Editing Flashbulb memory (section)

== Accuracy ==

Many researchers{{who|date=June 2012}} feel that flashbulb memories are not accurate enough to be considered their own category of memory.  One of the issues is that flashbulb memories may deteriorate over time, just like everyday memories.  Also, it has been questioned whether flashbulb memories are substantially different from everyday memories.
A number of studies suggest that flashbulb memories are not especially accurate, but that they are experienced with great vividness and confidence.<ref name="Neisser U"/><ref name="Talarico"/><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Day|first1=Martin V.|last2=Ross|first2=Michael|date=2014-04-03|title=Predicting confidence in flashbulb memories|journal=Memory|volume=22|issue=3|pages=232–242|doi=10.1080/09658211.2013.778290|issn=0965-8211|pmid=23496003|s2cid=31186142}}</ref>  
In a study conducted on September 12, 2001, 54 Duke students were tested for their memory of hearing the terrorist attack and their recall of a recent everyday event. Then, they were randomly assigned to be tested again either 7, 42 or 224 days after the event. The results showed that mean number of consistent inconsistent details recalled did not differ for flashbulb memories and everyday memories, in both cases declining over time. However, ratings of vividness, recollection and belief in the accuracy of memory declined only for everyday memories. These findings further support the claims that "flashbulb memories are not special in their accuracy but only in their perceived accuracy.”<ref>{{Citation|last1=Bohannon|first1=John Neil|title=Flashbulb memories: Confidence, consistency, and quantity|date=1992-10-30|work=Affect and Accuracy in Recall|pages=65–92|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-40188-3|last2=Symons|first2=Victoria Louise|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511664069.005}}</ref>

Many experimenters question the accuracy of flashbulb memories, but rehearsal of the event is to blame. Errors that are rehearsed through retelling and reliving can become a part of the memory. Because flashbulb memories happen only a single time, there are no opportunities for repeated exposure or correction. Errors that are introduced early on are more likely to remain. Many individuals see these events that create flashbulb memories as very important and want to "never forget", which may result in overconfidence in the accuracy of the flashbulb memory.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Talarico | first1 = Jennifer M.
| last2 = Rubin | first2 = David C. 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.1293 
| title = Flashbulb memories are special after all; in phenomenology, not accuracy 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 21 
| issue = 5 
| pages = 557–578 
|date=July 2007 
| url = http://sites.lafayette.edu/talaricj/files/2009/09/TalaricoRubin2007.pdf
| citeseerx = 10.1.1.726.6517
| hdl = 10161/10092
}}</ref>
The most important thing in creating a flashbulb memory is not what occurs at the exact moment of hearing striking news, but rather what occurs after hearing the news.  The role of post-encoding factors such as retelling and reliving is important when trying to understand the increase in remembrance after the event has already taken place.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Coluccia | first1 = Emanuele 
| last2 = Bianco | first2 = Carmela 
| last3 = Brandimonte | first3 = Maria A. 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.1549 
| title = Autobiographical and event memories for surprising and unsurprising events 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 24 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 177–199
|date=February 2010
}}</ref>

Such research focuses on identifying reasons why flashbulb memories are more accurate than everyday memories.  It has been documented that the importance of an event, the consequences involved, how distinct it is, personal involvement in the event, and proximity increase the accuracy of recall of flashbulb memories.<ref name="Sharot T"/>

=== Stability over time ===

It has been argued that flashbulb memories are not very stable over time.  A study conducted on the recollection of flashbulb memories for the [[Space Shuttle Challenger|Space Shuttle ''Challenger'']] disaster sampled two independent groups of subjects on a date close to the disaster, and another eight months later. Very few subjects had flashbulb memories of the disaster after eight months. Considering only the participants who could recall the source of the news, ongoing activity, and place, researchers reported that less than 35% had detailed memories.<ref name= "Bohannon">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Bohannon III | first1 = John Neil
| title = Flashbulb memories for the space shuttle disaster: A tale of two theories 
| doi = 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90036-4 
| journal = Cognition 
| volume = 29 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 179–196 
|date=July 1988
| pmid =  3168421
| s2cid = 41552464
}}</ref> Another study examining participants' memories of the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion found that although participants were highly confident about their memories of the event, their memories were not very accurate three years after the event had occurred.<ref name= "Neisser2">Neisser, U. & Harsh, N. (1992). "Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger", ''Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of flashbulb memories,'' ed. 9–31, New York: Cambridge University Press</ref> A third study conducted on the [[O. J. Simpson murder case]] found that although participants' confidence in their memories remained strong, the accuracy of their memories declined 15 months after the event, and continued to decline 32 months after the event.<ref name="Schmolck2000" />

