An exploration of flashbulb memory

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1 – 16

Research Article

An exploration of flashbulb memory Michelle L. Roehm ⁎ School of Business, Wake Forest University, PO Box 7659, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA Accepted by Cornelia Pechmann, Editor; Associate Editor, Vicki Morwitz Received 3 January 2013; received in revised form 14 June 2015; accepted 18 June 2015 Available online 22 June 2015

Abstract Flashbulb memory (e.g., memory of one's personal situation in relation to an extraordinary event, such as a surprise marriage proposal) has yet to be closely studied by consumer researchers, and its underlying processes remain a subject of ongoing investigation. These memories can be vivid and confidently held for years after the inciting event, and when maintained as such, they appear to often include information about brands and products that were present during the original action. Maintenance of flashbulb memories depends on engagement in extensive rehearsal over time, and this is enabled by oral but not written sharing of the episode. © 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Flashbulb memory; Rehearsal; Communication

Introduction Consider the following account of a marriage proposal, which was recorded by a 31-year-old female informant, approximately three years after the occurrence: I drove by myself to Fabian's restaurant, and I was running about five minutes late, because I had to stop for gas. I started to apologize, and then I realized that everyone was watching and smiling. I also noticed that my boyfriend was dressed up, wearing a jacket from Ralph Lauren that I got him for Christmas. Then I saw the ring box. I was so happy! I still get goose bumps. The sharpness of this account stands in contrast to a second one from the same time period. This was provided by the same respondent and reported after a similar three-year delay. We saw the movie Music and Lyrics one night that summer that we were engaged. Back then, he got to choose the movies most of the time, but I guess I got to pick, and so we saw a chick flick. Afterward, we got dinner somewhere. ⁎ Fax: +1 336 758 6133. E-mail address: [email protected].

From a marketing research perspective, it is fascinating to note that there is a greater level of detail in the first memory and that it captures a richer tapestry of consumable goods. In fact, four times as many brands and products are specifically called out in the first vignette (Fabian's restaurant, gas, Ralph Lauren jacket, ring) as in the second (Music and Lyrics movie). Why did the protagonist remember the exact restaurant and precisely what was worn by her partner in the first case but not in the second? The reason may be that the proposal account offers an example of what has been termed “flashbulb memory.” Flashbulb memory is a potent type of autobiographical memory that can be formed after an extraordinary event takes place. In comparison with other autobiographical memories, flashbulb memories are considerably more vivid, include more contextual detail, and are more confidently held (Talarico & Rubin, 2003). As an iconic example, many Americans report remembering keen and specific details of the moment in which they first learned of the 9/11 attacks. Given the potential for consumable goods to be embedded in the fine points of flashbulb memories, as evidenced by the proposal example, this phenomenon may be of interest to marketers who seek ways in which their brands, products and services can gain high memory accessibility. The advantages of high accessibility are widely heralded (Sinha & Naykankuppam,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.004 1057-7408/© 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

2013), with a key benefit being preferred status in consideration and choice sets (Nedungadi, 1990). At the same time, there is an inherent challenge. While flashbulb memories are initially formed as powerful and highly articulated memories, it has also been acknowledged that they are “not indelible” over time (Tinti, Schmidt, Sotgiu, Testa, & Curci, 2009) and can, in fact, run the risk of fading (Talarico & Rubin, 2007). That said, as the proposal account illustrates, there are cases in which these memories can successfully retain their heightened potency even years after formation (Brown & Kulik, 1977). These observations raise the question of how and when the enhanced vibrancy of an initially formed flashbulb memory—including its many contextual details and the brands and products that may be incorporated—may be maintained over time. This issue is central to the current research. Literature review Flashbulb memories capture one's personal circumstances in relation to very unusual events. The name reflects a high level of contextual detail and acute perceptual qualities in these memories, which even years after an instigating event, can feel photo-like (Brown & Kulik, 1977). Researchers in cognitive psychology have distinguished flashbulb memory from everyday autobiographical memory (henceforth, referred to more concisely as “everyday memory”) on both conceptual and phenomenological grounds. Conceptually, flashbulb memory and everyday memory are thought to differ in prevalence and to emerge from different sorts of situations. Everyday memories arise from relatively ordinary events of one's life, such as a nice evening with a friend or a vacation experience (Krishnamurthy & Sujan, 1999; Sujan, Bettman, & Baumgartner, 1993). By contrast, flashbulb memories are more rare and follow extraordinary events that are quite distinctive, highly consequential and strongly emotional (Conway et al., 1994; Finkenauer et al., 1998). Triggering incidents for flashbulb memories are often, though not always, surprising in nature (Curci & Luminet, 2009). They may also be public or private in scope (Harvey, Flanary, & Morgan, 1986; Pillemer, Koff, Rhinehart, & Rierdan, 1987; Thomsen & Berntsen, 2003). Although an inciting event may be a joyful occurrence, such as the fall of the Berlin wall or a marriage proposal, flashbulb memory may also spring forth from a tragic occasion such as the attacks of 9/11 or an incident in which personally devastating news is received (Berntsen & Thomsen, 2005; Bohn & Berntsen, 2007; Scott & Ponsoda, 1996; Tinti, Schmidt, Testa, & Levine, 2014). Supplementing this conceptual distinction, flashbulb memory and everyday memory are also believed to differ reliably on phenomenological dimensions related to vividness and confidence. With regard to vividness, although most autobiographical memories may contain contextual information (Krishnamurthy & Sujan, 1999) and may be more detailed than nonautobiographical memories (Baumgartner, Sujan, & Bettman, 1992), flashbulb memories stand out in the greater number and range of situational details that are reported (Berntsen & Thomsen, 2005; Brown & Kulik, 1977; Conway et al., 1994). Further, and consistent with standard construals of the vividness construct (McGill & Anand,

1989), flashbulb memory features tend to be concrete, evoke elaborate imagery, and have an air of sensory, temporal and/or spatial proximity. Flashbulb memories are also more likely than everyday memories to have the immediacy of a first-person perspective, to capture emotional intensity and to resonate with perceptual vibrancy (“I still get goose bumps;” Bohn & Berntsen, 2007; Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007). From a consumer psychology standpoint, the findings of heightened vividness suggest some intriguing, and as yet, unexplored possibilities. In particular, given the abundant situational detail that flashbulb memories capture, it is conceivable that these memories may provide a repository of brand and product information that can be retrieved when the memory is re-experienced. This premise follows from an observation that consumers' watershed life experiences often operate against a backdrop in which brands and products are present and play a supporting role. Thus, for instance, when the proposal story is revisited, the products and branded items that appeared within it (e.g., restaurant, gas, jacket, ring box) may also be brought to mind, as well as specific, perceptual features of these brand and products. Moreover, these items may be recalled with a high degree of confidence, which may bode well for later choice processes that involve the remembered brands (Tsai & McGill, 2011). Indeed, one of the most reliable findings in the literature on flashbulb memory is that people seem to universally believe that their keen recollections of these episodes are accurate (Bohn & Berntsen, 2007; Conway, Skitka, Hemmerich, & Kershaw, 2008; Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007). Although some question whether this confidence is well-placed (Talarico & Rubin, 2003), a number of prior flashbulb memory studies have, in fact, demonstrated high consistency in recall (Conway et al., 2008; Curci & Luminet, 2006, 2009; Shapiro, 2006). Formation and maintenance of flashbulb memory Two processing stages are thought to underlie flashbulb memory: initial formation and maintenance (Finkenauer et al., 1998). Formation of a flashbulb memory is thought to begin immediately upon exposure to an extraordinary event (Brown & Kulik, 1977). In this stage, a person is prompted to stop, take note, and record information that is present in the personal context of the exceptional occurrence. Variables that affect the likelihood of attending to and encoding the details of the situation are thus expected to have significant effects in this stage (Brown & Kulik, 1977; Conway et al., 1994). Examples are the importance and emotion-arousing qualities of the initial event. In the introductory illustrations, for instance, the marriage proposal was an important and emotionally profound occasion, which would have immediately prompted rich encoding of its details as a flashbulb memory. By contrast, the dinner-movie date with the fiancée was not as significant and emotionally moving, and thus a blander and less finely articulated everyday memory was formed instead. Flashbulb memories that are generated at the initial formation stage are then candidates for a follow-up maintenance stage, which is conceived to extend through the remaining life of a

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

flashbulb memory. In this stage, the vibrant memory that was initially formed may be reinforced and maintain its vigor long afterward, via retellings and recountings—or, alternatively, it may fade and lose its luster. Rehearsal is thought to be a critical process in this stage (Tinti et al., 2014). Success in maintaining a flashbulb memory over the long term, along with the attendant role of rehearsal, will be a central focus of the current research. Documentation of flashbulb memories As a practical matter, researchers often assess the presence of flashbulb memories by asking people to provide an account of a situation within which s/he first encountered a critical event, to rate the vividness of the recollection and/or to express a degree of confidence in it. In keeping with theoretical distinctions from everyday memory, flashbulb memories are expected to evoke more elaborate accounts and to be rated as more vivid and more confidently held. Investigators have employed two types of time windows in collecting flashbulb memory accounts, to enable insight into the formation and maintenance stages, respectively. To assess whether a flashbulb memory has been formed, data collection has occurred soon after exposure to a watershed event—sometimes as quickly as within a single day afterward (Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007), though windows of 1–3 weeks are typical (e.g., Conway et al., 1994, 2008; Curci & Luminet, 2009). From a pragmatic standpoint, a slightly generous time frame may be preferred, as it allows every opportunity for an initially formed flashbulb memory to reveal itself, thus mitigating so-called “right censorship” from timing data collection before a phenomenon has manifest. Accordingly, in the present studies, post-event time windows of 1 week (study 1) and 2 weeks (study 2) will be utilized to document initial formation of flashbulb memories. Researchers also collect accounts after much longer delays, to enable insight into whether a flashbulb memory's special qualities have been maintained in the time since its formation or, conversely, have faded. The long-term vividness and confidence of flashbulb memories have been assessed via time horizons that stretch from six weeks (Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007) up to several years and beyond (Brown & Kulik, 1977; Conway et al., 1994, 2008). Similarly, the forthcoming studies will examine memories that may have been maintained after delays of 6 weeks (study 3) and 1-year (studies 1 and 2) following a precipitating event. Rehearsal In the current research, the main focus is on the latter phase in the life of a flashbulb memory. Specifically, the work examines conditions under which an initially created flashbulb memory (documented a short time after the critical event) will maintain heightened vividness and confidence over a long-term horizon or, conversely, will decay or fade to be no more vivid or confidently held than a memory of an everyday autobiographical event. A key corollary issue of interest will be the possible retention of brand and product information as a flashbulb memory is maintained.

