you doing immediately before you first heard the news? What was your dominant emotion when you first heard? Are there any other distinctive details from when you first heard the news?

39

1. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel as though I am reliving it. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly

as if it were happening now

2. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 it comes to me in words or in not at all completely pictures as a coherent story or episode and not as an isolated fact, observation, or scene. 3. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that I see it out of my own eyes not at all completely rather than that of an outside observer. 4. My memory now comes in pieces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with missing bits. not at all completely 5. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel the same particular emotions completely different identically the same I felt at the time of the event. 6. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the I feel the emotions as strongly not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as I did then. as if it were

happening now 7. While remembering the event now, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 emotions are extremely negative. not at all hardly somewhat entirely 8. While remembering the event now, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 emotions are extremely positive. not at all hardly somewhat entirely 9. The emotions that I feel now are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

extremely intense. not at all hardly somewhat extremely

10. While remembering the event now , I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feel my heart pound, or race. not at all more than any

other memory 11. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feel tense all over. not at all more than any other memory

40

12. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel sweaty or clammy. not at all more than any other memory 13. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel knots, cramps, or butterflies in not at all more than any my stomach. other memory 14. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can see it in my mind. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as if it were happening now 15. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I can hear it in my mind. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as if it were

happening now

16. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know the setting where it not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly

occurred. as if it were happening now 17. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that I travel back to the time not at all vaguely distinctly completely when it happened. 18. My memory now is based on details 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 specific to my life, not on general not at all in some in some completely knowledge that I would expect details main points most people to have. 19. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 it come to me in words. not at all vaguely distinctly completely 20. As I think about the event now, I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 actually remember it rather than not at all vaguely distinctly completely just knowing that it happened. 21. Since it happened, I have thought about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

this event. not at all sometimes many more than for any

other memory

41

22. Since it happened, I have talked about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


other memory 23. This memory has come to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“out of the blue”, without my trying to not at all sometimes many more than for any

other memory

24. I believe the event in my memory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 really occurred in the way I remember 100% 100% it and that I have not imagined or imaginary real fabricated anything that did not occur. 25. If another witness to the event, who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 you generally trusted, existed and told not at all in some in some completely you a very different account of the event, details main points to what extent could you be persuaded that your memory of the event was wrong. Because of the far-reaching and often personal impact of an event of this magnitude, we would like to ask about the level of your personal involvement with the tragedy. 26. How common was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 27. How unusual was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 28. How special was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 29. How ordinary was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 30. How expected was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points

42

31. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to you, personally? not at all very much 32. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for your family and friends? not at all very much 33. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to your country? not at all very much 34. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at the international level? not at all very much 35. Please rate the extent to which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 this event has consequences for no many you. consequences consequences Do you identify your hometown as either Washington, DC or New York City? Yes No Do you have a number of friends or family in Washington, DC or New York City? Yes No Do you have any other connection to these areas so that you felt especially affected? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Please describe in detail the most distinctive event from your life in the days preceding the assassination announcement (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday). Feel free to use initials for people or places that you do not wish to identify. What was the event? When did this event occur?

43

Where were you, physically? Were there others present, and if so, who? What were you, personally, doing? Are there any other distinctive details from the event? Please provide a brief 2-3 word description that would be specific enough to remind you of this unique event at some later point in the future: 1. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel as though I am reliving it. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as if it were

happening now 2. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 it comes to me in words or in not at all completely pictures as a coherent story or episode and not as an isolated fact, observation, or scene.

44

3. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that I see it out of my own eyes not at all completely rather than that of an outside observer. 4. My memory now comes in pieces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with missing bits. not at all completely 5. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel the same particular emotions completely different identically the same I felt at the time of the event. 6. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the I feel the emotions as strongly not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as I did then. as if it were

happening now 7. While remembering the event now, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 emotions are extremely negative. not at all hardly somewhat entirely 8. While remembering the event now, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 emotions are extremely positive. not at all hardly somewhat entirely 9. The emotions that I feel now are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

extremely intense. not at all hardly somewhat extremely

10. While remembering the event now , I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feel my heart pound, or race. not at all more than any

other memory 11. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feel tense all over. not at all more than any other memory 12. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel sweaty or clammy. not at all more than any other memory 13. While remembering the event now, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel knots, cramps, or butterflies in not at all more than any my stomach. other memory 14. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45

I can see it in my mind. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as if it were happening now 15. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I can hear it in my mind. not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly as if it were

happening now

16. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know the setting where it not at all vaguely distinctly as clearly

occurred. as if it were happening now 17. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that I travel back to the time not at all vaguely distinctly completely when it happened. 18. My memory now is based on details 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 specific to my life, not on general not at all in some in some completely knowledge that I would expect details main points most people to have. 19. While remembering the event now, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 it come to me in words. not at all vaguely distinctly completely 20. As I think about the event now, I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 actually remember it rather than not at all vaguely distinctly completely just knowing that it happened. 21. Since it happened, I have thought about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


other memory 22. Since it happened, I have talked about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


other memory 23. This memory has come to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“out of the blue”, without my trying to not at all sometimes many more than for any