While the accuracy of flashbulb memories may not be stable over time, confidence in the accuracy of a flashbulb memory appears to be stable over time. 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Weaver|first=C.|title=Do you need a "flash" to form a flashbulb memory?|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=1993|volume=122|pages=39–46|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.122.1.39}}</ref> 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.<ref name= "Davidson">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Davidson | first1 = P. S. R. 
| last2 = Cook | first2 = S. P. 
| last3 = Glisky | first3 = E. L. 
| doi = 10.1080/13825580490904192 
| pmid = 16807198 
| title = Flashbulb memories for September 11th can be preserved in older adults 
| journal = Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 
| volume = 13 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 196–206
|date=June 2006
| url = http://amcog.arizona.edu/pdfs/davidson_cook_glisky2006.pdf <!-- also available at: http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/neuro/fra/documents/davidson_anc_06.pdf and elsewhere -->
| pmc = 2365738}}</ref> Participants also showed greater confidence in memory at the time of retrieval than the time of encoding.

=== Relation to autobiographical memory ===

Some studies indicate that flashbulb memories are not any more accurate than other types of memories.<ref name="Rubin">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Rubin | first1 = David C. 
| last2 = Kozin | first2 = Marc 
| doi = 10.1016/0010-0277(84)90037-4 
| title = Vivid memories 
| journal = Cognition 
| volume = 16 
| issue = 1 
| pages = 81–95 
|date=February 1984
| pmid =  6540650
| s2cid = 39562420 
}}</ref> It has been reported that memories of high school graduation or early emotional experiences can be just as vivid and clear as flashbulb memories.  Undergraduates recorded their three most vivid autobiographical memories.  Nearly all of the memories produced were rated to be of high personal importance, but low national importance.  These memories were rated as having the same level of consequentiality and surprise as memories for events of high national importance.  This indicates that flashbulb memories may just be a subset of vivid memories and may be the result of a more general phenomenon.<ref name="Rubin"/>

When looking at flashbulb memories and "control memories" (non-flashbulb memories) it has been observed that flashbulb memories are incidentally encoded into one's memory, whereas if one wanted to, a non-flashbulb memory can be intentionally encoded in one's memory. Both of these types of memories have vividness that accompanies the memory, but it was found that for flashbulb memories, the vividness was much higher and never decreases compared to control memories, which in fact did decrease over time.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Kvavilashvili | first1 = L. 
| last2 = Mirani | first2 = J. 
| last3 = Schlagman | first3 = S. 
| last4 = Erskine | first4 = J. A. K. 
| last5 = Kornbrot | first5 = D. E. 
| title = Effects of age on phenomenology and consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 and a staged control event 
| doi = 10.1037/a0017532 
| journal = Psychology and Aging 
| volume = 25 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 391–404 
|date=June 2010
| pmid = 20545423 
| hdl = 2299/10440 
| hdl-access = free 
}}</ref>

Flashbulb memory has always been classified as a type of [[autobiographical memory]], which is memory for one's everyday life events.  Emotionally neutral autobiographical events, such as a party or a barbecue, were contrasted with emotionally arousing events that were classified as flashbulb memories.  Memory for the neutral autobiographical events was not as accurate as the emotionally arousing events of Princess Diana's death and Mother Teresa's death.  Therefore, flashbulb memories were more accurately recalled than everyday autobiographical events.<ref name= "Davidson P"/>  In some cases, consistency of flashbulb memories and everyday memories do not differ, as they both decline over time.  Ratings of vividness, recollection and belief in the accuracy of memory, however, have been documented to decline only in everyday memories and not flashbulb memories.<ref name= "Talarico">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Talarico | first1 = J. M. 
| last2 = Rubin | first2 = D. C. 
| title = Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories 
| journal = Psychological Science 
| volume = 14 
| issue = 5 
| pages = 455–461 
|date=September 2003
| doi = 10.1111/1467-9280.02453
| pmid = 12930476
| jstor = 40064167
| url = http://sites.lafayette.edu/talaricj/files/2009/09/TalaricoRubin2003.pdf <!-- looks like open access; also at http://911memory.nyu.edu/abstracts/talarico_rubin.pdf -->
| hdl = 10161/10118 
| s2cid = 14643427 
| hdl-access = free 
}}</ref>

