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
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
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.
Copyright 2013
by
Amanda Kraha
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by an Academic Research Grant from Lafayette College and
the Small Grant Program from the University of North Texas.
iii
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
iv
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
v
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
Table 6 Time 2 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................26
Table 7 Time 3 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................27
vi
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
vii
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
1
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).
2
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
3
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.
4
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
5
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.
6
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,
7
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
8
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.
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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.
15
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 followup in Table 7.
16
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 =
17
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
18
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.
19
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.
20
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
21
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
22
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.
23
Table 1
Study Response Rates
Wave
1
2
Initial
7-Day
42-Day
224-Day One Year
334
54.5%
44.1%
37.8%
28.1%
126
34.1%
35.7%
39.5%
15.1%
Table 2
Participant Study Characteristics
Full Sample
n
Valid %
Which Wave?
Immediate
One Week Delay
Follow-up Group
7 Day
42 Day
224 Day
Know Anyone in Danger on 9/11?
Yes
No
Do You Have Friends/Family in the U.S. Military?
Yes
No
Have You Served in the U.S. Military?
Yes
No
Have You Followed the Search for Osama bin Laden?
Yes
No
Did You Celebrate the Death of Osama bin Laden?
Yes
No
Do You Have Family/Friends in D.C. or NYC?
Yes
No
Note. Frequencies not summing to 137 reflect missing data.
24
97
40
70.8
29.2
53
42
42
38.7
30.7
30.7
21
114
15.6
84.4
81
54
60.0
40.0
7
128
5.2
94.8
18
117
13.3
86.7
35
101
35.7
74.3
38
99
27.7
72.3
Table 3
Participant Demographics
Full Sample
n
Valid %
Gender
Male
Female
51
83
38.1
61.9
White/ Caucasian
Black/ African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Multiracial
98
17
9
1
4
76.0
13.2
7.0
.8
3.1
Ethnicity
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
_______________________________________________________
25
Table 5
Time 1 Descriptive Statistics
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
Skew Kurtosis
Flashbulb
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
Visceral
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
137
136
136
132
136
135
137
136
137
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.781
3.033
3.488
4.640
1.481
4.395
3.982
6.158
5.787
1.116
1.727
1.490
1.396
.808
1.737
1.700
1.211
1.046
-1.15
.43
.27
-.05
2.78
-.47
.05
-1.90
-1.09
2.05
-.92
-.75
-.47
10.22
-.61
-.81
3.70
1.83
Everyday Event
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
Visceral
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
115
117
116
117
116
118
117
117
117
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.783
3.154
3.195
5.150
1.425
4.412
4.086
2.692
4.088
1.212
1.734
1.474
1.661
.740
1.684
1.789
2.355
1.838
-.94
.34
.51
-.48
1.95
-.53
.16
.98
.12
.24
-.78
-.06
-.77
3.25
-.51
-.97
-.75
-1.22
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
Skew Kurtosis
90
92
87
89
91
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
7.0
6.5
7.0
7.0
5.8
5.672
2.609
2.720
4.270
1.462
1.166
1.388
1.357
1.136
.915
-.91
.62
.69
-.39
.88
.53
.75
.65
2.58
6.95
(table continues)
Table 6
Time 2 Descriptive Statistics
Flashbulb
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
Visceral
26
Table 6 (continued).
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
91
93
93
93
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
3.802
3.505
6.129
6.021
1.375
1.680
1.408
.900
-.15
.31
-2.02
-.79
-.31
-.74
3.78
.08
81
80
80
81
82
82
82
82
82
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.475
2.900
2.708
4.784
1.482
3.874
4.043
2.329
4.156
1.242
1.584
1.674
1.551
.987
1.677
1.986
2.106
1.704
-.70
.48
.81
-.23
2.14
-.38
-.02
1.37
-.02
.38
-.49
-.13
-.49
3.43
-.77
-1.17
.33
-.87
Mean
SD
Skew
Kurtosis
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
Everyday Event
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
Visceral
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
Skew
Kurtosis
Table 7
Time 3 Descriptive Statistics
N
Min
Max
Flashbulb
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
Visceral
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.087
2.423
2.423
4.365
1.361
3.378
3.817
6.414
5.995
1.375
1.337
1.214
1.039
.642
1.656
1.669
1.065
.874
Everyday Event
Belief
Recollection
Rehearsal
Valence
51
51
51
51
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.255
3.098
2.860
4.304
1.430
1.778
1.815
1.697
27
-.54
1.18
1.19
.93
2.28
.29
.18
-2.25
-.46
.10
1.52
1.22
1.20
5.67
-.75
-.83
5.33
-1.03
-.66
.31
.56
-.79
.60
-.92
-.07
-.52
(table continues)
Table 7 (continued).
