Cited by 495Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyCognitive Functions and Memory

Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger

Neisser, Ulric, Harsch, Nicole·1992·Affect and Accuracy in Recall

Abstract

When I first heard about the explosion I was sitting in my freshman dorm room with my roommate and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash and we were both totally shocked. I was really upset and I went upstairs to talk to a friend of mine and then I called my parents. I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started talking about [it]. I didn't know any details except that it had exploded and the schoolteacher's students had all been watching which I thought was so sad. Then after class I went to my room and watched the TV program talking about it and I got all the details from that. The two memories above are actual written responses to the question “How did you first hear the news of the Challenger disaster?” The first account was given in the fall of 1988, long after the event, by an Emory senior whom we will call “RT.” It was a vivid recollection, which met or exceeded all the standard tests of a “flashbulb memory.” Asked for 5-point confidence ratings of various aspects of the memory, RT hit the top of the scale: 5 on How did you hear it? (television), Where were you? (her room), What were you doing? (watching television), Who was with you? (roommate), and How did you feel? (shocked and upset).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511664069.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neisser and Harsch reported high degrees of inconsistency for memories of hearing about the Challenger explosion three years previously.

    “For example, Neisser and Harsch reported high degrees of inconsistency for memories of hearing about the Challenger explosion three years previously.”
  • Other articles have emphasized that flashbulb memories may show evidence of inconsistency and are not always more consistent than non-flashbulb memories.

    “Other articles, however, have emphasized that flashbulb memories may show evidence of inconsistency and are not always more consistent than non-flashbulb memories (Larsen, 1992; Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Talarico & Rubin, 2003; Talarico & Rubin, 2007).”
  • Multiple perceptual records may be encoded so that, even if each one of them were perfectly accurate, inconsistency could arise from retrieving some of them and not others.

    “It is quite possible, therefore, that multiple perceptual records are encoded so that, even if each one of them were perfectly accurate, inconsistency could arise from retrieving some of them and not others (Kvavilashvili, et al., 2009; Neisser & Harsch, 1992).”
  • They concluded that flashbulb memories did not have special qualities but were likely ordinary memories that had been subject to additional rehearsal.

    “They concluded that flashbulb memories did not have special qualities but were likely ordinary memories that had been subject to additional rehearsal.”
  • Flashbulb memories are usually recalled with a higher degree of confidence than other memories of equal age, even when individuals are confronted with evidence that the event in memory could not have occurred as it is remembered.

    “Flashbulb memories are usually recalled with a higher degree of confidence than other memories of equal age (Brown & Kulik, 1977;Talarico & Rubin, 2003), even when individuals are confronted with evidence that the event in memory could not have occurred as it is remembered (Neisser & Harsch, 1992).”

    From Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience (2004) · cites this paper as Neisser & Harsch, 1992

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neisser, U., & Harsch, N.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Venue
Affect and Accuracy in Recall
Published
1992-10-30
Pages
9-31
OpenAlex
W1541204951
Cited by
493
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 18
FWCI
9.73
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
flashbulb memory, false memory, Challenger disaster, memory distortion, eyewitness testimony, television news

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review