The latent structure of a flashbulb memory is taxonic, and qualitatively distinct from non-flashbulb memories.  It has been suggested that there are "optimal cut points" on flashbulb memory features that can ultimately divide people who can produce them from those who cannot. This follows the idea that flashbulb memories are a recollection of "event-specific sensory-perceptual details" and are much different from other known autobiographical memories.  Ordinary memories show a dimensional structure that involves all levels of autobiographical knowledge, whereas flashbulb memories appear to come from a more densely integrated region of autobiographical knowledge. Flashbulb memories and non-flashbulb memories also differ qualitatively and not just quantitatively.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Lanciano | first1 = T. 
| last2 = Curci | first2 = A. 
| doi = 10.1080/09658211.2011.651088 
| title = Type or dimension? A taxometric investigation of flashbulb memories 
| journal = Memory 
| volume = 20 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 177–188 
| year = 2012 
| pmid =  22313420
| s2cid = 24862794 
}}</ref> Flashbulb memories are considered a form of autobiographical memory but involve the activation of episodic memory, where as everyday memories are a semantic form of recollections. Being a form of autobiographical recollections, flashbulb memories are deeply determined by the reconstructive processes of memory, and just like any other form of memory are prone to decay.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Curci | first1 = A. 
| last2 = Lanciano | first2 = T. 
| doi = 10.3200/GENP.136.2.129-152 
| title = Features of Autobiographical Memory: Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Measurement of Flashbulb Memory 
| journal = The Journal of General Psychology 
| volume = 136 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 129–150 
|date=April 2009
| pmid = 19350832 
| s2cid = 24421614 
}}</ref>

===Importance of an event===

Brown and Kulik (1977) emphasized that importance is a critical variable in flashbulb memory formation.  In a study conducted by Brown and Kulik, news events were chosen so that some of them would be important to some of their subjects, but not to others.  They found that when an event was important to one group, it was associated with a comparatively high incidence of flashbulb memories.  The same event, when judged lower on importance by another group, was found to be associated with a lower incidence of flashbulb memory.<ref name = "Brown"/> The retelling or rehearsal of personally important events also increases the accuracy of flashbulb memories.  Personally important events tend to be rehearsed more often than non-significant events.  A study conducted on flashbulb memories of the [[Loma Prieta earthquake]] found that people who discussed and compared their personal stories with others repeatedly had better recall of the event compared to Atlanta subjects who had little reason to talk about how they had heard the news.  Therefore, the rehearsal of personally important events can be important in developing accurate flashbulb memories.<ref name = "Neisser U"/> There has been other evidence that shows that personal importance of an event is a strong predictor of flashbulb memories.  A study done on the flashbulb memory of the resignation of the British prime minister, [[Margaret Thatcher]], found that the majority of UK subjects had flashbulb memories nearly one year after her resignation.  Their memory reports were characterized by spontaneous, accurate, and full recall of event details.  In contrast, a low number of non-UK subjects had flashbulb memories one year after her resignation.  Memory reports in this group were characterized by forgetting and reconstructive errors.  The flashbulb memories for Margaret Thatcher's resignation were, therefore, primarily associated with the level of importance attached to the event.

When Princess Diana died, it was an unexpected and surprising event. It affected people across the globe. When looking at accuracy, the importance of the event can be related to how accurate an individual's flashbulb memory is. Reports found that among British participants, no forgetting occurred over four years since the event. Events that are highly surprising and are rated as highly important to an individual may be preserved in the memory for a longer period of time, and have the qualities of recent events compared to those not as affected. If an event has a strong impact on an individual these memories are found to be kept much longer.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Kvavilashvili | first1 = Lia 
| last2 = Mirani | first2 = Jennifer 
| last3 = Schlagman | first3 = Simone
| last4 = Kornbrot | first4 = Diana E. 
| title = Comparing flashbulb memories of September 11 and the death of Princess Diana: Effects of time delays and nationality 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.983 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 17 
| issue = 9 <!-- Special Issue: Memory and Cognition for the Events of September 11, 2001 -->
| pages = 1017–1031
|date=November–December 2003
}}</ref>