Visceral
Vividness
Personal Importance
Global Importance
Surprise
N
Min
Max
Mean
SD
51
51
51
51
51
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
1.610
3.850
4.167
2.804
4.797
1.059
1.962
1.881
2.544
1.846
Skew
1.89
-.10
-.17
.86
-.39
Kurtosis
2.53
-1.20
-1.01
-1.15
-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.
7
6
5
4
FB Belief
FB Recollection
3
FB Vividness
2
1
0
Time One
Time Two
One Year
Figure 2. Flashbulb properties over time.
28
Assassination Announcement
Wave One, Time One
n = 334
May 2-4, 2011
Wave Two, Time One
n = 126
May 9-11, 2011
Wave One, 7- Day
n = 61
lost n = 51
May 9-11, 2011
Wave Two, 7- Day
n = 14
lost n = 27
May 3-4, 2011
Wave One, 42- Day
n = 49
lost n = 62
June 13-15, 2011
Wave Two, 42- Day
n = 15
lost n = 27
June 20-22, 2011
Wave One, 224- Day
n = 42
lost n = 69
December 5-7, 2011
Wave Two, 224- Day
n = 17
lost n = 26
December 12-14 2011
Wave One, 1 Year
n = 94
lost n = 240
May 2-4, 2012
Wave Two, 1 Year
n = 19
lost n = 107
May 9-11, 2012
Figure 3. Recruitment timeline.
29
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT NOTICE
30
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.
31
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
32
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
33
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
34
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS
35
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:
_____________________________________________________________________________
36
APPENDIX C
STUDY MATERIALS
37
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?
38
1. While remembering the event now,
I feel as though I am reliving it.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
2. While remembering the event now,
it comes to me in words or in
pictures as a coherent story
or episode and not as an isolated
fact, observation, or scene.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
completely
3. While remembering the event now,
I feel that I see it out of my own eyes
rather than that of an outside observer.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
completely
4. My memory now comes in pieces
with missing bits.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
completely
5. While remembering the event now,
I feel the same particular emotions
I felt at the time of the event.
1
2
3
4
completely different
5
6. While remembering the event now,
the I feel the emotions as strongly
as I did then.
1
2
not at all
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
3
4
vaguely
5
1
2
not at all
3
4
hardly
5
8. While remembering the event now, the
emotions are extremely positive.
1
2
not at all
3
4
hardly
5
9. The emotions that I feel now are
extremely intense.
extremely
1
2
not at all
3
11. While remembering the event now, I
feel tense all over.
4
5
hardly
1
2
3
not at all
1
2
not at all
39
3
6
7
identically the same
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
7. While remembering the event now, the
emotions are extremely negative.
10. While remembering the event now , I
feel my heart pound, or race.
6
7
distinctly
6
7
somewhat
entirely
6
7
somewhat
entirely
4
6
7
somewhat
5
6
7
more
than any
other memory
4
5
6
7
more than any
other memory
12. While remembering the event now, I
feel sweaty or clammy.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
13. While remembering the event now, I
feel knots, cramps, or butterflies in
my stomach.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
14. While remembering the event now,
I can see it in my mind.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
15. While remembering the event now,
I can hear it in my mind.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
16. While remembering the event now,
I know the setting where it
occurred.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
17. While remembering the event now,
I feel that I travel back to the time
when it happened.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
completely
18. My memory now is based on details
specific to my life, not on general
knowledge that I would expect
most people to have.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
19. While remembering the event now,
it come to me in words.
completely
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
20. As I think about the event now, I can
actually remember it rather than
completely
just knowing that it happened.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
21. Since it happened, I have thought about 1
2
this event.
not at all
40
7
more than any
other memory
7
more than any
other memory
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
more than
for any
other memory
22. Since it happened, I have talked about
this event.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
23. This memory has come to me
“out of the blue”, without my trying to
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
24. I believe the event in my memory
1
2
really occurred in the way I remember 100%
it and that I have not imagined or
imaginary
fabricated anything that did not occur.
