Editing Flashbulb memory (section)

=== Source of information ===
When looking at the source of knowledge about an event, hearing the news from the media or from another person does not cause a difference in reaction, rather causes a difference in the type of information that is encoded to one's memory. When hearing the news from the media, more details about the events itself are better remembered due to the processing of facts while experiencing high levels of arousal, whereas when hearing the news from another individual a person tends to remember personal responses and circumstances.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Bohannon III | first1 = John Neil
| last2 = Gratz | first2 = Sami 
| last3 = Cross | first3 = Victoria Symons 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.1372 
| title = The effects of affect and input source on flashbulb memories 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 21 
| issue = 8 
| pages = 1023–1036 
|date=December 2007
}}</ref>

Additionally, the source monitoring problem contributes to the recollection and memory errors of flashbulb memories. Over time, new information is encountered and this post-significant event information from other sources may replace or added to the part of information already stored in memory.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|date=January 2011|title=From the archive: 'Crashing memories and the problem of "source monitoring"' by H. F. M. Crombag, W. A. Wagenaar, & P. J. van Koppen (1996). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 95-104 with commentary | journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology | publisher=Wiley | volume=25 | issue=S1 | issn=0888-4080 | doi=10.1002/acp.1779 | pages=S91–S101}}</ref> Repeated rehearsal of the news in media and between individuals make flashbulb memories more susceptible to misremembering the source of information, thus leading to less recall of true details of the event. In a study done by Dutch researchers, participants were asked about an event of El Al Boeing 747 crash on apartment buildings in Amsterdam. Ten months after the accident, participants were asked if they recalled seeing the television film of the moment the plane hit the building. According to the results, over 60% of the subjects said they had seen the crash on television, although there was no television film regarding the incident. If they said yes, there were asked questions about the details of the crash and most falsely reported that they saw the fire had started immediately. This study demonstrates that adults can falsely believe that they have witnessed something they actually have not seen themselves but only heard from news or other people. Even, they can go further to report specific but incorrect details regarding the event. The error rate in this experiment is higher than usually found in flashbulb experiments since it uses a suggestive question instead of the usual neutral ‘flashbulb memory question’ and unlike in typical flashbulb memory studies, subjects are not asked how they first learned about the event which does not lead to critical consideration of possible original source. However, it demonstrates how even flashbulb memories are susceptible to memory distortion due to source monitoring errors.<ref name=":2" />