roig et al 2001 plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors

8/18/2019 Roig Et Al 2001 Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College and University Professors

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roig-et-al-2001-plagiarism-and-paraphrasing-criteria-of-college-and-university 1/18

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 07:53

Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of Collegeand University Professors

Miguel Roig

To cite this article: Miguel Roig (2001) Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College and

University Professors, Ethics & Behavior, 11:3, 307-323, DOI: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

Published online: 08 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 545

View related articles

Citing articles: 44 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8#tabModule

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8#tabModule

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20



Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteriaof College and University Professors

Miguel Roig

Department of PsychologySt. John’s University

In Study 1, college professors determined whether each of 6 rewritten versions of a

paragraph taken from a journal article were instances of plagiarism. Results indicated

moderate disagreement as to which rewritten versions had been plagiarized. When an-

other sample of professors (Study2) was asked to paraphrase the same paragraph, up to

30% appropriated some text from the original. In Study 3, psychology professors para-

phrased the same paragraph or a comparable one that was easier to read. Twenty-sixpercent of the psychologists appropriated text from the original version, whereas only

3%appropriatedtext fromthe one thatwas easier toread. The results of these studies are

discussed in the context of existing definitions of paraphrasing and plagiarism.

Key words: academic integrity, plagiarism, paraphrasing, professors

Although the research into academic dishonesty indicates that certain types of pla-

giarism (e.g., borrowing from sources without attribution) may be as rampant as

other traditional formsof cheating(e.g.,McCabe,1992), plagiarismby collegepro-fessors is thought to be relatively uncommon. The literature of scientific miscon-

duct (e.g., LaFollette, 1992), however, suggests that this phenomenon may be on

the increase. For example, according to Parrish (1994), 30% of the investigations

conducted by the Office of Research Integrity, the unit within the Public Health

Service that reviews allegations of scientific misconduct, represent accusations of

plagiarism. Of the misconduct allegations investigated by the National Science

Foundation, the proportion of plagiarism cases is even higher, nearing 50%.

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 11(3), 307–323Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Miguel Roig, Department of Psychology, Notre Dame Divi-

sion of St. John’s College, St. John’s University, 300 Howard Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10301.

E-mail: [email protected]

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b

- o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 7 : 5

3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



Other than case studies of actual incidents of plagiarism (e.g., Bowers, 1994;

Miller, 1992), relatively little empirical research exists documenting the nature

and extent of this problem. One type of plagiarism that has received attention is aphenomenon known as cryptomnesia, or unconscious plagiarism. Individuals ex-

periencing cryptomnesia believe that their newly produced ideas, songs, or solu-

tions to a problem are original, but in reality such “novel” products already had

been presented by others and, in fact, had been experienced by these individuals at

an earlier time (Brown & Murphy, 1989; Taylor 1965). Marsh and his colleagues

(e.g., Bink, Marsh, & Hicks, 1999; Bink, Marsh, Hicks, & Howard, 1999; Landau

& Marsh, 1997; Marsh & Landau, 1995; Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1997) experi-

mentally demonstrated the existence of unconscious plagiarism. The results of

their studies led these authors to argue that the phenomenon is largely due to a fail-ure to activate the necessary cognitive processes needed to monitor the source of

ideas. It is interesting that some evidence suggests that unconscious plagiarism

may not be as common when individuals are producing truly original ideas

(Tenpenny, Keriazakos, Lew, & Phelan, 1998).

Other research efforts have focused on attempts at ascertaining individuals’ cri-

teria for plagiarism. In one set of studies, Hale (1987) gave students pairs of para-

graphs in which the first paragraph was identified as the original source and the

second paragraph as a paraphrased version. In one condition, the paraphrased ver-

sions were either correctly paraphrased with an appropriate citation or without acitation. In another condition, the paraphrased versions were verbatim reproduc-

tions of the original and were either accompanied by an appropriate citation or

lacked a citation. The students’ task was to identify whether the paraphrased ver-

sion had been plagiarized. The results of Hale’s studies suggest that, at most, only

16% of the students evidenced confusion as to the meaning of plagiarism.