3

Interim rehearsal is conceived to play a key role in maintenance. A number of prior studies have demonstrated an empirical relationship between rehearsal frequency for a flashbulb memory and the ability to later provide a detailed, vivid, confident account after a lengthy lapse in time (Bohn & Berntsen, 2007; Conway et al., 1994; Curci & Luminet, 2006, 2009; Finkenauer et al., 1998; Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007; Tinti et al., 2014). Thus, for example, the ability to vividly and confidently describe a marriage proposal several weeks, months or years after it occurred would be related to the number of times that the recipient has rehashed the story prior to the occasion on which the account was assessed. Noting the regularity with which rehearsal has been linked to successfully maintained flashbulb memories, it may be surprising to realize that treatment of the concept in this literature has, to date, been somewhat superficial. The usual approach has been to position rehearsal as a simple act of repetition at the level of the aggregate memory bundle. A typical question posed to assess this would be, for example, “How frequently did you speak about [the event] and the circumstances in which you learned of it?” (Tinti et al., 2014). While this is a useful place to start, it also seems to be a bit incomplete. Assessment at the collective memory level does not get inside the rehearsal episode to address what has been revisited and reinforced within the memory. At the same time, given the hallmarks of flashbulb memory—for instance, the prolific number and range of crisp, lively contextual details, and the perceptual sharpness with which the details are often held—it seems possible that a more granular approach to rehearsal could offer some new insights. Rehearsal extensiveness In particular, to account for these characteristics of flashbulb memory, it may be useful to consider a dimension that goes beyond sheer frequency, which will herein be termed rehearsal “extensiveness.” Extensiveness can be linked to what has elsewhere been called the “accuracy” of rehearsal (Dudukovic, Marsh, & Tversky, 2004), and it can operationally be thought of as reflecting the number of specifics and sensory cues that are invoked on each occasion of rehearsing a story. More extensive rehearsal would involve the retrieval and practice of many elements of an event and its context, potentially including brands and products that were present in the original episode. By contrast, less extensive rehearsal is conceptualized as “selective,” focusing on smaller subsets of the details associated with the initial event (Marsh, Tversky, & Hutson, 2005; Tversky & Marsh, 2000). In a nutshell, it is proposed that well-maintained flashbulb memories may often have benefited from not just frequent rehearsal, but also extensive rehearsal. Thus, in sustaining the kind of vividness and confidence that is associated with flashbulb memories, it may not simply be important that people have revisited flashbulb memory stories lots of times per se, but also that each time a seminal episode was recounted, the retelling included—and therefore enabled rehearsal of—many components of the incident and its surroundings. In turn, replaying the finer details again and again, including their emotional charges or

4

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

sensory characteristics, may have helped them to remain present in a memory to sustain flashbulb qualities. The idea of rehearsal extensiveness lines up with an observation in the psychology literature that flashbulb memories are characterized by “rehearsal reversal” (Larsen, 1992)—that is, nonessential details are not set aside during recounting of flashbulb memories, to simply emphasize a gist or central point. Rather, they continue to play a prominent role. Put another way, the role of peripheral details is “reversed” from the de-emphasis that might naturally be expected for extra details as a story is repeated. This tendency, it may be noted, stands in direct contrast to the life cycle of a typical everyday memory, where in order to make retellings interesting and concise, individuals often edit to “level” or condense marginal details and to “sharpen” focus on core aspects of the episode (Schank & Abelson, 1995). To the extent that brands and products play support roles in flashbulb memory events, this rehearsal reversal should be key to their retention in the story. It thus bears considering why, then, human beings may depart from the practices of leveling and sharpening to extensively rehearse details of flashbulb memories. Why hang on to such incidental information as what brand of jacket a new fiancée wore on the occasion of his proposal? One factor may be that flashbulb memories lend themselves to interpersonal retelling, because they offer especially compelling and dramatic stories that we can share with others to punctuate conversational exchanges. As such, rehearsal may often occur in social settings, as opposed to occurring via internal rumination. Importantly, in relating flashbulb memories to others, we should conform to understood rules for captivating story-telling. Details are perceived by listeners to enhance the truthfulness, accuracy and believability of a story (Pillemer, 1992). Such norms may therefore encourage a generous inclusion of specifics and therefore fairly extensive rehearsal of the original incident (including any brands and products that were entailed) each time it is rehearsed in recounting to others. Another critical factor may be cognitive structure. Leveling and sharpening are facilitated when a similar story already exists in memory and elements can be borrowed from it (Schank & Abelson, 1995). By contrast, the pivotal moment at the heart of a flashbulb memory is so unusual that it may defy combining with or borrowing from an already-developed schema. In essence, the event's extraordinary nature means that a person is unlikely to already possess a schema that is appropriate to leverage. As the incident is replayed, the original details associated with it (including incorporated brands and products) may be consulted again and again, because there is not another applicable schema from which to lift. With frequent revisitings, the details would maintain accessibility and not be leveled or sharpened away. Rehearsal extensiveness versus vividness At this juncture, it may be useful to pause to differentiate rehearsal extensiveness from the idea of vividness as a quality of a flashbulb memory. These two concepts may seem similar, in that they both relate to rich inclusion of detail. However, they differ in their roles and positions within the life of a flashbulb memory.

Vividness refers to an outcome. It reflects the status of a memory at a particular moment in time, with regard to how much detail the memory contains and how vibrantly the specifics are represented. Extensive rehearsal, on the other hand, is an activity that can contribute to that outcome. In terms of timing, rehearsal occurs in the interim period between flashbulb memory formation and any later moment at which we have chosen to assess vividness (or other) outcomes. Moderation If the present theorizing is accurate, it may be used to predict moderation of flashbulb memory maintenance—that is, conditions under which a flashbulb memory might fail to maintain its heightened vividness and confidence as compared to typical everyday memories. If, as is argued, the long-term advantages held by flashbulb memories depend on extensive rehearsal, then it follows that if extensiveness was systematically undermined, a flashbulb memory may lose its special qualities. In such a case, a memory that initially showed flashbulb characteristics in an immediate post-event account may fade to be similar to memories of more mundane events. Any number of factors might undercut the degree to which initially formed flashbulb memories would be extensively rehearsed over time. One, in particular, which has high relevance in today's consumer marketplace, is the communication modality within which personal news is shared. Communication modality Prior flashbulb memory research has tacitly assumed that oral conversation has constituted the backdrop within which flashbulb memories, which have been initially formed, will be revisited and shared with others. This narrow focus on oral sharing is perhaps surprising in two respects. First, written alternatives abound and are quite popular nowadays as ways of trading personal history and building relationships. Prominent contemporary examples would include e-mail, texting and social media posts. Second, in the communication literature, a rich tradition of research distinguishes between oral versus written exchanges, with a strong general finding of differences between these modalities (for a historical review, see Chafe & Tannen, 1987). The current research thus departs from precedent in the flashbulb memory literature to compare outcomes of rehearsal in oral versus written modalities. This contrast is undertaken, in part, because there is a strong reason to expect that oral and written modalities will place different cognitive demands on the person recounting the memory and thus that rehearsal patterns may differ in their extensiveness. In brief, written exchanges appear to require more cognitive effort to engage in and to process than do oral exchanges (Berger, 2014). As such, written modalities may be less conducive to the provision of minute accounts of events. In support of this proposition, it is relevant to note findings that written communication takes more time (Graetz, Boyle, Kimble, Thompson, & Garloch, 1998; Kock, 1998, 2007) and results in fewer uttered thoughts than oral communication (McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler,

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

& McGuire, 1986). Moreover, recent marketing research suggests that differential demands of written communication persist even in the internet age. In this vein, consumers' word-of-mouth brand recommendations are more prolific in oral rather than written venues (Berger & Iyengar, 2013). Several dimensions on which oral and written communication diverge may contribute to the difference in cognitive resource requirements. One is, quite simply, the greater physical work that is entailed with written communication. Even for young persons in the so-called “thumb generation,” who have strong facility with texting, typing (or especially writing in longhand) requires some level of physical exertion that is not invoked in vocal exchanges. In addition to the physical aspect, there are also taxing psychological dimensions to written communication. Its asynchrony— that is, the delay between utterance and response—begs for effortful self-editing and revision prior to sending a final version (Berger, 2014; Berger & Iyengar, 2013), and this may invite significant, arduous consideration of the social risks associated with putting one's thoughts in writing (Eisingerich, Chun, Liu, Jia, & Bell, 2015). This is true even in the somewhat informal world of social media. To wit, over 70% of those posting on Facebook report that they self-censor or edit their entries before clicking “send” (Das & Kramer, 2013). On the other hand, the synchrony of a typical oral exchange—the immediacy of the back-and-forth interaction—may provide easily flowing questions and other reactions from the conversational partner, which can serve to prompt inclusion of rich and vivid details in recounting an event. Another basis for a resource differential would be that “lean” written exchanges are especially challenging in that they lack certain simplifying cues (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Such things as body language or vocal inflection provide potent short-cuts to suss out shades of meaning and determine appropriate responses (Kock, 2004, 2007). These dimensions are absent from pure written modalities. Thus, a communicator must work harder to elucidate a story. If it is, in fact, more effortful to exchange information via written rather than oral conversation, then it may often be the case that relatively few details will be shared (and rehearsed) when an autobiographical event is recounted in a written modality. Thus, for every opportunity to rehearse a story such as a flashbulb memory, the rehearsal may be less extensive when communication is written rather than oral. As time passes, and the episode is repeatedly recounted in a relatively condensed written form, the details associated with the original incident may fade due to lack of reinforcement. Along with other specifics, brands and products that were part of the original context may fall by the wayside in the decayed version of the memory. In the present research, communication modality is therefore investigated as a potential moderator of flashbulb memory maintenance. It is predicted that, when the primary mode of interpersonal communication has been oral, the communication modality will not have inherently limited rehearsal of the exceptional event; thus, rehearsal will have been extensive. Accordingly, the enhanced vividness and confidence for the flashbulb memory, as compared to typical everyday memories,

5

should be maintained. The maintained flashbulb memory should retain copious numbers of details, including brands and products that were present in the original scenario. By contrast, when a consumer's primary means of recounting an extraordinary event has been through written venues, rehearsal is likely to have been abridged and more selective—in other words, to have been less extensive. Access to fine details (including brands and products) may thus have diminished over time, and both vividness and confidence may have weakened. In this way, a memory that initially had flashbulb qualities may fail to maintain them. In such a case, a difference from everyday memories may not be observed in the long term, and the initial flashbulb memory will have faded. Operational definitions of communication modality As an operational note, the forthcoming studies will represent oral versus written communication in two different ways. In the first two studies, respondents self-report their generally preferred mechanism for communicating personal news to others, by selecting either an oral category (talking in person or by phone) or a written category (including e-mail, text message, and social media updates). Multiple options are included within each category, in order to span a realistic range of communication modalities that are available to consumers today. These category groupings are supported by recent empirical evidence, which suggests that face-to-face and phone conversations operate similarly to one another as representations of oral communication, and that e-mail, texting and social media postings operate similarly to each other as representations of written communication (Berger & Iyengar, 2013). In the third study, communication modality was manipulated rather than measured, and thus it was necessary to narrow the communication choices. Because of the ubiquity of mobile phones in the modern consumer marketplace, phone conversation was chosen for the oral communication category. By similar logic, e-mail was chosen, because of its pervasiveness, as the representation of the written category. Introduction to studies 1 and 2 Studies 1 and 2 follow a similar outline, although they take place in very different contextual settings. Following Talarico and Rubin (2003, 2007), respondents' situational memories of an extraordinary life event are contrasted with those of a more mundane, everyday autobiographical event. Because extraordinary events that are important and emotionally arousing are more likely than mundane events to be beget richly encoded flashbulb memories (Brown & Kulik, 1977; Conway et al., 1994; Finkenauer et al., 1998), this manipulation was expected to vary the likelihood that a flashbulb memory will have been formed or not. Formation of a flashbulb memory was assessed approximately one or two weeks after the extraordinary event. Evidence of flashbulb memory formation was operationally defined as the observation of heightened vividness and confidence in comparison to baselines established by the mundane everyday events. Ratings of vividness and confidence were obtained, and

6

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

vividness was also assessed by means that are traditional in the flashbulb memory literature, via open-ended accounts that were coded for the presence of who–what–where–when-type details. In addition, given the interest in exploring whether enhanced vividness will bring with it strong access to brand and product details, appearances of information about consumable goods were also coded. About one year after the extraordinary event, similar data were collected again from the same respondents. This second wave of data was expected to provide insight into the chief interest of the current research, which is the maintenance of the flashbulb memories. At this later time point, communication preferences for oral or written modalities were also measured. Communication modality was expected to have moderated the maintenance of flashbulb memories in the time since they were initially formed. Thus, it was predicted that communication modality would interact with initiating event to determine a memory's vividness, confidence and level of detail a year after the extraordinary event. Study 1 In study 1, the extraordinary event was a marriage proposal. The design for study 1 was 2 (initiating event: mundane everyday episode vs. extraordinary marriage proposal; a between-subjects manipulated variable) × 2 (preferred communication modality: oral vs. written; a between-subjects measured variable), leveraged across two measurement timings: (one week post-event and one year post-event). Recruitment Newly engaged brides-to-be were enlisted, because their recent proposal experience might have potential to inspire a flashbulb memory. To entice potential respondents, research assistants distributed flyers outside jewelry stores in two mid-sized cities in the southeastern U.S., inviting purchasers of engagement rings to enroll a soon-to-be-fiancée in a consumer study. Participants received a $25 restaurant gift card after the initial survey and a second one after the follow-up survey at the one-year mark. During the recruitment process, interested engagement ring shoppers provided anticipated betrothal dates, which enabled careful management of the questionnaire timing. Procedures at one week A link for the initial survey was e-mailed to each bride-to-be seven days after her expected proposal date. Depending on the condition to which each individual was randomly assigned, the online survey either featured a set of questions about the proposal or about an “everyday personal event from the past week,” for which respondents were asked to give a short descriptive title that could be referenced later. The sorts of ordinary events that were provided had such titles as “lunch with Mom,” “shopping for a bathing suit,” and “taking Scout to the vet.” After identifying the initiating event, respondents were asked to describe in their own words what had transpired. They

then rated the vividness of the memory on three items: not vivid/ vivid, not concrete/concrete, and not easy to picture/easy to picture; unless otherwise noted, all ratings were obtained on 1–7 semantic differential scales. Next, participants indicated confidence in the memory, utilizing an approach with precedent in the flashbulb memory literature (Talarico & Rubin, 2007): “To what extent do you believe the event in your memory really occurred in the way you remember it?” (1 = 100% imaginary, 7 = 100% real) and “To what degree could you be persuaded that your memory was wrong?” (1 = completely, 7 = not at all). Following this, participants were presented with two probes regarding marketing-related details of their memory. First, they were asked to list any brands or products present during the reported event. They then were prompted to list any features or attributes that they remembered for these products and brands. Finally, several questions provided manipulation checks on the extraordinariness of the event, using dimensions from the flashbulb memory literature: distinctiveness (not unique/unique, totally nondistinctive/very distinctive), surprise (not at all surprising/very surprising, not at all expected/very much expected), consequentiality (not important at all/very important, no consequences at all/many consequences), and emotionality (not emotional/emotional, indifferent to/not indifferent to). Procedures at one year A link for the follow-up questionnaire was sent to the same set of respondents 365 days after the initial survey. The second survey began by providing a brief descriptor for the memory (“your engagement” or the label for the everyday event that the respondent had provided during the first report). The memory description, vividness, confidence, and product/brand/feature probe questions were then repeated from the earlier survey. Next, respondents encountered four items regarding general frequency of rehearsal. As broad rehearsal frequency was not a focus of this research, these items were set aside during analysis. Three items next assessed extensiveness of rehearsal, asking “How would you describe your revisitations of this story over the past year—for example, the times when you have thought about it or shared it with others?” (included few details/ many details, not thorough/thorough, not extensive/extensive). A “not applicable” box was also available as a response for the three extensiveness questions (it was not used). To conclude this survey, participants were asked to describe their “preferred mechanism, in general, for communicating personal news to other people” (emphasis in original). Three choices were given: a category of oral communication options (“talking in person or by phone”), a category of written communication options (“via e-mail, text message, social media updates, etc.”), and an “other: please specify” category. Only two respondents selected “other,” and neither provided the requested specification. These individuals thus were omitted from further analysis, as were four persons who failed to respond to the second half of the survey (two from each event condition). Of the final sample of 84 respondents (median age 27), 50 reported that they preferred oral communication

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

(talking by phone or in person), and the remaining 34 individuals indicated that they preferred written alternatives (e-mail/text/ social media). Analysis and results All multi-item scaled measures were factor-analyzed, checked for reliability (rs = .78–.88, αs = .86–.95) and internally averaged to form individual indices. Means and standard deviations for the dependent variables from study 1 are provided in Table 1. Data coding The open-ended data collected at one week and at one year were coded in numerous ways. Two assistants, blind to hypotheses and conditions, performed each of the coding tasks, using explicit coding criteria that are provided in the appendix. Counts were obtained separately for the one-week and one-year reports, unless otherwise indicated. Inter-rater agreement was 86% overall, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. For the event descriptions, the two assistants coded total numbers of contextual details, using guidelines that follow strong precedent in the flashbulb memory literature in focusing on “canonical categories” of details that surround the remembered event (e.g., see Brown & Kulik, 1977). These include: a) location, b) ongoing activity prior to the event or immediately after it, c) time of day, and d) other people present. Next, for the brand and product recall listings, the assistants counted the number of brands and number of products listed. For the feature recall listings, the assistants counted the number of features listed per brand or product and the subset of those recalled features that were sensory in nature, describing how something felt, tasted, smelled, or sounded; the sensory subset

7

was then expressed as a percentage of all recalled features for each respondent. Finally, the assistants also compared the brand recall at one week to the brand recall at one year. The goal was to gauge the consistency of verbatim brand mentions between the one-week and one-year time frames. To perform the consistency assessment, the percentage was determined of all of a respondent's recalled brands that were mentioned at both the one-week and one-year measurement points. Details of this calculation are provided in the appendix. Manipulation checks The event manipulation was intended to vary the precipitating event's extraordinariness and thus the potential for a flashbulb memory to have been initially formed. The indices of the initial episode's extraordinariness (distinctiveness, surprise, consequentiality, and emotionality) loaded on a single factor and thus were combined into a single variable. ANOVA with initiating event and preferred communication modality as predictors revealed that, relative to the everyday occurrences, the proposals were rated as more distinctive, surprising, consequential and emotional (M = 5.85 vs. 2.89, F(1, 80) = 168.35, p b .01). These results are consonant with the expectation that a marriage proposal would have the extraordinary characteristics to inspire flashbulb memory. As expected, since these items were intended as manipulation checks only on the event manipulation, there were no main or interactive effects for communication modality (ps N .12). Preliminary analyses Correlations were examined among all of the dependent measures. Having ascertained that the correlations fell into the moderate and acceptable range for MANOVA (rs = .31 to .68; Tybout et al., 2001), a repeated-measures MANOVA was

Table 1 Study 1 means and standard deviations. a One week

One year

Oral

Cell size Vividness Confidence Contextual details No. of brands and pdcts Features per pdct, brand Raw % sensory features b Raw % repeated brands b Rehearsal extensiveness a b

Written

Oral

Written

Proposal

Everyday

Proposal

Everyday

Proposal

Everyday

Proposal

Everyday

25 5.68 .90 5.84 1.07 2.72 1.02 6.08 2.14 2.52 1.12 .66 .30

25 2.84 1.14 2.84 .94 .72 .74 3.16 1.52 .88 .88 .22 .33

17 5.35 .93 5.12 1.50 2.24 1.20 5.53 1.70 2.41 1.00 .54 .32

17 2.41 1.00 2.71 1.05 .71 .68 3.59 1.50 .94 .65 .21 .39

25 5.52 1.04 5.68 1.11 2.36 1.08 5.06 2.05 2.40 1.26 .57 .26 .56 .36 5.60 1.00

25 2.80 1.15 2.80 .91 .52 .65 2.76 1.58 .84 .80 .17 .28 .09 .17 2.80 .98

17 2.47 .87 2.65 .93 .71 .69 1.82 1.31 1.18 .53 .18 .28 .23 .22 2.56 .75

17 2.24 .90 2.35 .93 .59 .62 2.50 1.19 .88 .70 .18 .35 .05 .14 2.29 .85

Standard deviations are listed below corresponding means. Proportion data were arcsine-transformed prior to analysis. However, means in the table reflect more intuitive raw scores.

8

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

conducted, as recommended by Mayers (2013). For these analyses, the two primary study factors (initiating event, communication modality, between-subjects) plus measurement timing (one week vs. one year, within-subjects) were independent variables and the dependent variables were one-week and one-year measures of vividness, confidence, number of details, number of brands and products, features per brand and percent sensory features. A three-way interaction was observed (Wilks' λ = .48, F(6, 75) = 13.43, p b .01). This suggests that different patterns of outcomes may have occurred at the one-week and one-year measurement points, as would be expected if communication modality moderated maintenance of a flashbulb memory (captured at one year) but did not impact initial formation (captured at one week). To probe this result, more detailed analyses are reported below within variable and time frame. Results: one week (flashbulb memory formation) Measures taken at one week were analyzed as functions of initiating event and communication modality. As expected, relative to the everyday events, the proposal accounts were rated as more vivid (M = 5.55 vs. 2.67, F(1, 80) = 167.43, p b .01) and more confident (M = 5.56 vs. 2.79, F(1, 80) = 116.20, p b .01), and they included more contextual details (M = 2.52 vs. .71, F(1, 80) = 73.43, p b .01). For marketers, it is also critical to note that the proposal also included more brands and products (M = 5.86 vs. 3.33, F(1, 80) = 38.64, p b .01) and more features per brand or product (M = 2.48 vs. .90, F(1, 80) = 54.44, p b .01) and that a greater proportion of features that were sensory in nature (M = .62 vs. .21, F(1, 80) = 21.33, p b .01). With its superior vividness, confidence and level of detail, the proposal scenario thus appears to have motivated formation of a flashbulb memory. Communication modality did not have a significant main effect or interactive effect on any of the one-week measures (ps N .23). These null results were expected, because this variable is not conceptualized to moderate formation of flashbulb memories, as measured at one week. Results: one year (flashbulb memory maintenance) ANOVA revealed a common interactive pattern (event × communication modality) of results across one-year measures. These include vividness ratings (F(1, 80) = 29.92, p b .01), confidence ratings (F(1, 80) = 35.06, p b .01), number of contextual details (F(1, 80) = 23.24, p b .01), number of brands and products (F(1, 80) = 17.06, p b .01), features per brand or product (F(1, 80) = 21.21, p b .01), percent sensory features (F(1, 80) = 9.48, p b .01) and the percentage of brand names that were consistently repeated from 1 week to 1 year (F(1, 80) = 7.98, p b .01). For all of these variables, analyses of simple effects indicate that scores were higher for the proposals than for the everyday events when the preferred communication modality was oral (Mvividness rating = 5.52 vs. 2.80, F(1, 80) = 88.57, p b .01; Mconfidence = 5.68 vs. 2.80, F(1, 80) = 107.43, p b .01; Mdetails = 2.36 vs. .52, F(1, 80) = 65.55, p b .01; Mbrands and products = 5.06 vs. 2.76, F(1, 80) = 25.15, p b .01; Mfeatures per product or brand =

2.40 vs. .84, F(1, 80) = 37.10, p b .01; M% sensory features = .57 vs. .17, F(1, 80) = 19.27, p b .01; M% repeated brands = .56 vs. .09, F(1, 80) = 39.67, p b .01). In the oral condition, the superiority of the proposal over the everyday memory, which was observed at the memory formation stage, was thus maintained over a full year. However, this was not the case when the modality was written. In the written condition, the proposal memory's vividness and confidence at one year were no stronger than the everyday memory (Mvividness rating = 2.47 vs. 2.24, F(1, 80) = .45, p N .50; Mconfidence = 2.65 vs. 2.35, F(1, 80) = .76, p N .39; Mdetails = .71 vs. .59, F(1, 80) = .18, p N .67; Mbrands and products = 1.82 vs. 2.50, F(1, 80) = 1.48 p N .23; Mfeatures per product or brand = 1.18 vs. .88, F(1, 80) = .90, p N .35; M% sensory features = .18 vs. .18, F(1, 80) = .14, p N .71; M% repeated brands = .23 vs. .05, F(1, 80) = 2.35, p N .13). In sum, as expected, the proposals' advantages over everyday memories, which were apparent at the one-week mark, were ultimately moderated by communication modality. The result in the proposal/written communication condition is particularly noteworthy. There was evidence that a flashbulb memory had initially formed in this condition, as evidenced by high vividness and confidence scores at one week. However, at one year, scores in this condition had decayed to be no stronger than those for everyday memories. In the written condition, the flashbulb memory appears to thus have faded. The present theory suggests that this occurred, because rehearsal between the one-week and one-year checkpoints was not extensive when conducted in a written modality. A mediation analysis now probes this explanation. Mediation by rehearsal extensiveness To examine the role of rehearsal in producing the memory results observed at one year, means were examined for the self-report measure of rehearsal extensiveness. ANOVA revealed the same interaction (F(1, 80) = 38.56, p b .01) and pattern of simple effects that were observed on the dependent measures. That is, more extensive rehearsal of the story over the past year was reported for the proposal rather than the everyday memory when the primary communication modality was oral (M = 5.60 vs. 2.80, F(1, 80) = 116.20, p b .01), but not when the modality was written (M = 2.56 vs. 2.29, F(1, 80) = .71, p N .40). A moderated mediation analysis was then conducted, following guidelines in Hayes (2013). In this analysis, the independent variable was initiating event (which determined whether a flashbulb memory was initially formed), the moderator was communication modality, and the mediating variable was the rating of rehearsal extensiveness. As dependent variables, each of the one-year measures was separately tested. As expected, the advantages of the proposals over everyday memories at one year were mediated by rehearsal extensiveness in the oral communication condition, though not in the written communication, where no one-year advantage was observed. That is, bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (10,000 samples) did not include zero in the oral communication condition, but did include zero in the written communication condition. For the oral (written) communication condition, upper and lower bounds for a 95%

