I stand corrected.
After reading up on the concept, I have a few questions. How do you test flash bulb memory without testing the accuracy of the person's memories? What they were drinking and doing is irrelevant if you can't be certain those are the things they actually did. If it isn't irrelevant, let me know why. Why not ask people to describe 9/11 as it occurred in their memory, and then compare that to what actually happened (holographic airplanes, sasquatch-guided missiles and ufos included)? Are you going to separate people who were actually there from those who saw it on television 14 states away, or across the pond? Does it count as a flashbulb memory if someone has seen the footage 14 million times? Are they thrown out of the study?
I'm not being a ****. I'm asking for my benefit.
Well, I'm following an education to become a Usability designer/graphic designer, so we don't go too in depth on our psychology researches. But you do make some interesting notes. One thing you always need to do when you make a psychological experiment paper, is to make recommendations on what the next tester should do, and some of the things you said should certainly be looked into, so I'd like to thank you for that
.
- I cannot be 100% certain on the statements that are given. I can only make assumptions, it was early in the morning/midday and it was an ordinary work day, so I can assume that most people would not be drunk at that given moment (although, again, I can never be certain about that).
- Although it would be interesting to check how memories get 'deformed' over time and compare it to what
actually happened, it is not really 100% relevant in this experiment. I am more interested in
how vivid the stated memories are, and what the difference between men and women are. (as said, supposedly, women should have a lot more vivid memories. So far, I have yet to see anything of this statement come true though.)
- For the second experiment (which is more something I was interested in, not my main experiment, although I will probably include it in my paper), I think I am going to divide it into three groups. Those who were (relatively) close to ground zero, though who were across the States, and those who were outside of the States. Interested to see how proximity affects vividness of ones memories. Though, to make an accurate assumption, I will probably need far more people to join the questionnaire. The amount of people that I have now is about enough to make my paper, but not nearly enough to make some valid statements.
- Interesting note you make about having seen the footage multiple times. I do believe though that, unless you saw the footage a couple of days ago, you will much rather think about the time you
actually saw the event, rather than footage you saw a week after the disaster. This is my opinion though, but it is certainly something I should look into.