A similar approach was used by Julliard (1994) in an attempt to investigate

whether medical school professors, English professors, journal editors, and medi-

cal school students could determine if a paraphrased version of an original source

had been plagiarized. Participants received the original portion of text along withrewritten versions, all of which were plagiarized according to standard definitions

of plagiarism. Julliard reported that the majority of English professors, medical

school students, and nonphysician editors correctly regarded the rewritten ver-

sions as instances of plagiarism, whereas physicians (i.e., medical school profes-

sors and those journal editors who were physicians) did not consider the rewritten

versions as instances of plagiarism.

Both Hale’s (1987) and Julliard’s (1994) studies indicate that most students

seem to understand the difference between plagiarism and paraphrasing when

such instances are clear-cut cases. However, informal observations of students’writing practices have led me to question whether they are knowledgeable about

more subtle forms of plagiarism. When grading papers, it is not uncommon to en-

counter instances in which students correctly attribute their written material to the

308 ROIG



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



original author, but their writing is too close to the original. Such paraphrases often

reveal only minor modifications, such as some word substitutions, deletions, or

both, or superficial structural changes, such as a rearrangement of subject andpredicate.

Most writing manuals that discuss proper paraphrasing (e.g., Aaron, 1998;

Hacker, 1994; Nadell, McMeniman, & Langan, 1994; Troyka, 1999) classify

this type of writing as plagiarism and some writers have even given it names,

such as “patchwriting” (Howard, 1995, 1999). It is interesting that undergradu-

ates may not be the only ones who engage in these kinds of inappropriate writ-

ing strategies. Levin and Marshall (1993) noted that, in their position as journal

editors, they have encountered similar writing practices in manuscripts that have

been submitted for publication.Given that minor modifications, superficial structural changes, or both to origi-

nal text constitute plagiarism according to writing manuals, the question arises as

to the exact degree to which text must be modified to be classified as correctly

paraphrased. Few, if any, of the existing definitions of paraphrasing and plagia-

rism in traditional writing guides operationalize these terms. In fact, my undertak-

ing of a nonexhaustive search for an operational definition of correct paraphrasing

has resulted in only one reference that prescribes a specific minimum number of

words that a correct paraphrase should have in common with its original source.

Under a section titled “Avoid Plagiarism,” Rathus (1993) wrote, “You can usuallyuse a brief string (say two or three words) of your source’s writing without using

quotation marks” (p. 15).

The apparent absence of a widely accepted operational definition for proper

paraphrasing and the importance of avoiding plagiarism in academic settings

makes the estimation of such criteria in students and professors seem like a worth-

while effort. Such has been the thrust of my research for the past few years and part

of the original aim of this series of studies.

Using a procedure similar to that used by Julliard (1994) and Hale (1987), Roig

(1997) carried out two studies in which over 500 college students were given aparagraph from a published psychology journal and various rewritten versions.

The rewritten paragraphs were modified to various degrees and included a verba-

tim version, some lightly modified versions, and two correctly paraphrased ver-

sions that had been substantially modified. The students’ task was to examine each

rewritten version, compare it to the original, and determine whether the rewritten

version had been plagiarized or correctly paraphrased. In contrast to the results of

Hale, the responses obtained suggest that students will appropriate relatively long

strings of text with little or no modification and consider such writing as an accept-

able paraphrase, as long as a referencecitation is included in the rewritten version.Based on the results of Julliard’s (1994) study and on anecdotal evidence that

some professors apparently use inappropriate paraphrasing practices that could be

deemed as plagiarism (e.g., Leatherman, 1999; Levin & Marshall, 1993), the pos-

PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 309



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



sibility arises that students’ paraphrasing practices, in part, are derived from the

writing practices of their professors. Related evidence for this position comes from

a survey (Dant, 1986) that showed that up to 15% of high school students reportedthat their teachers occasionally had encouraged them to copy verbatim from

sources. Although such teaching practices are likely to be rare at the college level,

perhaps professors from certain disciplines, such as English, have stricter criteria

for paraphrasing than professors from the hard sciences, such as chemistry and bi-

ology, and these writing practices are somehow conveyed to students. To explore

the hypothesis that professors from different disciplines have different criteria for

paraphrasing and plagiarism, the revised version of the Plagiarism Knowledge

Survey (PKS; Roig, 1995), the instrument used in the second study reported by

Roig (1997), was given to a sample of college professors.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants. Of the total number of respondents who provided useful sur-

veys, 152 came from the faculties at five academic institutions, whereas the other

