Flashbulb Memories: Why Vivid Memories Can Be Inaccurate
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Memory & Forgetting · Written by Artificial Sapiens
A flashbulb memory is a vivid autobiographical recollection of the circumstances in which a person first learned about a surprising, emotionally significant event. Someone may remember the room, a conversation, a television screen, the time of day, and an intense emotional reaction, decades after the news itself. The defining scientific question is whether such compelling recollections remain faithful to what actually happened.
Research finds that flashbulb memories often retain extraordinary subjective vividness and confidence while their details can change over time. In one landmark 9/11 study, consistency declined at roughly the same rate as memories for ordinary events, even though flashbulb memories continued to feel accurate. A ten-year follow-up found early forgetting followed by relative stabilization, with confidence remaining high. These results support a distinction between the feeling of remembering and the historical reliability of each detail. Talarico and Rubin (2003); Hirst and colleagues (2015).
What Is a Flashbulb Memory in Psychology?
Brown and Kulik introduced the term in 1977 to describe memories for the circumstances in which people learned of shocking, consequential news. Their emblematic example was hearing about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The metaphor evokes a camera flash illuminating a scene. It captures a recognizable mental experience, yet a photograph is a misleading model of how the brain remembers. The original paper proposed a distinctive mechanism for such memories; subsequent research has tested that proposal rather than treating it as established. Brown and Kulik (1977).
The target of a flashbulb memory is usually the reception context: where the person was, what they were doing, who delivered the news, what happened immediately afterward, how they felt, and how others responded. The person remembers learning about the event. That is a different question from accurately remembering the public event itself.
Consider a person saying, “I was making coffee when my brother called and told me.” That is a claim about personal circumstances. The same person may separately remember when a public event occurred, who was involved, or the sequence of reported facts. Researchers call this latter information event memory. One person can possess a vivid reception-context memory and a poor factual account, or an accurate factual account and only a vague reception-context memory. Hirst and Phelps (2016).
Flashbulb memory belongs to the broader scientific study of autobiographical and episodic remembering. The term describes a pattern of recollective experience and an experimentally investigated phenomenon. It does not designate a psychiatric disorder, a clinical symptom, an infallible storage mechanism, or a photographic faculty.
Flashbulb Memory Examples
The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, the announcement of the O. J. Simpson trial verdict in 1995, and the attacks of September 11, 2001, became major research cases because they were socially consequential events that people could be asked about again months or years later. Studies have also examined public figures' deaths, political decisions, natural disasters, and important sporting outcomes. The event's significance is shaped by a person's community, age, circumstances, and values. Frinco and colleagues (2024).
Imagine three different reactions to a major event. A student recalls sitting in a classroom when a teacher entered with the news. A nurse recalls learning about it on a night shift. A distant observer recalls hearing a relative speak about it over the phone. Their memories may vary in emotional impact, visual imagery, later rehearsal, and precision. There is no universal list of public events that must generate flashbulb memories in everyone.
A private event can also produce enduring, exceptionally vivid personal remembering, such as hearing about an unexpected death or receiving life-changing news. In research, however, the classical flashbulb-memory design usually concerns the reception of news about a widely known public event. This focus allows researchers to examine the same news event across different people while separately measuring individual recollections of how it was learned.
Flashbulb memory versus a memory of the event itself
The distinction matters for accurate interpretation. Remembering the place where a person first heard about a disaster can be highly vivid; recalling its casualty figures, timing, or sequence can be more accurate because reliable information remains publicly available and is repeatedly corrected. Conversely, information learned much later can be mistakenly incorporated into a memory of the original moment. Hirst and colleagues (2015).
The Six Classical Features of a Flashbulb Memory
Brown and Kulik described six recurring categories in the reports they collected. They were descriptions of commonly remembered content rather than a diagnostic checklist or an obligation for every memory to contain all six: the place where the news was learned; the ongoing activity; the informant or source; the immediate aftermath; the person's own emotional response; and the emotional response of others. Brown and Kulik (1977).
Later investigators often converted these categories into structured interview questions. That made memories easier to compare across time, but it also changed what was being measured: an answer given after a question is not always identical to the information that emerges in spontaneous free recall. A 2020 methodological study showed that free reports and prompted responses do not capture precisely the same components. Researchers therefore distinguish the vivid image a participant spontaneously describes from an inventory of details elicited by an interview. Flashbulb memory: referring back to Brown and Kulik's definition (2020).
