Blog Vehicle

You have witnessed an automobile accident in which two cars hit each other. Explain how somone recalls events.

You have witnessed an automobile accident in which two cars hit each other. Define each of the following, and explain how they could affect your recall of the incident. ∙ Flashbulb memory ∙ Reconstruction ∙ Misinformation effect This is the last question on my WS and I need some help if anyone can. Thanks in advance!

Public Comments

1. At a training for a job we had a simulair experiece. Unexpedly a person runs through room, grabs a purse and tears out. IT is just a stage to see if we remember, details of his appearance. Out of 10 persons only 4 agreed and other were off as to height, race, shirt color, so on. It did make me more aware to otice more details as I go along in my duties. But average person uses flashbulb I feel, Reconstrution to a point may help, and as I showed above misinformation is common. *mamatx
2. Here you go, from Wikipedia: "A flashbulb memory is a memory that was laid down in great detail during a personally significant event, often a shocking event of national or international importance. These memories are perceived to have a "photographic" quality. The term was coined by Brown and Kulik (1977), who found highly emotional memories (e.g. hearing bad news) were often vividly recalled, even some time after the event. For example, a great many people can remember where they were when they heard of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or the assassination of U.S president John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., or musician John Lennon." From killology.com: "If a group debriefing is conducted 24 hours after an incident (preferably after an individual debrief), then the exchange of information within the group will serve as legitimate memory cues which will greatly aid in memory retrieval. Additionally, there is strong evidence that the moods and emotions generated by reliving an experience will generate accurate memories (Diamond, 1969; Kaiser, 1970; Bower, Monteiro, and Gilligan, 1978; Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Teasdale & Fogerty, 1979; Bower, 1981; Blaney, 1986; Chang, 1986). Indeed, one research team has speculated that when victims of violent crimes have trouble recalling details of the experience, it may be in part because they are far less emotionally aroused than they were at the time of the crime (Clark, Milberg, & Erber, 1987). Most of this memory reconstruction will be legitimate, but from this point on (and particularly after another night's sleep in which the group debrief is process into memory during REM sleep) there is a slight but increasingly significant danger of memory contamination." Also from killology.com: "The desire for the brain to seek patterns and sense out of chaos is powerful, fundamental, and basic to human nature. Hobson (1988) states that the brain "is so inexorably bent upon the quest for meaning that it attributes and even creates meaning when there is little or none to be found in the data." This process of creating memory and meaning is the basis for much memory contamination, and it must be constantly taken into consideration in law enforcement procedures. Contamination occurs when information outside actual experience is integrated into the reconstruction of memory. This is an inevitable process in most memory reconstructions, and if reliable information (for example, the narratives of fellow law enforcement officers on the scene) is incorporated into the reconstruction process it can be very helpful in ensuring that the most accurate possible picture is preserved (Loftus, 1979a; Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978; Loftus & Green, 1980). Furthermore, there is evidence that the influence of outside factors in contaminating information will be greater over time (Loftus, Miller & Burns, 1978) if the information is not locked into memory by recounting it (Loftus, 1977)." And this last from Wikipedia again: "The misinformation effect is a memory bias that occurs when misinformation affects people's reports of their own memory. In one oft-cited study led by Elizabeth Loftus, people watched footage of a car accident. Later some were asked to estimate the speed at which the car was going when it hit the other car. Others were asked how fast they thought the car was going when it smashed into the other. Those who were asked the question with the smashed wording were much more likely to "remember" seeing broken glass in a later question (in reality, no glass had been broken in the accident). They also remembered the car as driving much faster. Another type of misformation that appears to affect memory can come in the form of false presuppositions, such as "Did the car stop at the stop sign?" when in fact it was a yield sign. The effect serves as an illustration of the assertion that many psychologists make about memory, that it is "constructed" rather than "played back" like a videotape, and it can apparently be influenced by suggestive wording."