Memory for pragmatic implications from courtroom testimony

Abstract

Subjects heard an excerpt of mock courtroom testimony and were later asked to rate statements about material in the testimony as “true,” “false,” or “of indeterminate truth value.” Half of the subjects heard a given piece of information (Mr. X rang the burglar alarm) directly asserted (I rang the burglar alarm), while the other half heard it only pragmatically implied or suggested (I ran up to the burglar alarm). Half of the subjects initially heard specific instructions about the pitfalls of interpreting pragmatically implied information as if it were asserted fact, while the other half had no such instructions. Half of the subjects performed the response task immediately after hearing the testimony, while the other half did so 2 days later. Subjects generally remembered both implications and assertions as definite fact, even when specifically warned not to do so.