49 respondents were obtained from an Internet discussion list of teachers of psy-

chology known as Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS). The academic

institutions consisted of a 2-year community college, a public and a private 4-year

college, and a public and a private doctoral granting university, all located within

the New York–New Jersey metropolitan area. Sixty-nine respondents were men,

and 63 were women; all ranged in age between 25 and 75 years, with an average of

47years. Some participants didnotprovide informationabout theirage or gender.

Fromthe privateteaching university,55 useful surveyswere returnedoutof a to-

talof483thatweresent(11%returnrate).Ofthe199surveyssenttofacultyfromtheprivate 4-year college, 20 useful surveys were returned (10%). For the community

college,247 surveys weresent and 34werecompletedandreturned(10%),whereas

for the TIPSdiscussiongroup,485surveys weresentand49werecompletedand re-

turned (10%). Unfortunately, return rates could not be established for the public

4-year college and for the public university because the exact number of question-

naires distributed could not be accurately ascertained (see Procedure).

Instruments. The revised version of the PKS1 (Roig, 1995) consists of an

original two-sentence paragraph taken from Zenhausern (1978) and six rewrittenversions. Four of the rewritten versions were incrementally modified but not suffi-

310 ROIG

1Copies of instruments used in all three studies are available from me.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



ciently changed to be deemed as having been correctly paraphrased, and thus were

classified as plagiarized. The last two rewritten versions were thoroughly para-

phrased (see Roig, 1997, for an explanation of how these criteria were derived).Participants were asked to assume that they are writing a paper and that they have

identified information in a paragraph that they want to incorporate in their paper.

They are then requested to consider each rewritten version, compare it to the origi-

nal paragraph, and determine whether the rewritten version had been plagiarized,

not plagiarized, or that they cannot make a determination of plagiarism. A demo-

graphics section was included.

Procedure. Each participant at the five institutions received a packet con-

taining the following materials: a copy of the revised PKS, an introductory letter

explaining the nature of the study with a request for their participation, and a 9 in. ×

12 in. manila type, self-addressed return envelope. An up-to-date set of mailing la-

bels for all full- and part-time professors was obtained from three of the academic

institutions’ personnel offices. For these participants, each packet was sent, via in-

teroffice mail, to half of the full-time and half of the part-time faculty using every

other mailing label from each set of labels. For the remaining two academic institu-

tions for which mailing labels and a complete listing of its faculty could not be ob-

tained, bundles of packets with the study’s materials were sent to each department

with detailed instructions for the department secretary to distribute each packet to

each member of its faculty. All participants were asked to complete the PKS, en-

close it in the self-addressed return envelope, and deposit it in theirdepartment’s in-

teroffice mail outbox. A mailbox under the author’s name was established in the

psychology department at each institution.

For the TIPS sample, the PKS was first converted into an electronic text file and

then modified for suitability as an e-mail survey. For example, unlike the actual

paper-and-pencil version, the e-mail version of the PKS included several copies of

the original Zenhausern (1978) paragraph so that it always precededeach rewritten

paragraph. This arrangement enabled respondents to make comparisons between

the original and each rewritten version of the paragraphs within a single screen,

thus avoiding the repeated use of the page-up or page-down features of their com-

puter. The instructions for this group also were amended to guide respondents to

properly forward the completed PKS file to the author’s institutional e-mail ad-

dress by using the reply function of their e-mail program. To distribute the PKS viae-mail, a list of TIPS subscribers was obtained from the TIPS list server. Then,

each PKS survey file was pasted on an e-mail message that was then individually

e-mailed to every other subscriber from the list.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



Results and Discussion

The percentage of responses from the entire sample to each response category (i.e.,plagiarized, not plagiarized, cannot determine) for each rewritten version of the

paragraph appears in Table 1. The most salient feature in these data is the pattern of

responses to Paragraph4 that shows that 44%of thesample of professors considers

this rewritten version as notbeing a case of plagiarism. Usinga procedure identical

to one implemented in the studywith undergraduates (see Roig,1997), a plagiarism

score was computed for each respondent. Low plagiarism scores indicated that the

individualheldplagiarismandparaphrasing criteria that were consistentwith tradi-

tional definitions (e.g., Hacker, 1994), whereas high scores indicated lenient pla-

giarism and paraphrasing criteria. The average plagiarism scores obtained by re-spondents from each sample were analyzed with a one-way between-subjects

analysis of variance (ANOVA), but no statistically significant differences were de-

tected, F (5, 195) = 0.98, p = .43.

Because there were not enough respondents representing each academic disci-

pline, professors were grouped into the following five broad categories: business,

social sciences, humanities, science, and professional studies/other. A one-way

between-subjects ANOVA carried out on plagiarism scores of the various aca-

demic groupings failed to reach statistical significance, F (4, 170) = 1.99, p = .10.

Based on responses to demographic questions, t tests were carried out to deter-mine if plagiarism scores differed between respondents who had earned a master’s

312 ROIG

TABLE 1

Percentage of CPsa and PPsb Who Compared Each of the Six Rewritten Paragraphs

to the Original Paragraph

Plagiarized Not Plagiarized Cannot Determine

CP PP CP PP CP PP

Paragraph No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 126 92 51 96 10 7 2 3 2 1 0 0

2 114 83 49 92 17 12 3 6 7 5 1 2

3 111 81 43 81 18 13 5 9 9 6 5 9

4 66 48 30 57 60 44 19 36 12 9 4 8

5c 5 4 3 6 129 94 49 93 4 3 1 2

6c 5 4 1 2 126 91 49 93 7 5 3 6

Note. CP = college professors; PP = psychology professors. A very small number of responses to

Paragraph 6 were adjusted based on comments provided. For example, if a respondent noted that theparagraph was plagiarized because the author had not been cited, that response was changed to not

plagiarized. The task instructions asked respondents to assume that a citation appeared at the end of the

paragraph or in a footnote.an = 138. bn = 53. cRewritten versions were not plagiarized.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



versus a PhD degree, respondents who had published within the last 5 years versus

those who had not, and full-time versus part-time respondents. None of these com-

parisons yielded statistically significant differences. Pearson product–momentcorrelations, however, revealed a low but expected negative correlation between

plagiarism scores and number of papers published, r (105) = –.21, p = .02, which

suggests that the more publications a respondent had the stricter that respondent’s

plagiarism criteria were. The rest of the comparisons yielded correlation coeffi-

cients that were somewhat counterintuitive in nature. For example, year degree

was conferred and plagiarism scores produced a low but significant negative cor-

relation, r (105) = –.19, p = .03, indicating that the more recent the degree the

stricter the respondent’s plagiarism score. In addition, number of years of full-time

teaching was positively correlated, r (105) = .25, p = .005, with plagiarism scoressuggesting that as more time respondents spend teaching, the less rigorous their

criteria of plagiarism become. Age of respondents correlated in a similarly consis-

tent manner with plagiarism scores, but that association failed to reach statistical

significance, r (105) = .14, p = .08.

It is possible that these associations are due to differences in scholarly produc-

tivity as a function of age. Perhaps younger, untenured professors publish more

vigorously early in their academic careers, but their productivity tapers off as do

their criteria for plagiarism and correct paraphrasing. However, differences in age

between those who published versus those who didnotwas not statistically signifi-cant, t (163) = .89, p < .05 (one tailed). In addition, the average year of receipt of

highest degree was identical ( X = 1981) for each group.

