Flashbulb memories are vivid recollections of the circumstances surrounding the learning of a surprising, consequential, and emotionally arousing event — not the event itself, but where you were, what you were doing, who told you, and how you felt when you heard the news. The term was coined by Roger Brown and James Kulik (1977), who studied memories of learning about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and proposed that a special neurobiological mechanism creates these exceptionally vivid memories.
Characteristics
Brown and Kulik noted several consistent features. Flashbulb memories typically include the informant (who told you), the location (where you were), ongoing activity (what you were doing), the person's own emotional reaction (how you felt), the emotional reaction of others, and the aftermath (what happened next). These canonical categories appear across diverse events and cultures, suggesting a common template for encoding personally significant news.
Despite their vividness and the high confidence people place in them, flashbulb memories are not as accurate as they feel. Neisser and Harsch (1992) tested memories of learning about the Challenger space shuttle explosion and found that after three years, many participants' accounts had changed substantially — yet they were highly confident in their (inaccurate) memories. Similarly, Talarico and Rubin (2003) found that 9/11 flashbulb memories were no more consistent over time than ordinary memories, though they were rated as more vivid and more confidently held. This dissociation between confidence and accuracy is a hallmark of flashbulb memory research.
Theoretical Debate
The special mechanism hypothesis (Brown and Kulik) proposed that a distinct "Now Print" mechanism, triggered by surprise and emotional significance, creates permanent, photograph-like memory records. Critics argue that flashbulb memories are simply well-rehearsed ordinary memories — their vividness results from frequent retelling and media exposure rather than a special encoding mechanism. The emotional significance explanation proposes that the strong emotions aroused by the event enhance memory through amygdala-hippocampal interactions without invoking a qualitatively special mechanism.
Role of Emotion and Rehearsal
Current understanding suggests that both emotional arousal at encoding and subsequent rehearsal (discussing the event, media exposure, personal reflection) contribute to the vividness and durability of flashbulb memories. Events that are more personally relevant, more emotionally arousing, and more frequently rehearsed produce stronger flashbulb memories. The amygdala's modulation of hippocampal encoding likely enhances the initial memory, while repeated rehearsal strengthens and sometimes distorts it over time.
Cross-Cultural and Individual Differences
Flashbulb memories vary across cultures and individuals in ways that reflect personal relevance. Americans have stronger flashbulb memories for 9/11 than people from other countries, while Danes have stronger memories for learning about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Within a given event, personal significance, emotional intensity, and consequentiality predict flashbulb memory strength. These findings support the role of personal significance rather than event characteristics per se in determining flashbulb memory formation.