Some of your best ideas are mine: unconscious antiplagiarism

1. Some of your best ideas are mine:unconscious antiplagiarism Nicholas Lange, Timothy J. Perfect and Ian Dennis

2. Standard Paradigm • Brown & Murphy (1989): • Semantic category examplar generation • Recall after a delay followed by generate-new phase • Higher plagiariasm than intrusion rates • Plagiarism rates above chance Brown, A. S., & Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 432–442.

3. Standard Paradigm Generation

4. Standard Paradigm Plagiarism Recall

5. Standard Paradigm Generate New

6. Standard Paradigm Plagiarism Cryptomnesia Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of Cryptomnesia. Social Cognition, 17(3), 273–297.

7. Standard Paradigm

8. Standard Paradigm If source misattribution bias is self-serving

9. Extended paradigm and delay • 47 participants • Mixed Model design • Task: recall own, recall partner, recall both (between subjects) • Delay: one day, seven days (within subjects)

10. Extended paradigm and delay

11. Extended paradigm and delay Delay * *

12. Extended paradigm and delay Task * *

13. Extended paradigm and delay *

14. Extended paradigm and delay • Plagiarism rates increase with delay • More ideas are given away than plagiarised • Effects not as pronounced with joint-source recall

15. Extended paradigm and delay Source misattribution bias is not exclusively self-serving In fact it appears to be more self-defeating

16. Extended paradigm and source similarity • Background • Macrae, Bodenhausen and Calvini (1999) • Higher rates of plagiarism with female/female vs female/male pairs ♀ ♀ ♀ > ♂ Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of Cryptomnesia. Social Cognition, 17(3), 273–297.

17. Extended paradigm and source similarity • 47 participants • Mixed Model design • Task: recall own, recall partner, recall both (between subjects) • Source Similarity: high, low (within subjects) • Delay: 1 week

18. Extended paradigm and source similarity

19. Extended paradigm and source similarity Source Similarity ns *

20. Extended paradigm and source similarity Task * *

21. Extended paradigm and source similarity ns * similarity * * task

22. Extended paradigm and source similarity • More ideas are given away than plagiarised • Wrong-source error rates increase with high similarity • Recall partner task drives similarity effect • vs. Macrae, Bodenhausen & Calvini (forced recall? between vs within factor?) • Joint source recall does not show an effect of source similarity

23. Unconscious plagiarism? • …and unconscious anti-plagiarism • -> wrong-source errors / source misattributions • Increase with delay and source similarity • also with increased typicality of items, increased similarity of items and instruction to output liberally

24. Extended paradigm and delay Second recall session First recall session Generation phase t Additional 6ddelay 1d delay Recall Own A B A B A B Recall Partner Recall Partner A B A B Recall Both A B A B Participant used in example generated examples per category Set of Target in recall

25. Extended paradigm and source similarity Generation phase Recall phase t 7d delay Recall Own ♂ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ Recall Partner ♂ ♀ ♀ Recall Both ♂ ♀ ♀ ♂ ♂ Participant used in example female generated examples per category Set of male Target in recall

26. Extended paradigm and delay Single Source Recall

27. Extended paradigm and delay Recall Both

28. Extended paradigm and source similarity • Effect of task on: • Correct recall, RO > RP • Wrong-Source Errors, RO < RP • Intrusions, RO < RP • Effect of similarity on: • Correct recall, High < Low • Wrong-Source Errors, High > Low • Intrusion, High = Low

29. Extended paradigm and source similarity • Effect of task on: • Correct recall, RO > RP • Wrong-Source Errors, RO < RP • Intrusions, RO < RP • Effect of similarity on: • Correct recall, High = Low • Wrong-Source Errors, High = Low • Intrusion, High = Low