Current laboratory paradigms used to assess unconscious plagiarism consist of three tasks. First, participants generate solutions to a puzzle task with a partner (initial generation task); second, they recall their individual contribution (recall-own task); and third, they attempt to create new solutions that were not offered previously (generate-new task). An analysis of these tasks indicated that they differ in terms of the source monitoring they require. The two generative tasks require less differentiated information (e.g., familiarity) and relatively lax decision criteria. The recall-own task, however, demands more differentiated information and more extended decision criteria. In two experiments, factors known to influence source monitoring were manipulated. Consistent with the analysis, no effects were associated with the generative tasks. Recall-own plagiarisms increased when self- and other-generated solutions were difficult to distinguish (Experiment 1) and decreased when the two sources were easier to distinguish (Experiment 2).
Generation Task Source Memory Initial Generation Source Monitoring Human Partner
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Johnson, M. K., Kounios, J., &Reeder, J. A. (1994). Time-course studies of reality monitoring and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1409–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Nolde, S. F., &De Leonardis, D. M. (1996). Emotional focus and source monitoring.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Foley, H. J., &Foley, M. A. (1981). Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring.American Journal of Psychology,94, 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., &Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,52, 297–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R. L., &Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cryptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R. L., &Landau, J. D. (1995). Availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of unconscious plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1568–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (1996). How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity.Memory & Cognition,24, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R. L.,Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (in press). Contribution of inadequate source monitoring to unconscious plagiarism during idea generation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.Google Scholar
Multhaup, K. S. (1995). Aging, source, and decision criteria: When falsefame errors do and do not occur.Psychology & Aging,10, 492–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., Hirshman, E., &Fan, J. (1996). The sensory match effect in recognition memory: Perceptual fluency or episodic trace?Memory & Cognition,24, 367–383.Google Scholar
Zaragoza, M. S., &Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 934–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar