4.4 Article

Giving and stealing ideas in memory: Source errors in recall are influenced by both early-selection and late-correction retrieval processes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 87-103

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.004

Keywords

Unconscious plagiarism; Source memory; Generation; Monitoring; Recall

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council of UK [RES-062-23-2766]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/I003177/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. ESRC [ES/I003177/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies of unconscious plagiarism have asked participants to recall their own ideas from a previous group-problem solving session, and have typically reported that people mistakenly include a partner's responses when trying to recall their own. To date, there has been little research looking at the propensity to include one's own responses when trying to recall a partner's previous contribution to the group. Experiment I demonstrated that people make both kinds of source-error during recall, but source errors are more common in the recall-partner task. This pattern was replicated in Experiments 2a and 2b with source-errors and intrusions increasing over a delay. Experiment 3 used an extended version of each recall task, in which participants reported all items that came to mind, whilst indicating which responses were goal-relevant. The tendency for source-errors to occur more for the recall-partner task was shown to be a function of both idea availability and output monitoring, whereas the tendency for source-errors to increase over a delay was shown to be due solely to output monitoring. Thus, unconscious plagiarism errors are one instantiation of the more general problem of source-specified recall, which is influenced jointly by processes at generation and output monitoring. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available