3
6
25. If another witness to the event, who
1
2
you generally trusted, existed and told not at all
you a very different account of the event,
to what extent could you be persuaded
that your memory of the event was wrong.
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
4
5
more than
for any
other memory
more than
for any
other memory
7
100%
real
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
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
27. How unusual was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
28. How special was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
29. How ordinary was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
30. How expected was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
41
31. How important was this event
to you, personally?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
32. How important was this event
for your family and friends?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
33. How important was this event
to your country?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
34. How important was this event
at the international level?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
35. Please rate the extent to which
this event has consequences for
you.
1
2
3
no
consequences
4
5
6
7
many
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?
42
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,
I feel as though I am reliving it.
1
2
not at all
2. While remembering the event now,
it comes to me in words or in
pictures as a coherent story
or episode and not as an isolated
fact, observation, or scene.
1
2
not at all
43
3
4
vaguely
5
3
5
4
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
6
7
completely
3. While remembering the event now,
I feel that I see it out of my own eyes
rather than that of an outside observer.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
completely
4. My memory now comes in pieces
with missing bits.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
completely
5. While remembering the event now,
I feel the same particular emotions
I felt at the time of the event.
1
2
3
4
completely different
5
6. While remembering the event now,
the I feel the emotions as strongly
as I did then.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
1
2
not at all
3
4
hardly
5
8. While remembering the event now, the
emotions are extremely positive.
1
2
not at all
3
4
hardly
5
9. The emotions that I feel now are
extremely intense.
extremely
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
hardly
1
2
3
not at all
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
7. While remembering the event now, the
emotions are extremely negative.
10. While remembering the event now , I
feel my heart pound, or race.
6
7
identically the same
4
6
7
somewhat
entirely
6
7
somewhat
entirely
6
7
somewhat
5
6
7
more
than any
other memory
11. While remembering the event now, I
feel tense all over.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
more than any
other memory
12. While remembering the event now, I
feel sweaty or clammy.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
13. While remembering the event now, I
feel knots, cramps, or butterflies in
my stomach.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
14. While remembering the event now,
1
44
2
7
more than any
other memory
7
more than any
other memory
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,
I can hear it in my mind.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
16. While remembering the event now,
I know the setting where it
occurred.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
17. While remembering the event now,
I feel that I travel back to the time
when it happened.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
completely
18. My memory now is based on details
specific to my life, not on general
knowledge that I would expect
most people to have.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
19. While remembering the event now,
it come to me in words.
completely
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
20. As I think about the event now, I can
actually remember it rather than
completely
just knowing that it happened.
1
2
not at all
3
4
vaguely
5
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
6
7
distinctly
as clearly
as if it were
happening now
21. Since it happened, I have thought about 1
2
this event.
not at all
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
more than
for any
other memory
22. Since it happened, I have talked about
this event.
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
23. This memory has come to me
“out of the blue”, without my trying to
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
sometimes
6
7
many
45
more than
for any
other memory
more than
for any
other memory
24. I believe the event in my memory
1
2
really occurred in the way I remember 100%
it and that I have not imagined or
imaginary
fabricated anything that did not occur.
3
4
5
6
7
100%
real
25. If another witness to the event, who
1
2
you generally trusted, existed and told not at all
you a very different account of the event,
to what extent could you be persuaded
that your memory of the event was wrong.
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
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
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
27. How unusual was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
28. How special was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
29. How ordinary was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
30. How expected was this event?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
in some
in some
completely
details
main points
31. How important was this event
to you, personally?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
32. How important was this event
for your family and friends?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
33. How important was this event
to your country?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
7
very much
46
34. How important was this event
at the international level?
1
2
not at all
3
4
5
6
35. Please rate the extent to which
this event has consequences for
you.
1
2
3
no
consequences
4
5
6
47
7
very much
7
many
consequences
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHICS
48
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
49
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?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
50
APPENDIX E
FLASHBULB FAMILIARITY QUESTIONS
51
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)?
52
APPENDIX F
DEBRIEFING
53
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].
54
APPENDIX G
SONA SYSTEMS FORM
55
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.
56
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:
57
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.
58
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, 326343.
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.
59
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 selfnarrative. 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.
60
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, 3945.
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.
61
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.
62