Neisser & Harsch (1992)

Neisser and Harsch suggest that FB memories are actually the result of rehearsal- dramatic events are likely to be the ones we think of over and over again.

Procedure: They asked subjects one day after the challenger explosion in 1986 and again 3 years later, about the situation that they were in when they first heard the news..

Findings: Subjects reported highly vivid memories but they were often simply wrong, or didn't make any sense..such as being at an event when they heard, when such event was not taking place at that time.

Conclusion: Possibility exists, that this loss of accuracy over time reflects the flexibility and reconstructive power of the mental system instead of questioning the original vividness of FB memory.

Limitation: Loss of accuracy over memories because the memory itself has been gone over too many times causing the memory to have a great possibility of being altered.


http://lhernandez13.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/53/

http://www.brandimontelab.it/pubpdf/abra/Dissociating%20veridicality%20(16).pdf

Flashbulb Memory- Brown & Kulik (1977)

In the study---Brown & Kulik (1977), redefined the way many viewed flashbulb memories.

The aim of the study was the investigate whether dramatic or personally significant events can cause "flashbulb" memories.

Procedure: They asked 40 white & 40 black Americans whether they recalled vivid memories of hearing of major events, such as, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm "X", Martin Luther King, and the day of Princess Diana's death. They tested their hypothesis by comparing non-consequential events against consequential events.

Findings: FB memory is more likely to be remembered for unexpected or shocking event, also personally relevant events.

Conclusion: Events that we place under dramatic or influential cause us stronger held memory of the event.

Limitation: Data is collected through a questionnaire, so accuracy is doubted.

http://www.psychologistworld.com/memory/flashbulb.php

http://www.coursework.info/University/Biological_Sciences/Psychology/Psychometrics/Brown_and_Kulik_and_Flashbulb_Memories_L9731.html

PTSD

PTSD Is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it's an actual disease or illness that affects the victim of this disorder mentally, physically, and emotionally. It is classified under Anxiety Disorders, though Anxiety is most definitely not all it comes with. The people with this disorder live daily differently then us, trying to avoid thoughts and feelings of the trauma that had once caused their suffering now. They tend to avoid place, people, or things that remind them of any of their traumatic experiences, and they are sensitive to things that to other people are normal but to them are treacherous. 
The symptoms of a sufferer include:
substance abuse ( to help take their mind off of the trauma)
a smaller hippocampus
have trouble keeping their realitionships
loneliness
panic- anxiety
emotional problems mostly in general,
sleep deprivation, etc.
The causes of PTSD are :
Any type of trauma
usually life-threatening, or witnessing a severe accident or severe "torture" to another human, being the victim of torture or kidnapping, sexual assaults, rape, murder, exposure to war combat, forms of abuse, etc.


Memory and Emotion greatly relate to PTSD, it is the cause of PTSD. If you wouldn't have had the memory of this traumatic experience then you would not think or care about it. If you didn't have emotion, the memory would mean nothing to you, you wouldn't dwell on it. It would fade away with time, and soon you would forget it ever happened.

The Possible Biological Components of EMOTION

What exactly is happening in the brain to make activities we enjoy produce the warm glow of contentment? What makes some people more upbeat than others? What areas of the brain are important in controlling our desires to connect with one another?

“We are just beginning to discern what parts of the brain are responsible for certain positive emotions,” Kalin explained. “For example, we are finding that some of the newer, more recently evolved neural structures, such as the limbic system, play vital roles in emotional expression. At the same time, we’ve found that these limbic structures are controlled or modulated by other areas of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex. Our work for the near future is to determine how these and other areas of the brain actually function in human emotional response.”

Davidson, who heads up the Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Research at the Institute, has been studying how differences in the structure of the brain are related to the diverse ways individuals express positive emotional states. Much of his research utilizes modern imaging methods such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the quest for better understanding of the relationship between the brain and emotions.