46

other memory

24. I believe the event in my memory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 really occurred in the way I remember 100% 100% it and that I have not imagined or imaginary real fabricated anything that did not occur. 25. If another witness to the event, who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 you generally trusted, existed and told not at all in some in some completely you a very different account of the event, details main points to what extent could you be persuaded that your memory of the event was wrong. Because of the far-reaching and often personal impact of an event of this magnitude, we would like to ask about the level of your personal involvement with the tragedy. 26. How common was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 27. How unusual was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 28. How special was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 29. How ordinary was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 30. How expected was this event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all in some in some completely details main points 31. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to you, personally? not at all very much 32. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for your family and friends? not at all very much 33. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to your country? not at all very much

47

34. How important was this event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at the international level? not at all very much 35. Please rate the extent to which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 this event has consequences for no many you. consequences consequences

48

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHICS

49

Before we finish, we'd like to know some more information about you in order to make sure that the people who complete this survey are an accurate representation of the population at large. Gender Male Female rather not say What is your birthdate? Are you of Hispanic/Latino origin? Yes No rather not say What is your race? White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Multiracial rather not say Is English your first language? Yes No learned English and another language simultaneously How many years have you spoken English fluently? ____________________________________________________________ What is your religious affiliation? ____________________________________________________________ What country do you live in? What state do you live in? What city do you live in? Do you identify with a country other than the U.S. as a native, citizen, or resident? Yes No

50

If Yes, please identify the country or countries with which you identify: ________________________________ Did you know anyone that was in immediate danger during the attacks of September 11, 2001? Yes No Do you have any friends and/or family members that have actively served in the U. S. military since September 11, 2001? Yes No Have you ever served in the U.S. military (including current participation in ROTC)? Yes No Have you been actively following the search for bin Laden in news media and other outlets? Yes No Did you celebrate the news of bin Laden’s assassination with others? Yes No Do you have any other connection to these events so that you felt especially affected?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

51

APPENDIX E

FLASHBULB FAMILIARITY QUESTIONS

52

1. Are you at all familiar with flashbulb memories? Yes No 2. (if yes) What do you remember learning about the differences (if any) between flashbulb

memories and other autobiographical memories in you coursework? 3. What do you remember learning about the changes (if any) in flashbulb memories over

time? 4. How do you expect your memories for the assassination of Osama bin Laden to differ (if

at all) from the other memory you nominated? 5. How do you expect your memory for the assassination of Osama bin Laden to change

over time (if at all)?

53

APPENDIX F

DEBRIEFING

54

Thank you for participating in our research study. In this study, we were interested in people’s accuracy in remembering a very important historical event, the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. We asked all participants questions about their memory for this event in the 48 hours following the assassination. We then asked participants the same set of questions at various time delays. We hypothesize that people will not be as accurate as they think they are in these memories. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Dr. Adriel Boals at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

55

APPENDIX G

SONA SYSTEMS FORM

56

University of North Texas Institutional Review Board Title of Project: Memories for the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden Researcher Names: Adriel Boals, Amanda Kraha 1. Brief Abstract (optional): 2. Detailed Description (tell the students briefly what they will do in your study): This is a two- session study. The second session will occur after 7, 42, or 224 days. We will contact you when it is time to complete the follow-up session. During today’s session, we will ask you to complete a questionnaire about your personal experience of hearing about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden You will be asked to complete these same questions for an everyday memory from this same weekend. Then you will complete a brief demographic questionnaire. We expect today’s session to last approximately 20 minutes. During the follow-up session, you will complete the same Memory Questionnaire after a time delay. We expect the follow- up session to last 20 minutes. 3. Are there any eligibility requirements? No If yes, what are they? 4. About how long does each student/participant spend on your study? 2 sessions of 20 minutes each, for a total of 40 minutes 5. How many credits will students receive? (1 for each half hour above) 1 credit per session, for a total of 2 credits. 6. Are there any Prescreen Restrictions? (Gender, Ethnicity, Age, Class Standing,

Handedness) No. If yes, what are they? 7. Are there prerequisites? (other studies that students must complete first) No.

57

If yes, what are they? 8. Are there disqualifiers? (other studies students may have not completed) No. If yes, what are they? 9. Is this study only open to students in a specific course or courses? No. If so, what course(s)? 10. Is an invitation code required for participation? No. 11. Is this a web-based study? Yes. If so, what is the study URL? www.surveymonkey.com/ 12. What is the Participant sign up deadline? (They must sign up x hours in advance of

timeslot?) 1 hour 13. If there is anything else that you need to convey to students on the SONA website,

please include it below:

58

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In

A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active

maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berntsen, D., & Thomsen, D. K. (2005). Personal memories for remote historical events:

Accuracy and clarity of flashbulb memories related to World War II. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 134, 242-257.

Bohn, A., & Berntsen, D. (2007). Pleasantness bias in flashbulb memories: Positive and negative

flashbulb memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall among East and West Germans.

