Episodic Memory
Why Questions Task
Also called: elaborative interrogation, why-questioning, asking why, elaborative questioning
Measure elaborative interrogation: participants read facts about animals, answer why some would be true, then match each fact to its animal.
10-13 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 25
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures elaborative interrogation, the study strategy of asking why a fact is true. Participants read 24 facts about six animals, each for the same time, and answer a why-question about half of them. After a short delay they match each fact to its animal. The main score is the gain in facts matched after why-questions.
Constructs
- Elaborative interrogation
- Associative memory
- Study strategies
- Learning of facts
Research uses
- Learning and memory research
- Research on study strategies
- Education research
How the paradigm works
Asking why a fact would be true, and answering, helps people remember it: the study strategy called elaborative interrogation. The Why Questions Task measures how much it helps. Participants read 24 facts about six animals, such as "The octopus has three hearts." Each fact stays on screen for 15 seconds. For half of them, chosen by the session seed so that each animal has two of each kind, the screen asks "Why would that be true?" and the participant types a short answer; for the other half the screen asks them to read the fact and think about what it means. Both kinds get the same study time.
More about the paradigm
After 30 seconds of typed counting backward by threes, every fact returns without its animal ("Which animal has three hearts?") and the participant chooses one of the six animals, with no time limit. The facts were written for this library in all eight languages from public sources named in the stimulus file. The typed answers are kept with their length and timing and never scored.
Scores
- Why-Question Advantage%
- Share of facts matched after a why-question minus the share matched after reading.
- Positive values favor why-questions
- Matched After Why-Questions%
- Share of why-question facts matched to their animal.
- Higher is better
- Matched After Reading%
- Share of read facts matched to their animal.
- Higher is better
- Overall Accuracy%
- Share of all facts matched to their animal. Chance is 1 in 6.
- Higher is better
- Facts Matchedcount
- Facts matched to their animal.
- Higher is better
- Why-Answers Typedcount
- Why-questions with a typed answer.
- Informational
- Blank Why-Answerscount
- Why-questions left without an answer when the time ran out.
- Review if every one is blank
- Answer Lengthcount
- Median length of the typed why-answers, in characters.
- Informational; answers are never scored
- Median Test Answer Timems
- Median time to choose an animal, over answers of 100 ms or more.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Test answers under 100 ms, scored as wrong.
- Quality check
- Paste Attemptscount
- Blocked pastes or drops into the why-answer box.
- Quality check
- Counting Answerscount
- Numbers typed while counting backward before the test.
- Quality check
- Counting Correctcount
- Typed numbers 3 below the one before.
- Quality check
- Facts Testedcount
- Test answers in the scored run.
- Compare with the planned count
- Planned Factscount
- Facts planned for the test, 24.
- Informational
Use and evidence
25 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 548 of 670 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 8 |
| 2024 | 5 |
| 2023 | 4 |
| 2022 | 5 |
| 2021 | 3 |
| 2020 | 7 |
| 2019 | 6 |
| 2018 | 10 |
| 2017 | 4 |
| 2016 | 3 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2011 | 1 |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 3 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 3
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Facts
- 24 facts about six animals (camel, giraffe, owl, penguin, octopus and kangaroo), four each, written for this library in all eight app languages from public sources named in the stimulus file. None names a feature only one of the six animals has.
- Study
- Each fact stays on screen for 15 seconds (standard; 10 to 30). In the standard version two facts per animal, chosen by the session seed, ask "Why would that be true?" with a box for a short typed answer; the others ask the participant to read the fact and think about what it means. No more than 3 facts of one kind come in a row.
- Test
- After 30 seconds of typed counting backward by threes (standard; 0 to 120), every fact returns without its animal, in a seeded order. Participants choose one of the six animals, with no time limit and no feedback; chance is 1 in 6.
- Scores
- The why-question advantage is the share of facts matched after a why-question minus the share matched after reading. Accuracy in each condition and overall, and the number and length of typed answers, are reported. The typed answers are kept for the study and never scored.
- Practice
- One fact with a why-question, one fact to read and one matching question with feedback, about two other animals. Practice does not enter the scores.
- Versions
- Why-questions on every fact, or on none, for comparing study groups; these have no within-person advantage.
Some facts are well known, so part of the matching can come from what people already knew; the seed gives each fact a why-question in half the sessions, so this evens out across a sample.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: why_questions_test from the most complete run, one per fact, each a choice among the six animals (chance 1 in 6). Accuracy significantly below chance invalidates; accuracy not above chance, one animal on at least 90% of answers, incomplete runs, why-questions all left blank, paste attempts and counting left undone are flagged. Answers under 100 ms count as wrong; a majority under 200 ms invalidates. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Each animal is the right answer to four facts, so the correct options are balanced. Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Why-questions | Half the facts (standard) | Half the facts (standard), All facts, No facts (reading only) |
| Time per fact (seconds) | 15 | 10 to 30 |
| Counting before the test (seconds) | 30 | 0 to 120 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Why Questions Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Pressley et al., 1987; Woloshyn et al., 1990), with the standard settings (why-questions: Half the facts; time per fact (seconds): 15; counting before the test (seconds): 30). The main score was why-question advantage (share of facts matched after a why-question minus the share matched after reading).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291Answering why-questions about sentences, compared with reading them, and its benefit for remembering who did what.
- Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.513Why-questions about facts tied to several named entities, tested by matching facts to entities.
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266Review of elaborative interrogation and its evidence.
Source papers
- Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1):4-58.Paradigm source, Adults and students
Questions
How long does the Why Questions Task take?
About 10 to 13 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Why-Question Advantage, Matched After Why-Questions, Matched After Reading, Overall Accuracy, Facts Matched, Why-Answers Typed, Blank Why-Answers, Answer Length, Median Test Answer Time, Anticipations, Paste Attempts, Counting Answers, Counting Correct, Facts Tested and Planned Facts. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Why Questions Task used in research?
25 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 548 of 670 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Why Questions Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Why-questions (Half the facts (standard), All facts, No facts (reading only)), time per fact (seconds) (10 to 30) and counting before the test (seconds) (0 to 120). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.