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

confidence interval were as follows: 2.2643 to 3.4124 (− .3000 to .8062) for vividness; 2.2145 to 3.3331 (− .2533 to .7916) for confidence, .8419 to 1.7030 (− .1078 to .3870) for contextual details, 1.7076 to 3.2070 (− .2242 to .7155) for number of brands and products, .6352 to 1.5343 (− .0968 to .3333) for features per brand or product, .1397 to .4920 (− .0287 to .1066) for percent sensory features, and .1190 to .5975 (− .0326 to .1268) for percent of brands repeated at 1 week and 1 year. Discussion Study 1 is quite consistent with the theoretical propositions that have been advanced. Overall, the data illustrate key differences between flashbulb proposal memories versus everyday memories and demonstrate an important moderating role for communication modality. Moreover, as theorized, rehearsal extensiveness made a critical contribution to whether initially formed flashbulb memories' special qualities were maintained in the year between the proposal event and the assessment. One outcome that merits specific attention is the result for brand recall consistency. In the condition in which the highest confidence levels were recorded after one year (for a proposal primarily rehearsed via an oral communication modality), there was also the most impressive level of consistency in repeat of brand name mentions. This finding is relevant to an ongoing conversation in the psychology literature over whether flashbulb memories breed false confidence (e.g., Talarico & Rubin, 2003). The results of study 1 provide some reassurance on this point. Implications for marketers Some marketers operate in industries in which flashbulb memories may be particularly likely to arise. An example would be the wedding and engagement industry. The findings of study 1 offer promising news to these marketers, indicating that when flashbulb memories are preserved of a momentous life occasion, such as a proposal, they can be densely populated with brand and product information. With effective rehearsal, this information can remain accessible long after the initial event has passed. A relevant managerial question would be how marketers may increase the chances that such a memory will be well-preserved, as opposed to decaying and fading. On this point, the data from study 1 suggest a clear basic strategy: Invest in marketing mechanisms that get the consumer talking—orally, rather than in written form—about the episode at the heart of the memory. The more often the story is repeated in an oral modality that welcomes abundant details, the more strongly the components of the memory may be reinforced, including its inherent brands and products. Interestingly, some creative marketing initiatives in the wedding industry do seem well-poised to promote this sort of oral storytelling among consumers. For instance, jewelry giant Tiffany has recently begun to use Google Hangout as a mechanism for connecting consumers to each other and to

9

representatives of the company for video chats. One can easily imagine the use of this platform to sponsor video chats for newly engaged couples to share their stories with friends and family—and thereby reinforce the details (and associated brands and products) of the flashbulb memory. Another talk-friendly promotion comes from a restaurant, which gave away pre-paid phones on Valentine's Day weekend, to allow newly engaged couples share their joy with important others. As yet another example, a chain of jewelry stores sponsored engagement toasting parties for betrothed couples. Such a live event provides means and motivation for consumers to tell their engagement stories again and again to attendees. At the same time, the results favoring oral over written communication modalities seem to argue against the encouragement of retellings that rely wholly on written forms of communication. Such advice may seem counterintuitive in an age of social media marketing. Still, the data of study 1 do suggest that written formats may not be conducive to the maintenance of fine details of the memory, including its brands and products.

Study 2 Given the promising results of study 1, study 2 turns to an exploration of the sensitivity of the findings to surrounding context. Study 2 was analogous to study 1 in all respects except the flashbulb memory setting and the recruitment of participants. Study 2 focused on a substantively different extraordinary event: the reception of a life-altering diagnosis from a physician, which would require significant treatment. Volunteers who had recently received such news were sought by distributing flyers at doctors' offices. Participation was rewarded in the same manner as study 1, and the final sample size was 72 (57% female, 43% male; median age 49), after an attrition of three respondents from the first to the second survey period. Diseases represented in the data pool included diabetes, multiple forms of cancer, and severe anxiety disorder. Within the sample, 40 respondents reported a preferred communication mode of talking by phone or in person (oral category), and the remaining 32 individuals indicated a preference for e-mail/text/social alternatives (the written category). As in study 1, respondents were randomly assigned to either report on either the diagnosis event or an everyday event from the same time period. Data on initial flashbulb memory formation were collected approximately two weeks after the diagnosis event, with a retest to assess maintenance of flashbulb memories one year later.

Analysis and results Initial inter-rater agreement was 89% on the open-ended measures of study 2. After factor analyzing and assessing the reliability of multi-item measures (rs = .76–.90, αs = .87–.92), averages were computed within scales. Means for the dependent variables are provided in Table 2.

10

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

Manipulation checks Factor analysis indicated that three of the manipulation check measures loaded on a single factor (distinctive, consequential, emotional), and thus these were combined into an “extraordinariness” measure; the fourth, surprise, loaded on a second factor and was analyzed separately. ANOVA was conducted on the extraordinariness measure, with event and communication modality as predictors. A main effect was revealed for initiating event. As expected, and as observed for the proposal event in study 1, the diagnosis episodes were rated as more distinctive, consequential, and more emotional than the everyday occurrences (M = 4.87 vs. 2.75, F(1, 68) = 84.44, p b .01). At the same time, the diagnosis episode was not more surprising (M = 3.17 vs. 2.83, F(1, 68) = 1.26, p N .27). In hindsight, this last result is intuitive in that medical diagnoses often follow lead-in periods of illness that may dampen the surprise inherent in a final verdict. In relation to this finding, it is relevant to note prior research suggesting that flashbulb memory can arise from expected events (Curci & Luminet, 2009). Overall, though, the outcomes are consonant with the assumption that reception of a medical diagnosis can inspire a flashbulb memory. The communication variable did not have a main or interactive effect on the extraordinariness measure or on surprisingness (ps N .29). This was expected, because none of these items were conceived as manipulation checks on communication modality. Preliminary analyses Next, as in study 1, correlations were inspected among all of the dependent measures. After determining that the correlations (rs = .33 to .66) were in the moderate and acceptable range for MANOVA (Tybout et al., 2001), a repeated-measures MANOVA was conducted as in study 1. Independent variables were initiating event and communication modality

(between-subjects factors) and measurement timing (two weeks vs. one year, within-subjects). A three-way interaction was observed (Wilks' λ = .57, F(6, 63) = 8.08, p b .01). This result implies that different patterns of outcomes occurred at the two-week and one-year measurement points, which as noted in study 1, would align with the expectation that communication modality moderates maintenance of a flashbulb memory (captured at one year) but not initial formation (captured at two weeks). More finely grained analyses are reported below within variable and within time frame. Results: two weeks (flashbulb memory formation) Measures collected at two weeks were analyzed by initiating event type and preferred communication modality. As expected, in comparison with the everyday events, the diagnosis accounts were rated as more vivid (M = 5.50 vs. 2.44, F(1, 68) = 111.74, p b .01) and more confident (M = 5.57 vs. 2.56, F(1, 68) = 106.28, p b .01), and they included more contextual details (M = 2.69 vs. .69, F(1, 68) = 80.11, p b .01). Importantly, the diagnosis accounts also included more brand and product mentions (M = 6.14 vs. 4.11, F(1, 68) = 18.16, p b .01), more features per brand or product (M = 1.81 vs. .75, F(1, 68) = 27.38, p b .01) and a greater proportion of sensory features (M = .52 vs. .22, F(1, 68) = 8.85, p b .01). Examination of protocols indicated that a broad range of medical products were mentioned in connection with the diagnosis event, from common items used by physicians in examining patients (e.g., Stethoscope), to a wide array of drug products discussed as treatment options (illustrative examples include Januvia, a diabetes drug, and Celexa, a medication for depression), to even some products suggested as alternative therapies (for instance, St. John's Wort, Valerian Root). Incidental products were also mentioned by respondents and ran a gamut from personal items that the patient had brought

Table 2 Study 2 means and standard deviations. a Two weeks

One year

Oral

Cell size Vividness Confidence Contextual details No. of brands and pdcts Features per pdct, brand Raw % sensory features b Raw % repeated brands b Rehearsal extensiveness a b

Written

Oral

Written

Diagnosis

Everyday

Diagnosis

Everyday

Diagnosis

Everyday

Diagnosis

Everyday

20 5.70 1.38 5.75 1.48 2.90 1.02 6.65 2.21 1.85 .81 .52 .34

20 2.75 1.21 2.75 1.02 .75 .79 4.15 1.50 .85 1.09 .23 .35

16 5.25 1.24 5.31 1.25 2.44 1.15 5.50 2.31 1.75 .77 .51 .32

16 2.06 1.00 2.31 1.08 .63 .72 4.06 1.69 .63 .62 .22 .40

20 5.30 1.38 5.25 1.83 2.35 .81 5.30 1.89 2.70 1.12 .47 .32 .74 .38 5.60 1.41

20 2.45 .89 2.55 .83 .60 .68 1.61 1.23 .85 .88 .20 .30 .09 .17 2.73 1.04

16 2.63 1.02 3.06 1.34 .88 1.02 1.94 1.24 1.19 .54 .16 .29 .18 .22 2.72 .97

16 2.06 1.00 2.47 1.15 .44 .51 1.62 1.08 .94 .68 .19 .35 .08 .18 2.06 .95

Standard deviations are listed below corresponding means. Proportion data were arcsine-transformed prior to analysis. However, means in the table reflect more intuitive raw scores.

