Upload
koto
View
65
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What's yours is mine, what's mine is yours: unconscious plagiarism and its opposite. Tim Perfect, Nicholas Lange & Ian Dennis Plymouth University. Disclaimer…. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
What's yours is mine, what's mine is yours: unconscious plagiarism and its opposite.
Tim Perfect, Nicholas Lange & Ian DennisPlymouth University
Disclaimer…
"One of the most disheartening experiences of old age is discovering that a point you just made—so significant, so beautifully expressed—was made by you in something you published long ago”
Skinner (1983)
Unconscious Plagiarism
UP occurs when an individual unknowingly claims a previously experienced idea as their own.
Either as:A source-memory errorA failure of creativity (priming)
The Brown & Murphy (1989) paradigm
3 stages:1. Generation
Groups take turn to generate solutions to a given problem.
2. Recall Own Phase (RO 7%)Individuals recall the solutions that they generated, avoiding other’s solutions.
3. Generate New Phase (GN 9%)Individuals generate new solutions, avoiding ALL previous solutions.
Macrae, Bodenhausen & Calvini (1999)
Cryptomnesia=
Kleptomnesia
Errors are self-serving.
But…
If the only recall-task is recall-ownThenThe only possible errors are
intrusions plagiarism
However…
If the only recall-tasks are recall-own and recall-partner
ThenThe only possible errors are
intrusions plagiarismanti-plagiarism
Main questions
Do people steal more ideas than they give away? (self-serving)
Or do they give away more ideas than they steal (self-defeating)
And what would any bias tell us?
Anticipation at generation?
During idea generation, a participant may think of an idea that their partner says.
Later they may misrecall having thought of an idea with having said it. Predicts idea theft, not idea donation.
Experiment 1
Pairs of participants generated words to orthographic cues.
Individuals then were asked to recall eitherTheir own ideasTheir partner’s ideas
For different orthographic cues (Re___; Sp____).
Frequency of errors by type
Source error Intrusions0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Own Partner
In absolute terms, people gave away more than they stole.
Additionally, because people recalled more of their own solutions (10.5) than their partner’s (4.95).As a proportion of answers output:
Plagiarism = 6.5%Anti-plagiarism = 17.4%
Alternate accounts
(Non-memorial) Guessing
Source attribution bias: “It had to be you”
Simple availability bias
Retrieval cued availability bias: “false ownership”
Guessing
Greater propensity to give away ideas would happen if:
1: The answers could be duplicated by chance.2: Participants guess more when recalling partner’s ideas.
Estimating guessing
For each category, we identified the most common responses, by carrying out a median split.
158 words constituting 50.4% of all responses initially generated. COMMON598 words constituted the remaining 49.6% of items. RARE
If plagiarism is just guessing, then the probability of plagiarising the commonly generated items should be 50.4%.
In fact common items were plagiarised 38 / 124 times – 30.6%.
At the same time, errors were too successful
Guessing is too successful to be guessing
Data
RO RP RO RP
Correct recall 10.5 4.95
Plagiarism 0.95 1.96
Intrusions 1.40 2.62
% plagiarismgiven an error
40.4% 42.8%
Guessing is too successful to be guessing
Data Simulation N = 10,000
Guess = 2 Guess = 4
RO RP RO RP
Correct recall 10.5 4.95 10.19 5.42
Plagiarism 0.95 1.96 0.24 0.47
Intrusions 1.40 2.62 1.57 3.10
% plagiarismgiven an error
40.4% 42.8% 13.3% 13.2%
Memory based accounts
It had to be you (Hoffman, 1997)
Weak ideas (those without source) get attributed more often to a partner.
Predictions: Bias should be apparent in both old and new ideas. Bias should occur whatever the retrieval cue.
Simple availability bias
More of one’s own ideas are available at retrieval.Source monitoring is error prone without being biased.
Predictions: Bias for old ideas, not intrusions (*).Bias independent of retrieval cue
(*Already contradicted by Expt 1, but perhaps a response criterion shift)
Retrieval-cued availability biasJacoby et al (1988) false fame effect Brown & Halliday, (1991) source neglect
During retrieval, source information may be neglected, and the retrieval cue used to bias attributions.
i.e. a retrieved item is interpreted as mine (in recall own), and yours (in recall-partner). (“false ownership”)
PredictionsNo bias with a neutral retrieval cue (recall both)Bias due to availability.
A new task: recall both
Recall Own Recall Own Recall PartnerRecall Partner
Plagiarism
Anti- Plagiarism
Single-cue recall tasks
OR
Joint-cue recall task
Intrusions Intrusions Intrusions Intrusions
Summary of predictionsTask
Single-cue (own / partner) Recall Both
Hypothesis Source Intrusions Source Intrusions
It had to be you Bias Bias Bias Bias
Availability Bias No* Bias No*
False ownership
Bias No* No No*
* Depends upon no shift in response criterion overall
Experiment 2: delay
Single own Single partner Joint own Joint partner0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wrong source errors
1 day1 week
No biasIt had
to be yo
u
Experiment 2: delay
Single own Single partner Joint own Joint partner0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Intrusion errors
1 day1 week
It had
to be yo
u
It had
to be yo
u
Experiment 3
• Duplicated the 1-week condition of Expt 2• Participants instructed to focus on either– Quality (accuracy)– Quantity
Single source errors Joint source errors Single intrusions Joint intrusions0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Quality
Own PartnerAll measures show an it had to be you effect
Single source errors Joint source errors Single intrusions Joint intrusions0
2
4
6
8
Quantity
Own Partner
It had to be you
It had to be you
No bias
Task
Single-cue (own / partner) Recall Both
Source Intrusions Source Intrusions
Expt 1 - -Expt 2 x Expt 3 quality Expt 3 quantity x x It had to be you Bias Bias Bias Bias
Availability Bias No* Bias No*
False ownership
Bias No* No No*
Is there a shift in response criterion?
Willingness to respond may be driving up errors specifically in recall-partner task.
We ran a “Recall all” task with no reference to source at all. Should be less susceptible to lowering threshold. Predictions:
Lower rate of intrusions overallShould lower partner recall (because fewer guessed)
Recall all vs source-cued recall
Own Partner Intrusions0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No source
Single Source
Joint source
No change in rate of intru-sions.
Higher partner recall, not lower
Experiment 4: source similarity
Single source Joint Source Single Intrusions Joint Intrusions0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Own Partner
Experiment 5: Typicality
Single source Joint Source Single Intrusions Joint Intrusions0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Own Partner
Task
Single-cue (own / partner) Recall Both
Source Intrusions Source Intrusions
Expt 1 - -Expt 2 x Expt 3 quality Expt 3 quantity x x Experiment 4 Experiment 5 x Summary
It has to be “it had to be you”Task
Single-cue (own / partner) Recall Both
Source Intrusions Source Intrusions
Summary It had to be you Bias Bias Bias Bias
Availability Bias No Bias No
False ownership
Bias No No No
Conclusions
People give away more than they steal, because there is a bias to attribute weakly remembered ideas to an external source.
Unconscious plagiarism therefore:occurs despite a bias against the self, and is not self-serving.
Conclusions
This bias occurs even when the salience of the self is made high (recall-both task).
In applied terms, people may not recall a past event once, so these initial errors may become consolidated.
Moral
Be careful who you talk to when discussing your great ideas.
Be careful how you choose to recall the conversation.
Worry less about others stealing your ideas, than about you mentally giving your ideas away.