Flashbulb Memory - Talarico & Rubin (2003)

Procedure: The day after the terrorist attack on September 11, they gave to 52 students a questionnaire about their memory of September 11 and an ordinary event of their choosing from the preceding few days. Then they divided the participants into three groups, and had each group return for a follow-up questionnaire session after a different amount of time such as: 7 days, 42 days, and 224 days. In the follow-up session they were asked the same questions about their memories about both the ordinary event (typically this was something like a party or a sporting event) and the flashbulb memory of September 11.
Findings: The number of details remembered about September 11 and the everyday event were statistically very similar and sometimes even identical. Most memories were consistent, and over time, the number of consistent details participants were able to recall declined, but there was no difference in the decline for ordinary memories and for memories of September 11. The number of inconsistent details (e.g. "I was with Fred" changing to "I was with Mary") increased similarly for both ordinary events and September 11. However, participants were more likely to believe their memories of September 11 were accurate than their ordinary memories. They reported the ordinary memories becoming less and less vivid and reliable, even though objectively they could remember no more details about September 11.
Conclusion: The rate of forgetting of flashbulb memories is the same as the rate of forgetting of ordinary memories. Talarico & Rubin suggested that flashbulb memories and ordinary autobiographical memories differ not in their rate of forgetting, but in the confidence with which they are held, with confidence in flashbulb memories remaining high, even as the memories are forgotten. Confidence in ordinary autobiographical memories declines as the memories are forgotten.
Weakness: They only tested retention intervals of eight months or less.