Thatneitherof theparagraphsyielded100% agreementamong respondents(Ta-

ble 1) indicates that professors’ conceptions of plagiarismandcorrectparaphrasing

canrangewidely froma very lax set of criteria for determiningplagiarism tocriteria

that can be even more rigorous than those prescribed by traditional definitions. It is

worthnotingthat,evenwithingroupsofacademicspecialties,respondentsappeared

to have a fairly wide range of criteria for plagiarism.

That respondents showed the most disagreement in determining whether Para-graph 4 had been correctly paraphrased or plagiarized is somewhat alarming. Para-

graph 4 did contain some minor modifications to the first sentence. However,

because the second sentence was taken verbatim from the original, the entire para-

graph had been classified as a plagiarized version. The lack of consensus on Para-

graph 4 indicates that a significant proportion of professors maintain criteria for

correct paraphrasing that may be viewed by some of their colleagues as plagiarism.

STUDY 2

Thepreceding methodology wasconceptualizedas an attempt at estimating college

professors’ criteria for plagiarism and correct paraphrasing. However, would pro-




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



fessors’ actual paraphrases evidence the same criteria that they applied to the sce-

nariopresentedinStudy1?Evidencefromastudywithundergraduatessuggeststhat

theirparaphrasesmaybebasedonsomewhatlessrigorouscriteria.Inthefirstoftwostudies, Roig (1999) gave students the Paraphrasing Practices Survey (PPS; Roig,

1996) that consisted of the sameparagraph by Zenhausern (1978) used in his earlier

study with undergraduates (Roig, 1997) and in Study 1. Students were placed in a

scenarioinwhichtheywereaskedtoparaphrasetheZenhausernparagraphforinclu-

sion ina paper theywerewriting. Consistentwith the results ofRoig’s (1997) study,

which revealed that between 40% to 50% of students incorrectly identified plagia-

rized paragraphs as correctly paraphrased, the results of Roig’s (1999) first study

showed that up to 68% of students plagiarized to some degree.

If given the same task to college professors, would they produce results analo-gous to those of the students? The question was put to the test by obtaining another

sample of college professors comparable to that used in Study 1 and giving them

the Zenhausern (1978) paragraph to paraphrase. It was hypothesized that a signifi-

cant proportion of college professors would paraphrase the paragraph in a manner

that could be deemed as plagiarism.

Method

Participants. Eighty-six professors from the five institutions employed in

Study 1 and 23 professors from the TIPS Internet discussion group provided useful

paraphrased paragraphs for this study. Of the 482 surveys distributed in the private

university, 32 paraphrases were returned (7%). The private 4-year college yielded

20 paraphrases from a totalof 198 surveysmailed (5%), and the community college

produced 16responses fromthe 248 surveys thatweresent (6%). Aswith the previ-

ous study, return rates could not be established for the public 4-year college and the

public university. For theInternet discussion group, 486surveys were e-mailed and23 useful paraphrased paragraphswere returned (5%). The lower return rate for this

study was thought to be the result of the greater task demands placed on respon-

dents (i.e., actually paraphrasing text as opposed tocomparingrewrittenversions to

an original). Based on those respondents who identified their sex and age, there

were70menand 34womenwhoranged inage between 25and 75years, with anav-

erage of 49 years.

Instruments. A modified version of the PPS used in the first study with un-

dergraduates reported by Roig (1999) was used in this study. Participants wereplaced in a scenario similar to the one used for Study 1. However, instead of evalu-

ating various alternative paragraphs, as was done in Study 1, participants were

asked to paraphrase the original Zenhausern (1978) paragraph to the best of their

314 ROIG



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



ability and in a way that would not be classified as plagiarism. A demographics sec-

tion similar to that used in the PKS also was included.

Procedure. The same general procedures for distributing the study’s materi-

als employed in the previous study were used in this study.2 For the institutions’

samples, the materials were mailed using their interoffice mail system. For the

Internet discussion group, the PPS was converted into an electronic data file and

e-mailed to each participant with detailed instructions to return the completed ma-

terials to my institutional e-mail address.


