1. The role of retrieval cues in producing same-sex bias in unconscious plagiarism Nicholas Lange & Timothy J. Perfect, Plymouth University 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 Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of Cryptomnesia: May the Source Be with You. Social Cognition, 17, 273-297. METHODS CONCLUSIONS Same Sex Partner (Same Sex Pair) 2 categories, 8 examples/category/participant Opposite Sex Partner (Mixed Sex Pair) 2 categories, 8 examples/category/participant 4 categories, 4x8 = 32 examples per participant Recall-Own Generation Phase 7 days delay Free Recall Recall-Partner Recall-Both (Own) Recall-Both (Partner) Factor: Source Similarity Factor : Task BACKGROUND Recall Own + Female  Same Sex bias (Macrae et al.) Recall Own + Male   no Same Sex bias Recall Partner + Female   no Same Sex bias Recall Partner + Male  Same Sex bias Explanation welcome! 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 Recall Both Higher proportion of ideas given away than plagiarized Same Sex bias Higher proportion of ideas given away than plagiarized  No Same Sex bias Single Source Recall, between subjects Recall-Both, within subjects Recall OwnRecall Partner SIDENOTE Single Source Recall F(1,26)=8.74, p=0.007, MSe=0.22, eta 2 =0.25 Same Sex Pairs: F(1,26)=6.27, p=0.019, MSe=0.14, eta 2 =0.23 Mixed Sex Pairs: F(1,26)=7.12, p=0.013, MSe=0.09, eta 2 =0.22 F(1,14)=18.7, p=0.001, MSe=0.19, eta 2 =0.57 Same Sex Pairs: F(1,14)=6.33, p=0.025, MSe=0.10, eta 2 =0.31 Mixed Sex Pairs: F(1,14)=5.6, p=0.033, MSe=0.09, eta 2 =0.29 F(1,26)=4.8, p=0.038, MSe=0.04, eta 2 =0.16 Recall-Own: n.s Recall-Partner: n.s F(1,14)=0.07, p=0.79, MSe=0.002, eta 2 =0.005 Recall-Own: n.s. Recall-Partner: n.s. 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 Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Calvini (1999): Unconscious plagiarism: 13 participants15 participants 43 participants, 19 females and 24 males 15 participants RESULTS 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 Same Sex bias