The presence of a detailed story at one moment does not prove that the story remains unchanged or accurate. To investigate reliability, a researcher needs a way to compare the recollection with a prior report or independent evidence.
Why Flashbulb Memories Feel So Vivid
Several processes can contribute to the distinctive experience of a flashbulb memory. Surprise and perceived consequence direct attention toward the moment of learning. Emotion can influence what is encoded, what is later rehearsed, and how remembering feels. Subsequent conversations and media coverage give the story repeated opportunities to be retrieved, narrated, updated, and connected with personal or social identity. A contemporary review describes complementary cognitive, emotional, and social pathways rather than reducing the phenomenon to one cause. Luminet and Cordonnier (2025).
Vividness refers to the subjective sensory and experiential qualities of a recollection: a clear visual image, a sense of mentally returning to the original situation, or the feeling that the memory is personally present. Confidence concerns how strongly the rememberer believes a particular detail is correct. Consistency refers to whether the detail is reported the same way on different occasions. Accuracy requires correspondence with independent evidence about the original event. These variables are related, but they measure different things.
Emotion and subjective certainty
Strong emotion can make an experience feel consequential, increase its accessibility, and strengthen the personal meaning associated with it. It does not guarantee faithful storage of every surrounding detail. In the original Duke University study conducted immediately after September 11, remembered visceral emotion was associated with later belief in the flashbulb memory's accuracy, but not with consistency across the interviews. Talarico and Rubin (2003).
This illustrates a central finding: a person can sincerely experience exceptional certainty while reporting a detail differently from an earlier account. Feelings of certainty belong to the evidence about subjective memory experience. They are not themselves verification of the remembered circumstances.
Personal relevance and emotional distance
A public event may touch one person's life directly and remain socially distant for another. In one functional MRI study, people who had been closer to the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks showed stronger amygdala involvement and enhanced subjective recollection when recalling those events three years later, compared with people who had been farther away. The study links personal proximity and emotionally intensified remembering in a specific sample; it does not establish a universal neural signature of truth or a special memory module. Sharot and colleagues (2007).
Repetition, conversation, and collective meaning
People revisit consequential news through conversations, anniversaries, photographs, documentaries, and community rituals. Such rehearsal can preserve a narrative and make it easier to retrieve. It can also preserve an error when a mistaken version is repeated. Hirst and Phelps argue that repeated recall of a reception-context story may reinforce its stable narrative even when parts of the account diverge from an earlier report. Hirst and Phelps (2016).
Group membership also matters. Research on Danish adults remembering the German occupation and liberation during World War II found that people with links to the resistance movement had more vivid and accurate memories than those without such links. This does not mean every highly meaningful memory is accurate; it shows that social position and personally significant involvement can matter, and that the findings from a single student sample cannot simply be applied to everyone. Berntsen and Thomsen (2005).
Why Vivid Flashbulb Memories Can Be Inaccurate
Remembering is an act of retrieval and reconstruction. A person may preserve a strong sense of the central event while confusing the original messenger, the exact location, or the order in which separate reports arrived. Repeatedly imagining or describing an episode can also change which details seem familiar. The mechanisms involve ordinary processes of encoding, retrieval, updating, and source monitoring; a special error-free flashbulb recording system is not required to explain the main empirical patterns. Hirst and Phelps (2016).
An important possibility is confusion between different moments on the day of the news. A person might first have heard an incomplete report from a colleague, then seen extensive coverage on television, and later remember the televised scene as the initial moment. Kvavilashvili and colleagues examined such changes over two- and three-year intervals after September 11, discussing the wrong-time-slice hypothesis as an account of certain distortions. Their findings also illustrate that many memories can retain substantial consistency while a minority contain major changes. Kvavilashvili and colleagues (2009).
Source confusion and later information
A vivid picture in the mind may combine what a person directly perceived, what a friend said, and what subsequent news footage showed. The sensory richness of the reconstruction offers no label that automatically identifies the source of each component. In a study of memories about September 11, many participants incorrectly reported that they had seen television footage of the first aircraft striking the first tower on that morning. The result demonstrates a specific source-related error in that study, not that every account of September 11 is unreliable. Pezdek (2003).
Remembering emotions is also imperfect
People may remember that they felt frightened, shocked, or angry, yet reconstruct the relative intensity or sequence of those emotions inaccurately. A large September 11 study found that reports of initial emotional reactions were less consistent than some contextual details, including where and from whom participants received the news. Emotion is central to how the memory is experienced, but the later report of an earlier feeling is itself an autobiographical memory judgment. Hirst and colleagues (2009).
Confidence can stay high while details change
A recollection does not have to be fabricated to be inaccurate. A person can recall many elements correctly while confusing one or two, and can believe every detail with equal conviction. More extensive distortions are also possible. The scientific challenge is to examine specific content against evidence rather than issue a single verdict about whether someone's entire memory is “real” or “false.” For foundational distinctions and experimental paradigms, see False Memories: How They Form and What Research Shows.
What the Landmark Experiments Actually Found
The Challenger explosion: confidence despite changes
After the January 1986 Challenger disaster, investigators collected early recollections of how students had learned about the explosion and compared them with reports obtained years later. Several later accounts differed substantially from the early written records, even when the remembered scenes felt convincing. This is a foundational example of why contemporaneous reports are useful for studying consistency. The original evidence is described in Neisser and Harsch's chapter on phantom flashbulbs. Neisser and Harsch (1992), Cambridge University Press.
The study is frequently retold as proof that dramatic memories are “wrong.” A more precise reading is that later accounts sometimes differed markedly from reports obtained soon after the event. An early report is useful comparative evidence, although even it is not a complete, infallible recording of the original circumstances.
The O. J. Simpson verdict: distortions can grow over time
Students described how they heard the announcement of the Simpson verdict three days after it occurred. Researchers followed up 15 and 32 months later. After 15 months, 50% of memories were categorized as highly accurate and 11% contained major distortions; after 32 months, the corresponding figures were 29% and more than 40%. Those percentages describe that sample and the study's scoring procedure, not a universal rule for every flashbulb memory. Schmolck, Buffalo, and Squire (2000).
The findings show why the delay between event and measurement matters and why it is misleading to treat recollections collected after one year and after three years as equivalent observations.
September 11: flashbulb and everyday memories
On September 12, 2001, Talarico and Rubin asked 54 Duke University students to describe how they learned of the attacks and to describe an ordinary autobiographical event from approximately the same period. Follow-up testing occurred after one, six, or 32 weeks. Both types of memory became less consistent. However, the flashbulb memories retained markedly stronger reported vividness and confidence than the ordinary memories. Talarico and Rubin (2003).
This contrast is powerful because it compares a remembered exceptional event with a contemporaneous ordinary event within the same research design. Its sample was modest and drawn from university students, so it provides a crucial demonstration rather than an exact population-wide estimate.
September 11: more than 3,000 respondents and a decade of follow-up
A multicenter research program surveyed more than 3,000 people from seven U.S. cities about their reception-context memories and factual memories concerning the attacks. Follow-ups over several years showed rapid early forgetting, followed by slower change or greater stability in later intervals. Hirst and colleagues (2009).
The ten-year follow-up compared responses originally obtained close to September 11 with reports collected about 11 months, 25 months, and 119 months afterward. Confidence remained high even though many recollections had shifted from the initial report. Importantly, repeated incorrect reception-context details were more likely to persist, whereas inaccurate publicly verifiable event facts were more likely to be corrected. Media exposure and conversations predicted factual event memory more effectively than they predicted reception-context consistency at the decade mark. Hirst and colleagues (2015).
These results indicate that a personally meaningful story and a publicly corrigible factual record can follow different trajectories. They also caution against treating “never forgotten” as the literal meaning of a flashbulb memory.
Evidence for accurate and enduring details
The findings are not uniformly pessimistic. A study of September 11 memories over two to three years found relatively high average consistency and comparatively few memories classified as major distortions, depending on the scoring method. Other research on World War II reception memories found surprisingly good agreement with certain historical records decades later. The evidence is therefore about variation in accuracy and the need to measure it correctly, rather than an assumption that flashbulb recollections are necessarily inaccurate. Kvavilashvili and colleagues (2009); Berntsen and Thomsen (2005).
What Modern Reviews Conclude
A 2024 review examined 57 longitudinal test–retest studies of flashbulb memories for public events. The authors found major differences across studies in how memories were elicited, how consistency was scored, how confidence and vividness were assessed, and what threshold counted as a flashbulb memory. These methodological differences can change whether a study appears to support or reject special durability. Researchers should compare several dimensions rather than using one threshold as the whole definition. Frinco and colleagues (2024).
A 2025 scientific review likewise treats the field as an interaction of cognitive, emotional, and social influences. It revisits the debate over flashbulb memory as a special category while discussing time, individual differences, and the links between personal and collective memory. The most defensible general conclusion is that unusually vivid, important memories are real psychological experiences, but their vividness cannot function as an accuracy test. Luminet and Cordonnier (2025).
The literature includes real differences between studies: some find greater stability for particular features or groups, and others find striking changes. Asking whether flashbulb memories are “special” requires specifying special in which respect—subjective vividness, accessibility, long-term consistency, independent historical accuracy, or the proposed neural mechanism.
How Scientists Measure Flashbulb Memory Accuracy
Three commonly confused questions should be separated. Did a participant describe the same detail on both occasions? That is consistency. Does the detail match a verifiable record? That is accuracy. Does the participant believe the detail strongly? That is confidence.
In the classic test–retest method, researchers collect a report as soon as possible after a public event and later request the same information. The early report becomes the comparison point. Researchers then score categories such as location, activity, informant, and other people present. The method is valuable but has limitations: initial reports may already contain mistakes, participants can interpret questions differently, and scoring categories may miss stable perceptual details that emerge only in open narrative. Frinco and colleagues (2024).
Independent records sometimes enable stronger tests. A diary, dated message, photograph, time-stamped call log, or verified event chronology can corroborate a claim, although any single record may be incomplete. Researchers should avoid turning consistency percentages into unconditional claims of veridical accuracy when the original circumstances cannot independently be checked.
A recollection can also be partly accurate. A participant may remember the correct building and companion but the wrong medium through which the news arrived. Binary labels conceal this structure, while detailed comparisons reveal where continuity and distortion occur.
Are Flashbulb Memories Stored Differently in the Brain?
Emotionally relevant remembering involves networks that support attention, autobiographical retrieval, contextual representation, and the processing of emotional significance. The amygdala can participate in the modulation of emotional memory, including in imaging studies of recall related to September 11. That does not mean the amygdala stamps a complete, accurate scene into permanent storage. Sharot and colleagues (2007).
Brown and Kulik's original “now print” account was an influential historical hypothesis. Later evidence shows that ordinary cognitive mechanisms of retrieval, forgetting, reconstruction, and repetition remain highly relevant. A unique neurological recorder that makes every flashbulb recollection reliable has not been established. Current debate concerns how emotional, contextual, personal, and social processes interact, and what kinds of memories or specific details receive relative advantages. Hirst and Phelps (2016); Luminet and Cordonnier (2025).
It is also important to separate brain-activation studies from behavioral verification. A stronger emotional neural response or richer feeling of reliving is evidence about how a memory is processed and experienced. It cannot, on its own, establish what happened years before.
Do Flashbulb Memories Fade or Last Forever?
Some flashbulb memories remain accessible for decades, but accessibility is not identical to unchanged content. Their details can be forgotten, substituted, or stabilized after a period of early change. The long-term September 11 work found a relatively steep early loss of consistency and a later flattening of the forgetting curve. That trajectory is an empirical average across particular study designs, not a timer by which every memory necessarily changes. Hirst and colleagues (2015).
Different details may have different trajectories. The broad fact that one heard startling news may remain stable while the exact wording, time, or original informant becomes uncertain. Continuous social discussion may preserve a story's central shape, including details that were reconstructed incorrectly. Conversely, preserved documents and corrected public records can improve factual knowledge about the event without repairing every detail of the original reception context.
Therefore, “I can picture it perfectly” and “I have remembered it faithfully” are distinct claims that require different forms of evidence.
Individual, Cultural, and Age Differences
Flashbulb memories are partly shaped by who experiences the event and what it means to them. Geographic proximity, perceived personal consequence, group affiliation, and habitual social sharing can influence what a person attends to and how often they revisit the event. Researchers studying different countries and generations have emphasized that one historic event does not carry equal importance for all communities. Berntsen and Thomsen (2005); Luminet and Cordonnier (2025).
Age is another reason to distinguish different outcome measures. A study comparing younger and older adults' September 11 recollections with a staged control event found no significant age effect for flashbulb-memory consistency or reported phenomenology in its sample, while characteristics of the control memories varied with age. This result does not justify a blanket claim that age has no influence on all kinds of flashbulb remembering. It illustrates how emotional significance and study design may affect the observed pattern. Effects of age on phenomenology and consistency of flashbulb memories (2010).
The 2024 methodological review also documented the geographical concentration of the literature, particularly in North America and Europe. Generalization to different cultural groups requires studies of personally and socially consequential events in those populations. Frinco and colleagues (2024).