=== Consequence ===

It was proposed that the intensity of initial emotional reaction, rather than perceived consequence, is a primary determinant of flashbulb memories.  Flashbulb memories of the 1981 [[Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan|assassination attempt on President Reagan]] were studied, and it was found that participants had accurate flashbulb memories seven months after the shooting.  Respondents reported flashbulb memories, despite low consequence ratings.  This study only evaluated the consequence of learning about a flashbulb event, and not how the consequences of being involved with the event affects accuracy.  Therefore, some people were unsure of the extent of injury, and most could only guess about the eventual outcomes.<ref name = "Pillemer">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Pillemer | first1 = David B. 
| title = Flashbulb memories of the assassination attempt on President Reagan 
| doi = 10.1016/0010-0277(84)90036-2 
| journal = Cognition 
| volume = 16 
| issue = 1 
| pages = 63–80 
|date=February 1984
| pmid =  6540649
| s2cid = 32368291 
}}</ref> Two models of flashbulb memory state that the consequences of an event determines the intensity of emotional reactions.  The Importance Driven Emotional Reactions Model indicates that personal consequences determine intensity of emotional reactions.  The consequence of an event is a critical variable in the formation and maintenance of a flashbulb memory.  These propositions were based on flashbulb memories of the Marmara earthquake.<ref name = "Wiley">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Er | first1 = Nurhan 
| title = A new flashbulb memory model applied to the Marmara earthquake 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.870 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 17 
| issue = 5 
| pages = 503–517 
|date=July 2003
| url = http://psicobiologia.campusnet.unito.it/didattica/att/03c8.1087.file.pdf
}}</ref> The other model of flashbulb memory, called the Emotional-Integrative model, proposes that both personal importance and consequence determine the intensity of one's emotional state.<ref name = "Finkenauer">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Finkenauer | first1 = C. 
| last2 = Luminet | first2 = O. 
| last3 = Gisle | first3 = L. 
| last4 = El-Ahmadi | first4 = A. 
| last5 = Van Der Linden | first5 = M. 
| last6 = Philippot | first6 = P. 
| title = Flashbulb memories and the underlying mechanisms of their formation: Toward an emotional-integrative model 
| journal = Memory & Cognition 
| volume = 26 
| issue = 3 
| pages = 516–531 
|date=May 1998
| pmid = 9610122
| url = http://psicobiologia.campusnet.unito.it/didattica/att/4ab8.9646.file.pdf | doi=10.3758/bf03201160
| doi-access = free 
}}</ref> Overall, the majority of research found on flashbulb memories demonstrates that consequences of an event play a key role in the accuracy of flashbulb memories. The death of Pope John Paul II did not come as a surprise but flashbulb memories were still found in individuals who were affected. This shows a direct link between emotion and event memory, and emphasizes how attitude can play a key factor in determining importance and consequence for an event.  Events being high in importance and consequence lead to more vivid and long-lasting flashbulb memories.<ref name="Tinti, C. 2009">{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Tinti | first1 = Carla
| last2 = Schmidt | first2 = Susanna
| last3 = Sotgiu | first3 = Igor 
| last4 = Testa | first4 = Silvia
| last5 = Curci | first5 = Antonietta 
| title = The role of importance/consequentiality appraisal in flashbulb memory formation: The case of the death of Pope John Paul II 
| doi = 10.1002/acp.1452 
| journal = Applied Cognitive Psychology 
| volume = 23 
| issue = 2 
| pages = 236–253
|date=February 2009 
| hdl = 2318/28583
| hdl-access = free}}</ref>