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

with him/her to the visit (e.g., an iPhone, a People magazine to read while away waiting for the time) to items in use in the doctor's office but not involved in the patient's specific case or diagnosis (e.g., Kleenex tissues, hand sanitizer). Collectively, these findings suggest that the diagnosis scenarios were more vivid, confident memories that were populated with more and more sensorial details. In short, the diagnosis seems to have inspired formation of flashbulb memories. Communication modality did not have a significant main effect or interactive effect on any of the two-week measures (ps N .26). These results were expected, because communication modality is not predicted to impact initial flashbulb memory formation. Its effects should be observed at the maintenance stage, which will be captured in the one-year results. Results: one year (flashbulb memory maintenance) ANOVA with event and communication modality as predictors revealed an interactive pattern of results on all of one-year measures. These include vividness ratings (F(1, 68) = 19.32, p b .01), confidence ratings (F(1, 68) = 10.53, p b .01), contextual details (F(1, 68) = 12.69, p b .01), number of brands and products (F(1, 68) = 24.94, p b .01), features per brand or product (F(1, 68) = 15.44, p b .01), percent sensory features (F(1, 68) = 3.64, p b .06) and the percentage of correctly repeated brand names (F(1, 68) = 24.61, p b .01). Analyses of simple effects indicate that scores were higher for the diagnosis events than for the everyday events when the preferred communication modality was oral (Mvividness rating = 5.30 vs. 2.45, F(1, 68) = 67.49, p b .01; Mconfidence = 5.25 vs. 2.55, F(1, 68) = 40.12, p b .01; Mdetails = 2.35 vs. .60, F(1, 68) = 50.75, p b .01; Mbrands and products = 5.30 vs. 1.61, F(1, 68) = 67.47, p b .01; Mfeatures per product or brand = 2.70 vs. .85, F(1, 68) = 46.43, p b .01; M% sensory features = .47 vs. .20, F(1, 68) = 6.10, p b .02; M% repeated brands = .74 vs. .09, F(1, 68) = 69.12, p b .01). In the oral condition, the superiority of the diagnosis over the everyday memory, which was observed soon after formation, was thus maintained after a full year. However, in the written condition, the diagnosis memory's vividness and confidence at one year were no stronger than the everyday memory (Mvividness = 2.63 vs. 2.06, F(1, 68) = 2.10, p N .15; Mconfidence = 3.06 vs. 2.47, F(1, 68) = 1.72, p N .19; Mdetails = .88 vs. .44, F(1, 68) = 2.53, p N .12; Mbrands and products = 1.94 vs. 1.62, F(1, 68) = .42, p N .52; Mfeatures per product or brand = 1.19 vs. .94, F(1, 68) = .68, p N .41; M% sensory features = .16 vs. .19, F(1, 68) = .12, p N .73; M% repeated brands = .18 vs. .08, F(1, 68) = .60, p N .44). These results echo findings from study 1 to indicate that maintenance of the advantage of the diagnosis memory over everyday memory was moderated by communication context. The result in the diagnosis/written communication condition should be closely considered. At two weeks, there was evidence that a flashbulb memory had initially formed, as indicated by high vividness and confidence scores. However, at one year, scores in this condition had faded to mirror those of

11

everyday memories. The present theory suggests that this occurred, because rehearsal between the two-week and one-year accounts was not extensive when conducted in a written modality. As in study 1, a mediation analysis now explores this explanation. Mediation by rehearsal extensiveness Mediation was tested as in study 1. ANOVA on ratings of rehearsal extensiveness, the proposed mediator, revealed an interaction (F(1, 68) = 17.31, p b .01) and a similar pattern of simple effects as for the vividness and confidence measures: more extensive rehearsal was reported for the diagnosis event when the primary modality was oral (M = 5.60 vs. 2.73, F(1, 68) = 65.39, p b .01) but not when the modality was written (M = 2.72 vs. 2.06, F(1, 68) = 2.65, p N .11). In the subsequent bootstrapping analysis, the advantages of the diagnosis memories over everyday memories at one year were mediated by rehearsal extensiveness in the oral communication condition, though not in the written communication, where no one-year advantage was observed. For the oral (written) communication condition, upper and lower bounds did not (did) include zero, and were as follows: 1.6367 to 3.1389 (− .0747 to 1.2296) for vividness; 1.2407 to 2.7968 (− .0432 to 1.0965) for confidence, .6190 to 1.4949 (− .0231 to .5730) for contextual details, 1.2165 to 3.3434 (− .0478 to 1.1169) for number of brands and products, .6122 to 1.6200 (− .0233 to .6031) for features per product or brand, .0130 to .4412 (− .0051 to .1786) for percent sensory features, .and 2538 to .6792 (− .0045 to .2442) for percent of brands repeated at 2 weeks and 1 year. Discussion Study 2 provides further support for the theoretical propositions, and importantly, does so within a quite different memory setting and with a novel audience that was characterized as slightly older and of mixed gender. As such, it appears unlikely that the findings of study 1 were idiosyncratic to the proposal context or to the sample within which the data were collected. Practical implications of study 2's results will be considered after study 3, which utilizes the same setting. Study 3 Study 3 delves again into a medical diagnosis setting for flashbulb memory and addresses two potential limitations of the designs of the two previous studies. First, in the prior studies, communication modality has been represented with a measured variable. It therefore lends itself to alternate explanations, due to its potential to correlate with any number of characteristics. Examples would include individual differences in introversion vs. extraversion, writing and speaking skills or even access to internet and opportunities to practice communication regularly in written modalities such as e-mails and texts. A more compelling case for the current theoretical account may thus be developed by experimentally manipulating communication modality. In addition, studies 1 and 2 have relied upon self-reports of rehearsal extensiveness, which as may be the case with any

12

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

self-report measure, may vary in reliability. To address a possible concern that self-report bias confounded the previous results, respondents' actual retellings of flashbulb memory and everyday memory events are recorded for examination in study 3. Procedures The medical context, recruiting and reward of informants for study 3 were the same as study 2. Respondents, who had received a serious medical diagnosis in the previous two weeks, were randomly assigned to either report on a memory of their diagnosis event or an everyday event from the same time period. They were then also randomly assigned to an “oral communication” or a “written communication” condition. In the oral condition, individuals were asked to participate in one phone call per week for four weeks to discuss their diagnosis, then to complete a brief survey afterward. The four phone calls provided opportunities for the respondent to rehearse the memory in an oral modality. In the written condition, respondents were asked to respond to one e-mail per week for the next four weeks to discuss the diagnosis, and then to complete the same brief ending survey. The weekly e-mails provided opportunities to rehearse the memory in a written modality. Thus, each respondent received a total of six contacts, including one set-up call to provide instructions, four subsequent calls or e-mails in which their accounts of the memory events were shared (in weeks two, three, four and five after the diagnosis event), and one survey at the end, at approximately the six-week mark. The six-week measure was consistent with other long-term measures of flashbulb memory accounts (e.g., Talarico & Rubin, 2003, 2007) and thus was utilized as an indicator of whether flashbulb memories had been maintained. Of the 55 initial volunteers, six did not complete the full study and were set aside from analysis. These respondents were spread across the four conditions and thus do not suggest differential dropout. The final sample was 49. During weeks two through five, respondents provided input either by phone (in the oral condition) or by e-mail (in the written condition) to the following question: “Please tell me the story of the doctor visit in which you received your diagnosis.” Each week, the caller or e-mailer's identity was changed so as to avoid an “asked and answered” phenomenon, where the respondent might artificially limit details provided, thinking s/he had already given certain information to the research assistant the week before. Oral accounts were recorded and transcribed, and e-mailed accounts were analyzed in original form. After the final call or e-mail, respondents were sent a link to a brief five-question survey. This survey featured the three scaled items that have been used in studies 1 and 2 to measure vividness and the two items that have been used to measure confidence. Other measures from the previous studies were not collected in study 3, due to concerns that were expressed during the institutional review process that ailing patients who were being asked to respond repeatedly to a survey might become taxed by a larger number of questions and tasks. In relation to this streamlining of the survey protocol, it may be noted that the

other measures that appeared in the prior studies evinced strongly analogous patterns to the scaled vividness and confidence measures, which are included in the current study. Moreover, the extraordinariness (distinctiveness, consequentiality, emotionality) of receiving a life-altering medical diagnosis and the ability of this type of event to motivate formation of flashbulb memories were established in study 2. In sum, the design was 2 (initiating event: everyday episode vs. extraordinary diagnosis; a manipulated between-subjects variable) × 2 (communication modality: oral vs. written; a manipulated between-subjects variable). Dependent measures were six-week ratings of vividness and of memory confidence, which may indicate success in maintaining the power of the memory. Interim reports were coded for number of contextual details, to gauge the extensiveness of rehearsal during this intermediate time period, which is the proposed mediating variable. These interim reports were also examined for inclusion of brands and products, using the criteria from studies 1 and 2. As in the prior studies, it was expected that in the final survey, vividness and confidence would be higher for those who rehearsed a diagnosis memory rather than an everyday memory in the oral modality. However, it was anticipated that this differential would not be observed for those who rehearsed in the written modality.

Analysis and results Initial inter-rater agreement was 90% on the coding of the interim report data. The vividness measure was reliable (α = .89), as was the confidence measure (r = .87). Averages were thus computed. Means for the dependent variables are provided in Table 3.