Memory & Cognition, 35, 565- 577.

Breslin, C., & Safer, M. (2011). Effects of event valence on long-term memory for two baseball

championship games. Psychological Science, 22.

Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73-79.

Conway, M. A. (1996). Autobiographical knowledge and autobiographical memories. In D. C.

Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 67-93).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical

memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261-288.

59

Conway, M. A., Anderson, S. J., Larsen, S. F., Donnelly, C. M., McDaniel, M. A., McClelland,

A. G., et al. (1994). The formation of flashbulb memories. Memory & Cognition, 22, 326-

343.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage

Foundations.

Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple

regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,

229-248.

Curci, A., & Luminet, O. (2006). Follow-up of a cross-national comparison on flashbulb and

event memory for the September 11th attacks. Memory, 14, 329-344.

Fivush, R., & Baker-Ward, L. (2005). The search for meaning: Developmental perspectives on

internal state language in autobiographical memory. Journal of Cognition and

Development, 6, 455-462.

Innocence Project. (n.d.). Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Julian, M., Bohannon III, J. N., & Aue, W. (2009). Measures of flashbulb memory: Are elaborate

memories consistently accurate? In O. Luminet, & A. Curci (Eds.), Flashbulb memories:

New issues and perspectives (pp. 99-122). New York: Psychology Press.

Kraha, A., & Boals, A. (in press). Why so negative? Positive flashbulb memories for a positive

event. Memory.

Kvavilashvili, L., Mirani, J., Schlageman, S., & Kornbrot, D. R. (2003). Comparing flashbulb

memories of September 11 and the death of Princess Diana: Effects of time delays and

nationality. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1017-1031.

60

Lee, P., & Brown, N. R. (2003). Delay related changes in personal memories for September 11,

2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1007-1015.

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of

the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 13, 585-589.

Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information

into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and

Memory, 4, 19-31.

Luminet, O., & Curci, A. (2009). The 9/11 attacks inside and outside the US: Testing four

models of flashbulb memory formation across groups and the specific effects of social

identity. Memory, 17, 742-759.

Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Human memory (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.

Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Neisser, U. (2003). New directions for flashbulb memories: Comments on the ACP special issue.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1149-1155.

Neisser, U., & Fivush, R. (1994). The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-

narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cabridge University Press.

Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news

about Challenger. In E. Winograd, Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of "flashbulb"

memories (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nimon, K. (2010). Regression commonality analysis: Demonstration of an SPSS solution.

Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 36, 10-17.

61

Roehm Jr., H. A., & Roehm, M. L. (2007). Can brand encounters inspire flashbulb memories?

Psychology & Marketing, 24, 25-40.

Ross, B. H. (1984). Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill. Cognitive

Psychology, 16, 371-416.

Rubin, D. C. (1996). Introduction. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in

autobiographical memory (pp. 1-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, D. C., Schrauf, R. W., & Greenberg, D. L. (2003). Belief and recollection of

autobiographical memories. Memory & Cognition, 31, 887-901.

Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynaminc memory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schmolck, H., Buffalo, E. A., & Squire, L. (2000). Memory distortions over time: Recollections

of the O.J. Simpson trial verdict after 15 and 32 months. Psychological Science, 11, 39-

45.

Scott, D., & Ponsoda, V. (1996). The role of positive and negative affect in flashbulb memory.

Psychological Reports, 79, 467-473.

Spiro, R. J. (1980). Accommodative reconstruction in prose recall. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behavior, 19, 84-95.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). The mental respresentation of trait and autobiographical

knowledge about the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Talarico, J. M. (2009). Freshman flashbulbs: Memories of unique and first-time events in starting

college. Memory, 256-265.

Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb

memories. Psychological Science, 14, 455-461.

62

Tekcan, A. I. (2001). Flashbulb memory for a negative and a positive event: News of Desert

Storm and acceptance to college. Psychological Reports, 88, 323-331.

Tekcan, A. I., & Peynircioglu, Z. F. (2002). Effects of age on flashbulb memories. Psychology

and Aging, 17, 416-422.

Walker, W. R., Skowronski, J. J., & Thompson, C. P. (2003). Life is pleasant--and memory helps

to keep it that way! Review of General Psychology, 7, 203-210.

Weaver III, C. A. (1993). Do you need a "flash" to form flashbulb memory? Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 39-46.

Weaver III, C. A., & Krug, K. S. (2004). Consolidation-like effects in flashbulb memories:

Evidence from September 11, 2001. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 517-530.

Winningham, R. G., Hyman Jr., I. E., & Dinnel, D. L. (2000). Flashbulb memories? The effects

of when the initial memory report was obtained. Memory, 8, 209-216.

CONSISTENCY, CONSOLIDATION, AND COGNITION IN …/67531/metadc271846/m2/1/high_re… · MEMORIES: A...

Documents

Transcript of CONSISTENCY, CONSOLIDATION, AND COGNITION IN …/67531/metadc271846/m2/1/high_re… · MEMORIES: A...