Each paraphrased paragraph was examined for the number of consecutive word

strings taken from the original. The percentage of respondents that appropriated

strings of five, six, seven, or eight consecutive words was calculated. Shorter word

strings (see Rathus, 1993) were not counted because it was felt that strings of three

or even four words would represent plagiarism criteria that were too rigorous

within the limited context of this task.

Thirty percent of the paraphrases (n = 33) contained five-word strings from the

original paragraph. The percentage of paraphrases that contained six-, seven-, and

eight-word strings were, respectively, 22% (n = 24), 18% (n = 20), and 9% (n =10). These data indicate that respondents were applying plagiarism criteria that

were somewhat more rigorous than those used to evaluate the paragraphs in Study

1 (i.e., Paragraph 4). However, the results also suggest that a small but significant

number of college professors may be using a style of paraphrasing that could be in-

terpreted by others as possible plagiarism.

Changes in the structure of the original paragraph, such as subject and predicate

reversals and shifts in sentence order, also were examined. Twenty-two percent of

paraphrases evidenced such reversals. Finally, an attempt was made to estimate the

accuracyof theparaphrasesbynoting thenumberofdistortionsin themeaningoftheoriginalparagraph.Asurprising24%oftheparaphrasesevidencedsometypeofdis-

tortion, although most of these distortions were negligible at best. For example, for

the original sentence “ … many nonvisual thinkers have rather vivid imagery, but

theycanstatewithconfidencethattheydonotthinkinpictures,”thefollowingpara-


2Study 2 was conceptualized as the PKS was being prepared for distribution to participants in Study

1.At thatpoint, the decision was madetocarryout bothstudies simultaneously. Thus, one halfof the fac-

ulty members at each institution received the materials for Study 1 and the other one half received mate-

rials for Study 2. For the two institutions for which mailing labels could not be obtained, half of the studypackets in each bundle to be sent to each department contained the materials (i.e., the PKS) for Study 1,

and the other half contained the materials (i.e., the PPS) for Study 2. All bundles consisted of alternating

packets of Study 1 and Study 2 materials, and all materials were placed in the same 10 in. × 13 in. ma-

nila-type interdepartmental office envelopes.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



phrases were received: “ … although the nonvisual thinkers had vivid imagination

they did not see the images when they thought”; “Many people feel that they are

nonvisual thinkers despite evidence of strong mental symbolization.”On completion of the first of Roig’s (1999) two studies with undergraduates,3 it

became clear that the Zenhausern (1978) paragraph was too technical to para-

phrase for the average student in that sample. The Zenhausern paragraph consists

of a short description of results of tests of mental imagery ability and of character-

istics of visual and nonvisual thinkers. Such knowledge domain, and the technical

terminology used in Zenhausern’s paragraph, is probably unfamiliar to most indi-

viduals who lack the proper background in this area of psychology. The terminol-

ogy and the unfamiliarity of the topic probably accounted for the high proportion

of distortion in the paraphrases of students, as well as the distortions found in thisstudywith professors. That the use of unfamiliar, technical terminology can lead to

errors in paraphrasing has been documented in a study by Masson and Waldron

(1994). These authors gave students legaldocuments to paraphrase and then exam-

ined the accuracy of their paraphrases. The results showed that the documents that

were written in plain language produced more accurate paraphrases than those

produced by the document containing legal terminology or the one in which tech-

nical–legal terms had been removed. In addition, the document in which techni-

cal–legal terms had been removed produced more completed paraphrases than the

one containing such terms.A related variable that may have influenced both distortions and the extent of

text appropriation concerns the reading difficulty level of the Zenhausern (1978)

paragraph. Weaver and Bryant (1995) demonstrated that text readability is an im-

portant variable in readers’ ability to evaluate their comprehension of text. Indeed,

when the Flesch–Kincaid procedure from MS Word 97 was applied to the

Zenhausern paragraph, it yielded a readability level of 15.6; a score that is approxi-

mately 2½ grade levels above the optimal level for the average undergraduate (see

Weaver & Bryant, 1995). Perhaps professors’ paraphrasing difficulties, particu-

larly the relatively high proportion of respondents who distorted the meaning of the original paragraph, stem from the same constraining text variables that lead to

the high proportion of plagiarism and distortions in meaning with the undergradu-

ate sample. In view of these considerations, the following study was carried out.

