Neisser & Harsch (1992)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To investigate whether flashbulb memories are susceptible to distortion over time.

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

The morning after the Challenger disaster in , 106 University students filled out a questionnaire about how they heard the news, including where they were, who told them, what they were doing, and how they felt.

2.5 years later, 44 of the same students were given the same questionnaire without being told it was the same one.
This time, they rated their confidence in their memories from 1 (guessing) to 5 (absolutely certain).

Semi-structured interviews were then held to explore discrepancies between the two sets of answers, using cues to prompt their original memories.

At the end, participants were shown their original 1986 answers in their own handwriting.

Question 3

Results

Answer 3

There were major discrepancies between the students’ original memories and their recollections 2.5 years later.

The average accuracy score was only 2.95 out of 7.

Despite inaccuracies, participants showed high confidence in their memories (average confidence 4.17/5).

Most participants stuck to their newer, distorted memory even when shown their original answers, and were surprised by the differences.

Cues had little effect in helping them retrieve their original memories.

Question 4

Strengths

Answer 4

High ecological validity because the study observed real memories of a real event without manipulation.

Used both questionnaires and interviews (method triangulation), increasing reliability.

Question 5

Limitations

Answer 5

1. Case study - difficult to replicate
2. No control over outside influences between the time periods (confounding variables).
3. Confidence ratings may have been inflated due to demand characteristics—participants might have overreported confidence to please the researcher or avoid social disapproval.