Examine how one theory of emotion may affect one cognitive process free essay sample

One theory of how emotion affects the cognitive process of memory is by a process known as a Flashbulb Memory. The theory is that these Flashbulb Memories will not only enhance the memory itself, but will make certain aspects of the memory more vivid and detailed. First, the Flashbulb Memory should be defined. Flashbulb memories are emotional memories that are remembered with great vivid detail and are almost photo like. For example, if someone were to experience a horrid natural disaster, they would most likely remember the situation more vividly than people not actually there. This instance is exactly what Brown and Kulik were trying to show in 1977, and what Conway was trying to express in 1994. They were dealing with the concept of emotion and how it affected one’s memory. However, emotion is not an easy thing to gage, as it is subjective to the individual and often times impulsive. We will write a custom essay sample on Examine how one theory of emotion may affect one cognitive process or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The first occurrence of the flashbulb memory was demonstrated by Brown and Kulik in their study of 1977. Brown and Kulik wanted to investigate flashbulb memories so that they could simply aid to their argument. The researchers interviewed 80 Americans, 40 African Americans, and 40 Caucasian Americans over ten specific events. Nine of these events consisted of assassinations on well-known Americans and one was a personal event. In these questions participants were asked if they had any significant remembrance of these events, both overtly and covertly. In the results, the researchers observed that 90% of all participants recalled the J. F. K. assassination in context and with great detail. Often times people had self-selected events that corresponded to his assassination, such as a death of a loved one.  Results also showed 73 % of African Americans recalled more information regarding the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.  than Caucasian Americans did. This study supported the Brown and Kulik’s theory of flashbulb memories, and seemed to last longer and more efficiently than other memories. However, the study was not controlled, one can really not know if the individuals were telling the truth or making up certain details. Most of the data collected was reliant on the person’s perspective than what really could have happened. Also, it is vital to remember that important events, such as both assassinations, received a great deal of media coverage. This could have aided in the recalling of these events, not making these experiences flashbulb memories. A study that tried to take the uncontrolled variable in proving the validity of flashbulb memories was Conway et al 1994. Conway wanted to support Brown and Kulik’s theory for flashbulb memory. In Conway’s study the participants were either UK or non-UK undergraduates and the idea of the study was based on the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister of Britain in 1990. Participants were interviewed about the event a few days after the event actually happened. Then they were asked the same questions 11 months after the event. In the results they found that 86% of UK participants still had the flashbulb memory of the first account of Margaret Thatcher and were accurate to their primary response. Therefore, Conway made the accusation that this finding supports the flashbulb memory theory for this British event because it was of significance to British culture. British individuals obviously had emotional ties to this event. Since this study was an actual event and created an accountability between researchers, the study suggests that flashbulb memories may in fact be different from other memories. However, questions still remain towards the researchers of the theory. There weren’t exactly limitations in this 11 month period of news that could have been watched or read. This could leave a little area for discrepancy involving the media, since this was a very popular event. Neisser and Harsch in 1992 decided to investigate the validity of the flashbulb memory theory. In this experiment participants were asked to report on the memories of the challenger space disaster in 1986. Like the experiment done by Conway et al, Neisser and Harsch investigated people’s memory accuracy of the incident 24 hours after the explosion and then again two years after. The results were: one day after the disaster, 215 of the participants said that they heard about the disaster on television. Two and a half years later 45% of the participants claimed to have heard of the event on the television. Their memories of how they learned the news about the challenger disaster changed over time and was a huge loophole in the studies in favor of flashbulb memory. Through this study it can be concluded that flashbulb memories are not reliable and may in fact just be ordinary memories. From Brown and Kulik to Neisser and Harsch we arrive at completely different conclusions. There are many strengths to these studies, as they were all with real events that would have affected people emotionally, but some of the studies were lacking in validity. The studies that recorded before and after seemed to be more compelling than the ones that just assumed a certain answer. However, the longer the duration of time between the before and after results most likely produced more variables being tested, rather than just one. Based on the studies outlined it only seems accurate that these flashbulb memories actually exist and affect our memory. The real analysis of these findings are how they actually influence behavior. Emotion can affect memory, and ultimately behavior in someone’s life. As crucial events happen, with the support of Brown and Kulik and Conway’s studies, memory can be seen to change in the eye of the beholder and can form unforgiving grudges or skeptical visions. Human behavior is so touchy, especially with the idea of false memories. Even if flashbulb memories are shown to be accurate to previous encounters those memories will still have been formed by some sort of trauma. This ultimately affects behavior, and is often times where stereotypes, and close-minded ideas are formed. So, flashbulb memories can create caution or aggression, hate or love, peace or chaos. The key is not letting these emotions dictate one’s behavior.