Results: six weeks (flashbulb memory maintenance) Correlations between the two dependent variables were moderate (r = .46, p b .01). Thus, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with vividness and confidence as dependent measures and event and communication modality as independent variables. No effect was significant involving the within-subjects repeated-measure factor (p N .58), though an interaction between event and communication modality was observed across the dependent variables (F(1, 45) = 9.97, p b .01). Separate ANOVAs were then conducted on the vividness and confidence ratings. These analyses revealed interactions between event and communication modality (Fvividness(1, 45) = 11.38, p b .01; Fconfidence(1, 45) = 5.11, p b .03). Examination of means reveals the one-year pattern from studies 1 and 2 was replicated: scores were higher for the diagnosis events than for the everyday events when the communication modality for rehearsal was oral (Mvividness = 5.17 vs. 2.38, F(1, 45) = 18.51, p b .01; Mconfidence = 4.75 vs. 2.46, F(1, 45) = 12.12, p b .01), but not when it was written (Mvividness = 2.50 vs. 2.17, F(1, 45) = .26, p N .62; Mconfidence = 2.58 vs. 2.42, F(1, 45) = .06, p N .81).

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

Mediation by rehearsal extensiveness The memory descriptions provided during weeks two through five were coded for contextual details as in the prior studies. To capture the extensiveness of rehearsal across the entire four-week time period, a count was obtained of the total number of contextual details a respondent had provided across all four oral or written rehearsal opportunities. ANOVA on this variable indicated an interaction between independent variables (F(1, 45) = 3.74, p b .06), such that a greater number of total details, indicating more extensive overall rehearsal, was reported for the diagnosis than the everyday memory when the communication modality for rehearsal was oral (M = 17.58 vs. 10.46, F(1, 45) = 23.73, p b .01), but not when it was written (M = 12.83 vs. 10.75, F(1, 45) = 2.55, p N .11). A mediation analysis was conducted following the same procedures as in studies 1 and 2. In this analysis, the independent variable was initiating event and the moderator was communication modality. The mediator was rehearsal extensiveness, as indexed by total details provided during weeks two through five. As dependent variables, ratings of vividness and confidence were separately tested. As expected, the vividness and confidence advantages of the diagnosis memories over the everyday memories were mediated by rehearsal extensiveness in the oral communication condition, though not in the written communication, where no advantage was observed. For the oral (written) communication condition, upper and lower bounds did not (did) include zero, and were as follows: .0099 to 2.5611 (− .0071 to 1.8390) for vividness; and .0060 to 2.4574 (− .0063 to 1.6671) for confidence.

Supplemental analysis It is also relevant to note that a supplemental analysis of the rehearsal data was conducted, which focused on number of mentions of brands and products within the rehearsed details. Individual brands and products that were mentioned were similar to those observed in study 2. Counts were obtained using criteria in the Appendix. ANOVA revealed an interaction that was similar to the pattern for total details (F(1, 45) = 3.92, p b .05). There were more mentions of brands and products across the four weeks in the diagnosis condition than in the everyday condition when

Table 3 Study 3 means and standard deviations. a Oral

Written

Diagnosis Everyday Diagnosis Everyday Cell size Vividness at 6 weeks

12 5.17 1.64 Confidence at 6 weeks 4.75 2.18 Total contextual details 17.58 4.48 Total mentions of brands and 17.92 pdcts 3.75 a

13 2.38 .87 2.46 1.61 10.46 2.22 13.15 2.82

12 2.50 2.39 2.58 1.62 12.83 4.99 13.25 4.00

Standard deviations are listed below corresponding means.

12 2.17 1.19 2.42 .90 10.75 2.05 12.25 2.53

13

rehearsal was oral (M = 17.92 vs. 13.15, F(1, 45) = 12.81, p b .01) but not when it was written (M = 13.25 vs. 12.25, F(1, 45) = .54, p N .47). This result is consistent with the premise that, when details were extensively rehearsed in the diagnosis/ oral condition, brands and products were frequently included. Discussion The results of study 3 lend further credence to the present theory. Importantly, the pattern of findings for long-term vividness and confidence was replicated from studies 1 and 2. This occurred, despite the transition to a manipulated variable as a representation of communication modality. Study 3 also diverges from the prior studies in measuring rehearsal extensiveness rather than gauging it via retrospective scaled reports. Implications for marketers The sober memory context of studies 2 and 3 has been quite different from the giddy scenario explored in study 1. Nonetheless, the underlying finding of relevance to marketers remains the same: To maintain the sharpness of the flashbulb memory, oral rehearsal of the episode is critical. If the hope is to pursue the benefits of access to the brands and products that are represented in the flashbulb memory, advice would therefore again be to invest in initiatives that promote oral sharing of a diagnosis episode. It is fortuitous that a common general practice within the medical industry aligns nicely with this guidance. This is, namely, to connect patients with other individuals to open up opportunities to talk. This practice is promoted by a range of players in the industry, including pharmaceutical companies and medical service providers. Some of the more typical forms include sponsorship of live seminars and patient networking events, peer-to-peer and patient-to-professional counseling alignments, and access to hotlines for exigent conversational needs. As one typical example, for patients dealing with multiple sclerosis, the prescription drug Rebif underwrites programs that match patients with others facing similar challenges; sponsor live physician-led discussions across the U.S., where patients can also talk with other patients; and provide a toll-free number for time-sensitive exchanges in relation to the medicine or the disease itself. In terms of patient wellbeing, such efforts provide opportunities to build knowledge bases and gain emotional and psychological support. In addition to these benefits, the present study of flashbulb memory suggests a supplemental advantage from a marketer's standpoint. To the degree that these initiatives set up opportunities for oral conversations, in which patients might revisit and share the story of these diagnoses, they hold the potential to enhance flashbulb memories of the diagnosis episode. By investing in these programs, sponsor brands and products may thereby help to solidify their roles in these powerful memories. Meanwhile, writing-based mechanisms for connecting patients seem likely to be less helpful for cultivating the long-term vibrancy of the flashbulb memory and its inherent products and brands. Examples include message boards and “my story” posting sites.

14

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

General discussion Three studies have been presented, which replicate and extend prior work on flashbulb memory. Consistent with previous findings, it was found that flashbulb memories are initially formed after exposure to extraordinary events that are more distinctive, consequential, and emotional than those that lie at the heart of other autobiographical memories. Moreover, and importantly, the vivid, confident flashbulb memory accounts that were recorded in these studies were shown to reliably capture brand and product information. Whether an initially formed flashbulb memory would be maintained in a heightened state of vividness and confidence or would fade depended on the communication modality within which the protagonist rehearsed the memory. In a marked departure from prior work on flashbulb memory, the assumption was relaxed that rehearsal would take place in the context of an oral conversation. People who retold their extraordinary stories in oral modalities appeared to have reinforced the vividness and confidence of the memories and thereby to have maintained the flashbulb memory's enhanced qualities. By contrast, those who shared news via written alternatives appeared to have experienced a fading of a flashbulb memory's sharpness and detail, which placed it on par with those of more mundane events (everyday memories). Memory for brand and product information from the original episode suffered accordingly. In explaining this pattern of results, an addition was proposed to flashbulb memory theory, which is that the extensiveness of rehearsal may help to explain how the superior characteristics of flashbulb memories have been maintained. This contention was supported by mediation analyses in all three studies, using two different operationalizations of the extensiveness concept. In essence, it appears that it may not just have been the revisitation of the memory per se that maintained the potency of the flashbulb memory, but also how deeply into the memory one went each time. Future directions One proposed line of future inquiry relates to attitudinal and behavioral consequences of flashbulb memory. In extant flashbulb memory research (including the current studies), the memories themselves have tended to be the focus of investigation. By contrast, downstream implications of holding flashbulb memories have received less attention by cognitive psychologists. At the same time, consequences such as attitudes, purchase behaviors, and brand loyalty, are clearly of high importance to marketers. Research is therefore needed to explore these outcomes. One especially intriguing direction for future exploration relates to valence. For brands and products that are highly accessible in flashbulb memories, it may be that positive consequences will follow as a natural function of the mental availability of the brands and products. Prior research suggests that benefits of strong accessibility may include preferred status in consideration and choice sets (Nedungadi, 1990), greater

incidence of choice (Berger & Fitzsimons, 2008), and more frequent provision of WOM recommendations (Berger & Schwartz, 2011). However, another possibility is that brands and products will benefit when they are recalled as part of the rich details of a flashbulb memory, if the flashbulb-igniting incident was favorable (e.g., a successful marriage proposal), but not if it was negative in tenor (e.g., receiving a dire diagnosis from a doctor). Such a result would imply an intriguing dark side to flashbulb memory that merits exploration. In pondering additional future directions, it must clearly be conceded that the view of flashbulb memory maintenance that has been described herein, as a process enhanced by extensive rehearsal, calls for further testing. In follow-up research to test the robustness of this theoretical position, it is recommended that researchers explore whether other variables besides communication modality may influence rehearsal extensiveness and thereby impact the maintenance of a flashbulb memory as an especially vivid and confidently held memory. In this vein, it has been proposed that rehearsal of extensive detail requires more cognitive resources in written modalities rather than oral formats. A relevant question would thus become what other variables might similarly limit the resources that a person may devote to flashbulb memory rehearsal. The importance of investigating this aspect of flashbulb memory is underscored by recent research indicating that confidence—a characteristic that has reliably been associated with flashbulb memory in prior research and the current studies—is especially malleable in conditions of low cognitive resource availability (Petersen & Hamilton, 2014). A wide variety of factors may influence resource availability and thus call out for examination. For example, contextual time pressure or distraction in the environment might serve this purpose. Moreover, individual differences, such as in verboseness or introversion/extraversion, may naturally constrain one's motivation to share with others and rehearse ample detail. If such factors reliably affect the sharing of memories, and thus rehearsal patterns, then over time, the level of accessible story detail might also be impacted. More generally, empirical exploration is warranted of the role of consumer characteristics in fostering or impeding the formation and maintenance of flashbulb memories. Appendix A. Coding criteria for event descriptions and brand, product and feature recall data 1. Guidelines for coding event descriptions for number of contextual details. Assistants were the following excerpt as an example to illustrate coding guidelines: Example event label (provided by respondent): “Our proposal story.” Example description: “I drove by myself to Fabian's restaurant, and I was running about 5 min late, because I had to stop for gas. I started to apologize, and then I realized that everyone was watching and smiling. I also noticed that my boyfriend was dressed up, wearing a jacket from Ralph Lauren that I got him for Christmas. Then I saw the ring box. I was so happy! I still get goose bumps.”