===Distinctiveness of an event ===

Some experiences are unique and distinctive, while others are familiar, commonplace, or are similar to much that has gone on before.  Distinctiveness of an event has been considered to be a main contributor to the accuracy of flashbulb memories.<ref name = "Brewer">Brewer, W. (1988) "Memory for randomly sampled autiobiographical events." In U. Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.), ''Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory'', 21–90. New York: Cambridge University Press</ref> The accounts of flashbulb memory that have been documented as remarkably accurate have been unique and distinctive from everyday memories.  It has been found that uniqueness of an event can be the best overall predictor of how well it will be recalled later on.  In a study conducted on randomly sampled personal events, subjects were asked to carry beepers that went off randomly.  Whenever the beeper sounded, participants recorded where they were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking.  Weeks or months later, the participants' memories were tested.  The researchers found that recall of action depends strongly on uniqueness.<ref name="Brewer" /> Similar results have been found in studies regarding distinctiveness and flashbulb memories; memories for events that produced flashbulb memories, specifically various terrorist attacks, had high correlations between distinctiveness and personal importance, novelty, and emotionality.<ref name="Edery-Halpern 2004 147–157">{{cite journal|last=Edery-Halpern|first=G.|author2=Nachson, I.|title=Distinctiveness in flashbulb memory: Comparative analysis of five terrorist attacks|journal=Memory|year=2004|volume=12|issue=2|pages=147–157|doi=10.1080/09658210244000432|pmid=15250180|s2cid=31338900}}</ref> It has also been documented that if someone has a distinctive experience during a meaningful event, then accuracy for recall will increase.  During the 1989 [[Loma Prieta earthquake]], higher accuracy for the recall of the earthquake was documented in participants who had distinctive experiences during the earthquake, often including a substantial disruption in their activity.<ref name = "Neisser U"/>

===Personal involvement and proximity===
[[Image:LomaPrieta-PacificGardenMall.jpeg|right|thumb|Santa Cruz's historic Pacific Garden Mall suffered severe damage during the [[1989 Loma Prieta earthquake]].]]

It has been documented that people that are involved in a flashbulb event have more accurate recollections compared to people that were not involved in the event.  Recollections of those who experienced the [[1999 İzmit earthquake|Marmara]] earthquake in [[Turkey]] had more accurate recollections of the event than people who had no direct experience.  In this study, the majority of participants in the victim group recalled more specific details about the earthquake compared to the group that was not directly affected by the earthquake, and rather received their information about it from the news.<ref name = "Wiley"/>  Another study compared Californians' memories of an earthquake that happened in [[California]] to the memories of the  same earthquake formed by people who were living in [[Atlanta]].  The results indicated that the people that were personally involved with the earthquake had better recall of the event.  Californians' recall of the event were much higher than Atlantans', with the exception of those who had relatives in the affected area, such that they reported being more personally involved.<ref name = "Neisser U"/> The death of Pope John Paul II has created many flashbulb memories among people who were more religiously involved with the Catholic Church. The more involved someone is to a religion, city or group, the more importance and consequentiality is reported for an event. More emotions are reported, resulting in more consistent flashbulb memories.<ref name="Tinti, C. 2009"/>

A study (Sharot et al. 2007) conducted on the [[September 11 attacks]] demonstrates that proximity plays a part in the accuracy of recall of flashbulb memories.  Three years after the terrorist attacks, participants were asked to retrieve memories of 9/11, as well as memories of personally selected control events from 2001.  At the time of the attacks, some participants were in the downtown [[Manhattan]] region, closer to the World Trade Center, while others were in Midtown, a few miles away.  The participants who were closer to downtown recalled more emotionally significant detailed memories than the Midtown participants.  When looking solely at the Manhattan participants, the retrieval of memories for 9/11 were accompanied by an enhancement in recollective experience relative to the retrieval of other memorable life events in only a subset of participants who were, on average, two miles from the World Trade Center (around [[Washington Square Park|Washington Square]]) and not in participants who were, on average, 4.5 miles from the World Trade Center (around the [[Empire State Building]]).  Although focusing only on participants that were in Manhattan on 9/11, the recollections of those closer to the World Trade Center were more vivid than those who were farther away.  The downtown participants reported seeing, hearing, and even smelling what had happened.<ref name = "Sharot">{{cite journal |author1=Sharot T. |author2=Martorella A. |author3=Delgado R. |author4=Phelps A. | year = 2006 | title = How Personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11 | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume = 104 | issue = 1| pages = 389–394 | doi=10.1073/pnas.0609230103 | pmid=17182739 | pmc=1713166|doi-access=free }}</ref>  Personal involvement in, or proximity to, a national event could explain greater accuracy in memories because there could be more significant consequences for the people involved, such as the death of a loved one, which can create more emotional activation in the brain.  This emotional activation in the brain has been shown to be involved in the recall of flashbulb memories.

=== 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" />