Abstract
Two experiments were carried out on how questions are remembered. Subjects watched a videotape of a series of simple events and then answered 18 questions about these events. The questions were all of the same general syntactic form (e.g., “Did the pencil fall against the jug on A?”, where A refers to a particular location). They were designed to elicit three sorts of answer: “yes,” “no” because the event took place at another location, and “no” because the event did not take place at all. After the subjects had answered the questions, they were given an unexpected test of their ability to recall them. A difference in the memorability of the questions was predicted on the basis of a procedural theory of comprehension and a hypothesis about memory subjects should cease to process a question when they realize that it concerns an event that did not take place, and such questions should be harder to remember because they are processed to a lesser degree than the other sorts of question. Experiment 1 confirmed the predictions, but its results in part could be accounted for by assuming that subjects recalled the original events and used them as a cue to remembering the questions. Experiment 2 eliminated this explanation by showing that when subjects do not have to answer certain questions, their recall of them is very poor. However, the same differences in the memorability of the three sorts of question were obtained for both answered and unanswered questions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
Jeffrey, D. C., &Longuet-Higgins, H. C.A real-time speech intonation spectrometer. Work in Progress No. 8. Department of Linguistics, Edinburgh University, 1975,8, 145.
References
Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 671–684.
Craik, F. I. M., &Tulving, E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 268–294.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., &Garrett, M. F.The psychology of language. New York. McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Forster, K. I., &Olbrei, I. Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis.Cognition, 1973,2, 319–347.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. The perception and memory of sentences. In J. Lyons (Ed.),New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1970.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Experimental psycholinguistics.Annual Review of Psychology, 1974,25, 135–160.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Psycholinguistics without linguistics. In N. S. Sutherland (Ed.),Tutorial essays in psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Gibbs, G., &de Mowbray, J. Amount of processing and memory for words.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 372–375.
Nelson, T. O. Repetition and depth of processing.Journal of Verbal Looming and Verbal Behavior, 1977,16, 151–171.
Osgood, C. E. Where do sentences come from? In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.),Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Steedman, M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. A programmatic theory of linguistic performance. In P. T. Smith & R. N. Campbell (Eds.),Proceedings of the 1976 Stirling conference on the psychology of language. London: Plenum, in press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was carried out with a grant for scientific assistance from the Social Science Research Council (GB).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson-Laird, P.N., Bethell-Fox, C.E. Memory for questions and amount of processing. Memory & Cognition 6, 496–501 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198237
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198237