Davidson says such individuals are characterized by enthusiasm, alertness, energy, persistence in goal orientation and other positive behavioral characteristics. The research so far has shown that the brains of such individuals are also distinctive: They show what Davidson’s research describes as “a pattern of left prefrontal activation.”

“We’ve already discovered that there are differences in the amygdalas of people who appear to be these happy, positive individuals compared with those of individuals who show more vulnerability and more depressive emotion in response to the emotional events in life,” he said.

Seneca and Lazarus- an explanation of emotion?

In all honesty, I don't see how these two philosophers or their "philosophies" relate to each other, Lazarus's appraisal theory explains how emotions happen, and Seneca explains why certain emotions happen, and what we can do to counteract, stop, or decrease their effects. Seneca explains that negative emotions, mainly focusing on anger arise from certain rationally (or more like irrationally) held ideas about the world, and the problem with these ideas, are that they are far too optimistic. In Seneca's analysis, people get angry, because they're too hopeful. Whenever people are angry, there's an element of surprise, self-pity, and injustice, but if we didn't have expectations then we wouldn't get surprised, therefore we wouldn't get angry. Lazarus's appraisal theory insists that our emotions are evaluations of events that cause specific reactions in different people.  Thus the sequence of events is as follows: event, thinking, and simultaneous events of arousal and emotion.

I feel like these two theories would be more explainable had they been put together, Lazarus's appraisal as the first part, Seneca's as the second. They correspond with each other, this I think is the only thing they have in common.

They conflict only a little, because Lazarus's theory states our emotions are based on events and how we interpret them, but Seneca's brings up a new perspective of ours, expectations. Expectations in his theory play a big role, so I'm thinking the way these two could be put together ( like I said would work out perfectly up there ^) would be... Expectations ----> Event-----> Interpretation-----> Simultaneous Arousal  & Emotion.

My opinions are that Lazarus was correct, with that correction ^ and one statement Seneca mentioned in the video that caught my attention was something about how being pessimistic in the end will make you happier because you won't have as big of expectations as an optimist would have. This does make sense, but I think that living your life pessimistically will only hurt you in the end, sure you won't have that much of expectations to live up to, but then what are you living for? You must strive to be better, at all times, with high expectations of yourself. If at the end of the day you fail those expectations, you go home you deal with it, say you can do better, and go back out into the world with the same expectations, starting a new day. If you have expectations or not, i'm not so sure happiness will just fall into your lap.

October 17th, 2011

 This article was on a study that proves emotions are genetically resident within us, San Francisco State University Psychology Professor Matsumoto compared the facial expressions of sighted and blind judo athletes at the 2004 Olympic Games. More than 48,000 photographs were taken and analyzed, including  images of 23 athletes. The conclusion of the study was that the facial expressions of sighted and blind athletes was almost perfect, meaning that emotions must be in our genes if we don't get emotions from observing others.

I choose this article because I was most interested in this one, rather than the others, I also don't agree with this fully.

This article relates to what we've been talking about in class because this article makes it clear that emotions are not because of cultural differences or social differences, but I think that that's slightly correct and slightly not, I think for example when a person lose something they really want like..the olympic medal for a sport they experience the emotion sadness, but a blind person may facially express this emotion differently than a sighted person, because a sighted person is socially effected, they may not want people to see they are that sad, so they may hide it, a blind person is not effected but social standards so their sadness will be more noticable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229080859.htm

Brain Structures & Memory Loss: The Case Study of H.M.- October 21th, 2011

    Scientists tested and saw that there were atleast two systems in the brain for creating new memories. One known as declarative memory record names, faces, and new experiences and stores them until they are consciously retrieved. This system depends on the function of medial temporal areas, such as hippocampus, now the object of intense study. The other system, motor learning is subconscious. This explains why people can jump on a bike after years of not riding which is proven by H.M.'s star test. They learned that without the hippocampus a human brain could not hold thoughts for more than about 20 seconds.
"The study of H.M. by Brenda Milner stands as one of the great milestones in the history of modern neuroscience."