Flashbulb Memory, Emotional Memory, and Traumatic Memory
Flashbulb memory research focuses on the circumstances of learning significant news and on the properties of subsequent recollection. Emotional memory is a broader category covering how emotion influences encoding, consolidation, and retrieval across many kinds of experiences. Traumatic memories are discussed within clinical and nonclinical literatures about potentially traumatic exposure and its consequences. These areas intersect but have different primary questions.
A powerful flashbulb memory is not evidence that a person has post-traumatic stress disorder. Equally, an inconsistency in how a person recalls hearing disturbing news cannot diagnose dissociation, dementia, malingering, or a trauma-related disorder. Personal experiences and clinical symptoms require appropriate individual assessment when a clinical question exists. The 2016 review discusses links with traumatic and collective memories without making flashbulb memory a clinical diagnosis. Hirst and Phelps (2016).
The same distinction matters in courtrooms, journalism, public inquiries, and families. A deeply felt memory can be meaningful testimony about a person's subjective experience while some details require corroboration. For legal identification and interview procedures, see Why Eyewitness Memory Can Be Wrong.
Practical Implications: How to Treat a Vivid Memory Fairly
If an important personal recollection needs to be checked, separate the parts that can be verified from the parts that are simply experienced vividly. Look for contemporaneous documents, dated correspondence, reliable recordings, and independent accounts. Keep the original report intact when possible and distinguish it from later recollections. Avoid treating repeated retelling as independent corroboration of a detail.
When speaking with someone whose vivid memory differs from yours, compare specific details rather than assuming that one person's confidence proves the other person dishonest. Memory inconsistencies can occur in sincere witnesses, and two accounts may share an accurate core while diverging on peripheral elements. Where the consequences are legal or clinical, trained professionals should use context-appropriate procedures rather than a conversational memory “test.”
For a personal research exercise, write down a remembered reception scene, record the date of the recollection, and separately mark which details are supported by documents. This may help distinguish remembered experience from later reconstruction. It cannot retroactively guarantee accurate recall. Research on everyday retrieval and memory updating belongs to the wider Human Memory framework and How Memory Works.
Common Myths About Flashbulb Memories
Myth: A flashbulb memory is like a photograph
The photographic metaphor describes how a memory may feel. Experiments demonstrate that details can change and that a powerful visual impression does not establish a literal snapshot of the past. Talarico and Rubin (2003).
Myth: Emotional intensity makes every detail more accurate
Emotion can influence attention, persistence, and recollective experience. The specific effect depends on which detail is measured, the person's involvement, and later rehearsal. In some studies, recalled emotions were particularly inconsistent over time. Hirst and colleagues (2009).
Myth: Flashbulb memories are always false
Some recollections retain many stable details, and some aspects can be corroborated. Evidence for distortion establishes fallibility rather than universal inaccuracy. Kvavilashvili and colleagues (2009).
Myth: Confidence alone identifies the truthful witness
Confidence is part of a person's current judgment and can coexist with inconsistent content. In forensic contexts the relation between initial identification confidence, procedure quality, and accuracy is an additional specialist question. Flashbulb-memory studies do not justify a universal numerical conversion from confidence to correctness. Hirst and Phelps (2016).
Myth: If the memory changes, the whole experience was invented
An error in a location, time, sequence, or source does not demonstrate that every other part is fabricated. Scientific evaluation concerns the specific claim and the available evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a flashbulb memory in simple terms?
It is an unusually vivid personal memory of where and how you first heard emotionally important or surprising news. You may remember the setting and your reaction as if reliving the moment, even while some details have changed over time.
What is a classic example of a flashbulb memory?
People remembering where they were when they learned of President Kennedy's assassination or the September 11 attacks are classic cases. The memory under study is typically the experience of receiving the news, not the entire public event.
Are flashbulb memories accurate?
Some details are accurate and stable; others may change or be wrong. Vividness and confidence cannot reliably validate every detail. The most informative approach compares recollections with early reports and independent records. Frinco and colleagues (2024).
Why are flashbulb memories so vivid?
They often concern surprising, consequential events and become linked to emotion, personal identity, and repeated discussion. Cognitive, emotional, and social mechanisms together help explain the strength of the recollective experience. Luminet and Cordonnier (2025).
Are flashbulb memories stored in long-term memory?
They involve autobiographical long-term remembering. But long-term accessibility does not establish permanent preservation of an exact original scene. Researchers examine both persistence and change.
Do flashbulb memories get stronger over time?
A story may become more familiar or subjectively convincing when repeated, but that does not prove greater historical accuracy. Some studies find early loss followed by later stabilization; the trajectory varies with the feature, event, and research design. Hirst and colleagues (2015).
What is the difference between flashbulb memory and ordinary memory?
Flashbulb memories tend to be experienced as exceptionally vivid, emotionally meaningful, and confidently recalled. In direct comparisons, their measured consistency can decline similarly to that of ordinary autobiographical memories. Talarico and Rubin (2003).
Is a flashbulb memory the same as photographic or eidetic memory?
No. Flashbulb memory concerns recollection of learning significant news. The camera metaphor expresses a subjective quality, and it does not establish photographic accuracy or a special ability to preserve visual information without change.
What is the difference between flashbulb memory and a false memory?
A flashbulb memory describes a kind of vivid autobiographical experience and research context. A false memory describes remembered content that does not match the event. A flashbulb memory can be substantially accurate, partly mistaken, or—in some details—false.
How are flashbulb memories tested?
Researchers usually collect an early account of how someone learned important news and compare it with later reports. They separately rate features such as consistency, vividness, and confidence; independent records may help evaluate actual accuracy.
Can flashbulb memories change because of social media or repeated news exposure?
Later information and repeated discussion can influence what a person recalls and believes they originally experienced. However, specific effects of a platform or algorithm require separate evidence. The flashbulb-memory literature directly supports the importance of rehearsal and media attention without proving that every exposure changes every memory. Hirst and colleagues (2015).
Is it normal for two people to remember the same important day differently?
Yes. People attend to different details, receive information through different sources, and rehearse different versions afterward. Differences alone do not establish deliberate deception or a clinical disorder.
Can I tell whether a flashbulb memory is true just by how real it feels?
No. The feeling of reliving is informative about the vividness of the experience, while truth about a particular detail depends on corroborating evidence. A powerful subjective experience and a historically accurate description are different things.
Related Articles
False Memories: How They Form and What Research Shows — How inaccuracies and suggested recollections are studied.
Human Memory: Types, Processes, and How It Works — The wider systems and processes of human remembering.
Autobiographical Memory: How We Remember Our Lives — How personal episodes are reconstructed and integrated into life narratives.
Memory Retrieval: Recall, Recognition, and Cues — Retrieval conditions and the experience of recalling information.
Memory Reconsolidation: What Changes When Memories Are Reactivated — Research on memory updating after reactivation.
Why Eyewitness Memory Can Be Wrong — Distinct forensic issues involving eyewitness accounts.
References
Berntsen, D., & Thomsen, D. K. (2005). Personal memories for remote historical events: Accuracy and clarity of flashbulb memories related to World War II. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.242
Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5(1), 73–99. Journal article
Conway, M. A., Anderson, S. J., Larsen, S. F., et al. (1994). The formation of flashbulb memories. Memory & Cognition, 22(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200860
Frinco, R., Muzzulini, B., Tinti, C., Luminet, O., & Schmidt, S. (2024). A review of longitudinal studies on flashbulb memories: Where we started, are, and are going? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), e4233. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4233
Hirst, W., et al. (2009). Long-term memory for the terrorist attack of September 11: Flashbulb memories, event memories, and the factors that influence their retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015527
Hirst, W., et al. (2015). A ten-year follow-up of a study of memory for the attack of September 11, 2001: Flashbulb memories and memories for flashbulb events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000055
Hirst, W., & Phelps, E. A. (2016). Flashbulb memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415622487
Kvavilashvili, L., Mirani, J., Schlagman, S., Erskine, J. A. K., & Kornbrot, D. E. (2010). Effects of age on phenomenology and consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 and a staged control event. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017532
Kvavilashvili, L., Mirani, J., Schlagman, S., Foley, K., & Kornbrot, D. E. (2009). Consistency of flashbulb memories of September 11 over long delays: Implications for consolidation and wrong time slice hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(4), 556–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.004
Luminet, O., & Cordonnier, A. (2025). Flashbulb memories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102079
Muzzulini, B., Tinti, C., Conway, M. A., Testa, S., & Schmidt, S. (2020). Flashbulb memory: Referring back to Brown and Kulik’s definition. Memory, 28(6), 766–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1778035
Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of “Flashbulb” Memories. Cambridge University Press. Publisher chapter
Pezdek, K. (2003). Event memory and autobiographical memory for the events of September 11, 2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.984
Schmolck, H., Buffalo, E. A., & Squire, L. R. (2000). Memory distortions develop over time: Recollections of the O. J. Simpson trial verdict after 15 and 32 months. Psychological Science, 11(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00212
Sharot, T., Martorella, E. A., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(1), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609230103
Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02453