Cited by 105Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyMemory, History, Trauma, Identity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flashbulb Memories

Open access
Hirst, William, Phelps, Elizabeth A.·2016·Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract

We review and analyze the key theories, debates, findings, and omissions of the existing literature on flashbulb memories (FBMs), including what factors affect their formation, retention, and degree of confidence. We argue that FBMs do not require special memory mechanisms and are best characterized as involving both forgetting and mnemonic distortions, despite a high level of confidence. Factual memories for FBM-inducing events generally follow a similar pattern. Although no necessary and sufficient factors straightforwardly account for FBM retention, media attention particularly shapes memory for the events themselves. FBMs are best characterized in term of repetitions, even of mnemonic distortions, whereas event memories evidence corrections. The bearing of this literature on social identity and traumatic memories is also discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0963721415622487

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Berntsen D., 2009, Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives, 197
  2. 10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X · DOI · Paper page
  3. Curci A., 2009, Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives
  4. Luminet O., 2009, Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives
  5. Pillemer D. B., 2009, Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives, 125
  6. Talarico J. M., 2009, Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives, 79

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 105

Metadata

Authors
Hirst, W., & Phelps, E. A.
Affiliations
  • The New School (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Hirst, William
Venue
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Published
2016-02
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
36-41
ISSN
  • 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8721
OpenAlex
W4249075521
Cited by
105
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH066972)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Memory, History, Trauma, Identity
Keywords
flashbulb memory, memory confidence, memory retention, forgetting, media attention, event memory, traumatic memory, social identity

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