The role of retrieval cues in producing same-sex bias in unconscious plagiarism

1. The role of retrieval cues in producing same-sex bias in unconscious plagiarism Nicholas Lange & Timothy J. Perfect, Plymouth University BACKGROUND Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Calvini (1999): Unconscious plagiarism: • Forced Recall of own ideas from same-sex (female/female) pairs leads to higher rate of plagiarism than when recalling from mixed-sex pairs • When partner is present during recall, the plagiarism rate decreases • Falsely recalling a partner's ideas as one's own, shown across types of retrieval, commonly traced back to be influenced by similar mechanisms as those shown to influence source memory METHODS Factor: Source Similarity 43 participants, 19 females and 24 males Generation Phase Opposite Sex Partner (Mixed Sex Pair) 2 categories, 8 examples/category/participant Same Sex Partner (Same Sex Pair) 2 categories, 8 examples/category/participant 4 categories, 4x8 = 32 examples per participant 7 days delay Factor : Task Recall-Partner Recall-Both (Partner) Recall-Both (Own) Free Recall Recall-Own 15 participants 13 participants 15 participants Recall-Both, within subjects Single Source Recall, between subjects RESULTS Single Source Recall Recall Both üHigher proportion of ideas given away than plagiarized üSame Sex bias üHigher proportion of ideas given away than plagiarized ûNo Same Sex bias F(1,14)=18.7, p=0.001, MSe=0.19, eta2 =0.57 Same Sex Pairs: F(1,14)=6.33, p=0.025, MSe=0.10, eta2 =0.31 Mixed Sex Pairs: F(1,14)=5.6, p=0.033, MSe=0.09, eta2 =0.29 • F(1,26)=8.74, p=0.007, MSe=0.22, eta2 =0.25 • Same Sex Pairs: F(1,26)=6.27, p=0.019, MSe=0.14, eta2 =0.23 • Mixed Sex Pairs: F(1,26)=7.12, p=0.013, MSe=0.09, eta2 =0.22 F(1,26)=4.8, p=0.038, MSe=0.04, eta2 =0.16 Recall-Own: n.s Recall-Partner: n.s F(1,14)=0.07, p=0.79, MSe=0.002, eta2=0.005 Recall-Own: n.s. Recall-Partner: n.s. CONCLUSIONS SIDENOTE Same Sex bias • More ideas given away than stolen • Clear evidence of intellectual generosity outweighing intellectual theft rather than an exclusively self-serving bias in recall tasks • Suggests that readier availability of own examples and thus fewer task demands lead to better output monitoring when recalling own examples • When task demands are higher (recalling weaker examples), output is less carefully monitored and own examples intrude more readily • Additional salience of source when recalling from both sources at the same time can't overcome this tendency Single Source Recall • Replicated Macrae et al. in free recall, further evidence of a similar bias when recalling a partner's ideas, but only in single source recall • Source information to make correct (rather: not a greater number of incorrect) judgments with increased source similarity is available – and being used – when participants recall from both sources at the same time • Rather than source similarity making it universally more difficult to avoid source errors, source information that is used in the recall both task to overcome the same sex bias, isn't being used in the single source recall tasks Recall Own Recall Partner • Recall Own + Femaleü Same Sex bias (Macrae et al.) • Recall Own + Male ûno Same Sex bias • Recall Partner + Femaleûno Same Sex bias • Recall Partner + Maleü Same Sex bias • Explanation welcome! Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of Cryptomnesia: May the Source Be with You. Social Cognition, 17, 273-297.