Memory for “Exceptional” Events • 211the results for the fl ashbulb and everyday memories (● Figure 8.8a). This result supports
the idea that there is nothing special about fl ashbulb memories. However, another
result, shown in Figure 8.8b, did indicate a difference between fl ashbulb and everyday
memories: People’s belief that their memories were accurate stayed high over the entire
32-week period for the fl ashbulb memories, but dropped for the everyday memories.
Ratings of vividness and how well they could “relive” the events also stayed high and
constant for the fl ashbulb memories but dropped for the everyday memories. Thus, the
idea that fl ashbulb memories are special appears to be based at least partially on the
fact that people think the memories are stronger and more accurate; however, this study
found that in reality there was little or no difference between fl ashbulb and everyday
memories in terms of the amount remembered and the accuracy of what is remembered.
Although Talarico and Rubin found that people’s memories for hearing about 9/11
decreased in accuracy in the same way as memories for everyday events, another experi-
ment found that memories for events associated with hearing about 9/11 were more
resistant to fading than memories for other events that took place at about the same
time. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Patrick Davidson and coworkers (2006) asked
participants questions such as “How did you hear the news?” “Where were you when
you heard about the attack?” and “Who was present?” They also had the participants
answer the same questions for an everyday event—the most interesting event (as picked
by the participant) that had occurred in the few days preceding 9/11.
One year later, the participants were contacted for a surprise memory test in
which they were asked the same questions as before. If they weren’t able to remember
the everyday event, they were given a cue, such as “party” or “movie,” to help them
remember the event. The participants’ response to each question was scored by assign-
ing 0 points if they couldn’t remember or remembered it very inaccurately, 1 point
if their memory was partially correct or less specifi c than the original memory, and
2 points if their memory was very similar to their original report. The resulting “con-
gruence score” was determined by adding the points for all of the questions and scaling
the total so that 1.0 was the maximum possible. Congruence for 9/11 memories was
fairly high 1 year later (0.77), but the score for the everyday events was much lower121086420Number of detailsDays after event Days after event1 7 42 224623457-point rating scale1 7 42 224DETAILS BELIEF(a) (b)Everyday
Flashbulb●FIGURE 8.8 Results of Talarico and Rubin’s (2003) fl ashbulb memory experiment.
(a) The decrease in the number of details remembered was similar for memories of 9/11 and
for memories of an everyday event. (b) Participants’ belief that their memory was accurate
remained high for 9/11, but decreased for memories of the everyday event. (Source: J. M. Talarico &
D. C. Rubin, “Consistency and Key Properties of Flashbulb and Everyday Memories,” Psychological Science, 14, 5,
Fig. 1 & 2. Copyright © 2003 American Psychological Society. Reproduced by permission.)Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.