MANHATTAN — As the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, people around the world are recalling their experiences of the attacks, whether they were in the Twin Towers themselves or halfway around the world watching on TV.
A recently updated long-term study suggests that people's memories of 9/11, like memories of other traumatic events, are often inaccurate, an NYU psychologist who is one of the study's lead researchers told Scientific American in an article published Tuesday.
A team of researchers from NYU and The New School, among other universities, began surveying people across the country a week after the Sept. 11 attacks. Nearly 1,500 people returned questionnaires, more than a third of whom lived in the New York metro area, according to the survey's website.
The survey one week after 9/11 and surveys a year, three years and 10 years after the attacks showed that people's memories of 9/11 grew worse over time, particularly regarding emotional rather than factual details, NYU psychologist Elizabeth A. Phelps told Scientific American.
"Usually, when a memory has highly vivid details and you're confident in those details, that means you're likely to be right. Confidence often goes hand in hand with accuracy," she said. "But when something is highly emotional, they often get separated."
The consistency of people's recollections about how they learned about the 9/11 attacks grew less consistent over time — at 63 percent consistent one year later, and just 57 percent consistent three years later, Phelps told Scientific American.
People's memories about how they felt right after the attacks were even less accurate, at only 40 percent after one year, Phelps said.
Although survey respondents' memories faltered, they remained confident in their accounts, ranking their confidence more than a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale, she said.
The study challenges the notion that people form "flashbulb memories" of tragic events and remember them with unusual accuracy. Phelps said people's confidence in their memories of formative events is stronger than the memories themselves.
"With emotional events like 9/11, I think we do have better memory for the important details [as compared with a neutral event] — we just don't have great memory for all the details. And we think we do, and that's the real contrast," she told Scientific American.
