Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 265–270 | Cite as

Monitoring source in an unconscious plagiarism paradigm

  • Joshua D. LandauEmail author
  • Richard L. Marsh
Brief Reports


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.


  1. Ahrens, F. (1995, July 18). A writer’s repetitive stress:New Republic admits phrases were copied.Washington Post, pp. C1, C4.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, S. W., &Jacoby, L. L. (1990). Reinstating study context produces unconscious influences of memory.Memory & Cognition,18, 270–278.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. S., &Halliday, H. E. (1991). Cryptomnesia and source memory difficulties.American Journal of Psychology,104, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. S., &Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodson, C. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1996). Some problems with the process-dissociation approach to memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacoby, L. L., &Kelley, C. M. (1987). Unconscious influences of memory for a prior event.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,13, 314–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring.Psychological Review,88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., &Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,52, 297–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Multhaup, K. S. (1995). Aging, source, and decision criteria: When falsefame errors do and do not occur.Psychology & Aging,10, 492–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Taylor, F. K. (1965). Cryptomnesia and plagiarism.British Journal of Psychiatry,111, 1111–1118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations