Neisser and Harsch (1992)


• Aim:

  • To determine if flashbulb memories are susceptible to distortion
• Participants:

  • Initially 106 Emory University students
  • Follow-up with 44 students (30 women, 14 men)
• Procedure:

  • Initial questionnaire 24 hours after Challenger disaster
  • Follow-up questionnaire 2.5 years later
  • Confidence ratings for memories
  • Semi-structured interviews months after follow-up
• Results:

  • Mean accuracy score: 2.95/7.0
  • High confidence despite low accuracy (average 4.17/5)
  • Only 25% remembered participating in the original study
  • Participants maintained inaccurate memories even with cues
• Strengths:

  1. Ecological validity: Real-life event, naturalistic study
  2. Longitudinal design: Captured memory changes over time
  3. Method triangulation: Used questionnaires and interviews
  4. Prospective design: Initial data collected immediately after event
• Limitations:

  1. Sample bias: Limited to university students
  2. Participant attrition: Only 44 of 106 original participants in follow-up
  3. Lack of control: No control over intervening experiences or media exposure
  4. Potential demand characteristics: Confidence ratings may be inflated