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

Assistants were then given the coding rubric below, which utilized the example to illustrate. Dimension

Coding guideline provided to assistants

Coding of sample passage

Number of contextual details about the situation in which the event took place

Explicit mention of any of the following: a) location, b) ongoing activity prior to the event or immediately after it, c) time of day, d) other people present

5 contextual details: 1) Fabian's restaurant (location), 2) drove (prior activity), 3) stop for gas (prior activity), 4) 5 min late (time of day), 5) everyone in restaurant (other people present)

2. Guidelines for coding prompted brand and product recall Assistants read each respondent's event description as background for this coding exercise. The recall data were then examined with the coding rubric below and with the following example list to illustrate coding guidelines. Example event: “Our proposal story.” Example list: Fabian's restaurant, gas, Ralph Lauren jacket, ring box Dimension

Coding guideline provided to assistants

Coding of sample passage

Brands and products

Things that were or could have been consumed

Number of brands

Explicit mentions of something named that was or could have been consumed.

4 brands/products: 1) Fabian's restaurant, 2) gas, 3) Ralph Lauren jacket, 4) ring box 2 brands: 1) Fabian's restaurant, 2) Ralph Lauren jacket

Add the number of additional brand mentioned at Time 2, but not Time 1. b. Step 2: Count the number of consistently repeated brands. To do so, count the number of brands that were explicitly mentioned at both Time 1 and Time 2. c. Step 3: Calculate the consistency score. To do so, divide repeated brands by total brands mentioned. This yields a percentage of total brands mentioned that were repeated. Example: A respondent names three brands at Time 1. Then, at Time 2, she repeats two of those brands and also mentions two additional brands that had not been named at Time 1. Her score would be a total of five brands mentioned. Two brands were repeated at both measurement points, for a consistency score of 2/5 = 40%. The focus on brands, rather than on brands and products, was considered to be a conservative test of memory consistency. A product might be called a “jacket” at Time 1 and a “coat” at Time 2, requiring subjective interpretation as to whether the same item was referenced in both cases. On the other hand, “Ralph Lauren” is a specific brand name that can readily be coded verbatim for repeat. Appendix B. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.004. References

As an aside, assistants also coded number of brands and products in the event description prior to the recall prompt. As the anecdotes that introduce the article imply, unsolicited brand and product mentions appeared in the event descriptions. However, since brands and products were more numerous in the probed recall task, this is the focus of attention in the formal analyses. 3. Coding of feature recall lists Assistants were given the coding rubric below, as well as the following list as an example to illustrate coding guidelines: Example list: Russian caviar—very salty; my Camry—not fancy but reliable transportation Dimension

Coding guideline provided to assistants

Coding of sample list

Number of features

Explicit mentions of an individual feature or attribute Explicit mentions of how something sounded, felt to touch, tasted or smelled

2 features: 1) salty, 2) reliable transportation

Number of features that relate to sensory qualities

15

1 sensory feature: Russian caviar is salty (taste)

4. Coding and calculation of consistency in brand recall a. Step 1: Count the total number of brands mentioned. To do so, count the total number of brands mentioned at Time 1.

Baumgartner, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1992). Autobiographical memories, affect, and consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 53–82. Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607. Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the street, Pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 1–14. Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: How the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 567–579. Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869–880. 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. Bohn, A., & Berntsen, D. (2007). Pleasantness bias in flashbulb memories: Positive and negative flashbulb memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall among east and west Germans. Memory & Cognition, 35(3), 565–577. Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5(1), 73–99. Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383–407. Conway, M. A., Anderson, S. J., Larsen, S. F., Donnelly, C. M., McDaniel, M. A., McClelland, A. G. R., et al. (1994). The formation of flashbulb memories. Memory & Cognition, 22(3), 326–343. Conway, A. R. A., Skitka, L. J., Hemmerich, J. A., & Kershaw, T. C. (2008). Flashbulb memory for 11 September 2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 605–623.

16

M.L. Roehm / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016) 1–16

Curci, A., & Luminet, O. (2006). Follow-up of a cross-national comparison on flashbulb and event memory for the September 11th attacks. Memory, 14(3), 329–344. Curci, A., & Luminet, O. (2009). Flashbulb memories for expected events: A test of the emotional-integrative model. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 98–114. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Das, S., & Kramer, A. (2013). Self-censorship on Facebook. Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 120–127). Dudukovic, N., Marsh, E. J., & Tversky, B. (2004). Telling a story or telling it straight: The effects of entertaining versus accurate retellings on memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 125–143. Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S. J. (2015). Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 120–128. Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Gisle, L., El-Ahmadi, A., van der Linden, M., & Philippot, P. (1998). Flashbulb memories and the underlying mechanisms of their formation: Toward an emotional-integrative model. Memory & Cognition, 26(3), 516–531. Graetz, K. A., Boyle, E. S., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J. L. (1998). Information sharing in face-to-face teleconferencing, and electronic chat groups. Small Group Research, 29(6), 714–743. Harvey, J. H., Flanary, R., & Morgan, M. (1986). Vivid memories of vivid loves gone by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3(September), 359–373. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Kock, N. (1998). Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Information & Management, 34, 295–305. Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327–348. Kock, N. (2007). Media naturalness and compensatory encoding: The burden of electronic media obstacles is on the senders. Decision Support Systems, 44, 175–187. Krishnamurthy, P., & Sujan, M. (1999). Retrospection versus anticipation: The role of the ad under retrospective and anticipatory self-referencing. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(June), 55–69. Larsen, S. F. (1992). Potential flashbulbs: Memories of ordinary news as the baseline. In E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb” memories (pp. 32–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marsh, E. J., Tversky, B., & Hutson, M. (2005). How eyewitnesses talk about events: Implications for memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 531–544. Mayers, A. (2013). Introduction to statistics and SPSS in psychology. Pearson Education Limited, 317–361. McGill, A. L., & Anand, P. (1989). The effect of vivid attributes on the evaluation of alternatives: The role of differential attention and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 188–196.

McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 917–930. Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–276. Petersen, F. E., & Hamilton, R. W. (2014). Confidence via correction: The effect of judgment correction on consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 34–48. Pillemer, D. B. (1992). Remembering personal circumstances: A functional analysis. In E. Winograd, & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb” memories (pp. 236–264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pillemer, D. B., Koff, E., Rhinehart, E. D., & Rierdan, J. (1987). Flashbulb memories of menarche and adult menstrual distress. Journal of Adolescence, 10(2), 187–199. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. S. WyerJr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition, volume viii. (pp. 1–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scott, D., & Ponsoda, V. (1996). The role of positive and negative affect in flashbulb memory. Psychological Reports, 79(2), 467–473. Shapiro, L. R. (2006). Remembering September 11th: The role of retention interval and rehearsal on flashbulb and event memory. Memory, 14(2), 129–147. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187. Sinha, J., & Naykankuppam, D. (2013). Knowledge does not necessarily make the heart grow fonder: The moderating role of knowledge on accessibility experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 49–60. Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Baumgartner, H. (1993). Influencing consumer judgments using autobiographical memories: A self-referencing perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(November), 422–436. Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461. Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2007). Flashbulb memories are special after all; In phenomenology, not accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 557–578. Thomsen, D. K., & Berntsen, D. (2003). Snapshots from therapy: Operationalisations and ways of studying flashbulb memories for private events. Memory, 11(6), 559–570. Tinti, C., Schmidt, S., Sotgiu, I., Testa, S., & Curci, A. (2009). The role of importance/consequentiality appraisal in flashbulb memory formation: The case of the death of Pope John Paul II. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 236–253. Tinti, C., Schmidt, S., Testa, S., & Levine, L. J. (2014). Distinct processes shape flashbulb and event memories. Memory & Cognition, 42, 539–555. Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(February), 807–821. Tversky, B., & Marsh, E. J. (2000). Biased retellings of events yield biased memories. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 1–38. Tybout, A., Sternthal, B., Keppel, G., Verducci, J., Meyers-Levy, J., Barnes, J., et al. (2001). Analysis of variance. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), 5–35.