Talk:Flashbulb memory

message: The history section—although not crucial to the article—is rather brief. We are planning on extending the history and evolution of the models of flashbulb memory. We would like to add details to Brown’s and Kulik’s theory on flashbulb memories. We also want to introduce other theories that have been relevant ot the formation of our current understanding of flashbulb memories. 
The following section details the four models of flashbulb memories (FBMs). We thought that applying the models to real life examples would add some clarity. For example, explaining memories of 9/11 using the photographic model, JFK’s assassination using the comprehensive model, the Virginia Tech shooting using the emotional-integrative model, and the Oklahoma City using the Importance-driven emotional reactions.     
The next section discusses several factors that influence the accuracy of the flashbulb memory. However, this section fails to address how the intensity of emotions, age, and culture affect FBMs. We aim to enhance the article by adding more detailed explanations, examples, and data. 
Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan for Improvement

message: The article claims "most will claim to remember having witnessed media footage of the second plane crashing in to tower two shortly after the first, however, in reality, no footage of this was broadcast by any media source until the next day", but gives no evidence for this, and this compilation of live newscasts would seemingly prove this statement to be incorrect entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.31.42 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and now removed this statement. Thank you for your alertness! Lova Falk talk 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11

message: Dear Dear "Indiscrimnate Illumination"  What?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indiscrimnate Illumination" 

message: The lead is unclear and needs to be rewritten. However, without the source and without any prior knowledge of Flashbulb memory, I'm afraid I am not able to do it. Lova Falk talk 07:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses too many technical terms. Obviously written by someone studying psychology. It needs to be made more accessible to lay people. Cshay (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flashbulb memory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720033813/http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf to http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Gender" section, the first paragraph says that men tended to have more detail in these type of memories, but then the second paragraph talks about a specific study on memories of a particular event that says the opposite.  However I can't help but notice the event in question is an event that far more than most newsworthy events, is something that anyone would expect would leave a greater impression on most women, as it relates to a prominent man undergoing hearings which involved discussion of him sexually harassing a woman, and thus would expect significant deviation from normal gender differences from most other events that one could study like this.--108.86.123.83 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between first two paragraphs in "gender" section, and possible explanation. 

message: I agree the first two studies contradict each other. Additionally, the first study is worded in a way to suggest that the purpose of the study is to examine the gender differences in recall of flashbulb memories. However, gender differences do not explain the results of the study thus should be re-worded. The emphasis on the need for further research on gender differences should be emphasized. 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Differences 

message: I think this section is very short and needs a more elaborative explanation of the relationship between the number of rehearsals, change in the source of information and vividness of flashbulb memories. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Information 

message: In addition to this part, the difficulty of conducting experiments due to a lack of control over the empirical study, especially the control of the rehearsal of the event should be mentioned. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of Research 

message: I think you picked out great portions of the article for further clarification. I specifically like this addition of more information about source monitoring errors since this is one of the most important implications of flashbulb memories studies. I think the added paragraph is a well detailed summary of a study that shows how inferences can be injected into memories as new information is processed. It is also great that you added the portion about the possible weakness of the study so readers understand the robustness of the results. A possible suggestion would be to add some information about source monitoring errors surrounding 9/11 since that is such a widely remembered and impactful event for people around the globe. The study we covered in class testing the 54 Duke students would be interesting because it demonstrates how quickly this effect can take hold considering the students were tested a week after the attack and showed similar results. 
Sydney Wilkerson  03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Feedback 

message: A trio of sentences in this section reads: 
"A study conducted on the bombing in Iraq and a contrasting ordinary event showed no difference for memory accuracy over a year period; however, participants showed greater confidence when remembering the Iraqi bombing than the ordinary event despite no difference in accuracy.[24] Likewise, when memories for the 9/11 World Trade Center attack were contrasted with everyday memories, researchers found that after one year, there was a high, positive correlation between the initial and subsequent recollection of the 9/11 attack. This indicates very good retention, compared to a lower positive correlation for everyday memories.[25]"
The sentence starting with "Likewise" is confusing, as the sentiment in that sentence is actually the opposite of the previous one. The Iraq study showed that accuracy decreases over time; the 9/11 study showed "very good retention", which is the opposite idea.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and these two studies do have conflicting results, then I think this section should be rewritten a bit to address the differences. If I (or the original writer) am misinterpreting the results, and the two studies actually agree, then this could be made more clear with better wording.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.149.177 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused sentence in "Stability over time" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Imlucero (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23