STUDY 3

Because the Zenhausern (1978) paragraph’s high reading level was suspected of

playing an important role in the amount of text appropriation, Roig (1999) selected

316 ROIG

3Data analyses for the first study with undergraduates (Roig, 1999) took place at approximately the

same time as data for Study 2 with college professors were being collected.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



an easier to read paragraph about astrology, a familiar topic to most people, for his

second study with undergraduates. The astrology paragraph, taken from Coon

(1995), was given to a different sample of undergraduates to paraphrase under thesamescenario conditions as those used in thefirst study. Asexpected, only between

9% and19%of the students who paraphrased the astrology paragraph appropriated

word strings of between five and eight words in length. In view of the results with

undergraduates, the obvious question arises as to whether more experienced writ-

ers, such as college professors, would produce even lower levels of text appropria-

tion when attempting to paraphrase the easier to read paragraph.

A sample of psychology professors was selected for this third study. The deci-

sion to study professors from a single discipline was based, in part, on evidence in-

dicating that wide differences in background information are known to mediate the

processing of newer information (Spilich, Gregg, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss,

1979) and are thus more likely to affect the quality of subsequent paraphrases (i.e.,

distortions). Respondents from a single discipline not only would provide a certain

degree of homogeneity in background knowledge, but also would be expected to

subscribe to a more uniform set of paraphrasing and plagiarism guidelines. There-

fore, to test the hypothesis that text readability affects the extent of text appropria-

tion in college professors, members of the American Psychological Society (APS)

were sent, via e-mail, the version of the PPS containing the Zenhausern (1978)paragraph or a comparable version containing the astrology paragraph. It was hy-

pothesized that a greater proportion of respondents who paraphrased the diffi-

cult-to-read Zenhausern paragraph would appropriate word strings than those who

paraphrased the easy-to-read astrology paragraph.

Method

Participants. A sampleof 2,919 members of APS was used in this study.Ap-proximately half of the participants were sent, via e-mail, the easy-to-read version

of the PPS, whereas the otherhalf receivedthedifficult-to-read version. Of the total

number of surveys sent, 1,049 were automatically returned because of apparent in-

valid or incorrect e-mail addresses, and 107 surveys were completed and success-

fully returned, leading to a 6% return rate—a figure that is comparable to those ob-

tained in Study 2 from both traditional mail and e-mail. Of those respondents who

identified themselves by sex, 70 were men and 34 were women. Respondents

ranged in age between 28 and 67 years, with a mean of 49 years.

Instruments. The version of the PPS used in Study 2 with the diffi-

cult-to-read Zenhausern (1978) paragraph was again used in this study. A second

identical version was constructed using the easier to read astrology paragraph. As




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



noted earlier, the Zenhausern paragraph scored a Flesch–Kincaid readability index

of 15.62. Its sentence and vocabulary complexity levels were 62 and 50 (on a

100-point scale), respectively. The astrology paragraph contained three sentenceson the subject of astrological charts and was comparable in length to the

Zenhausern paragraph. Its Flesch–Kincaid readability level was 11.2, and its sen-

tence and vocabulary complexity levels were 33 and 43, respectively. Each instru-

ment was converted into an electronic text file that could be easily copied and

pasted into an e-mail message.

Procedure. Every fifth member of the APS who listed an e-mail address in

the 1996–1997 APS Directory was selected for the study. The first participant se-

lected received the Zenhausern version of the PPS, and the second one received the

version containing the astrology paragraph. The rest of the participants were

e-mailed the study materials in the same alternating fashion. As with Study 2, each

e-mail message contained detailed task instructions for completing and returning

the PPS.


Of the 43 respondents who paraphrased the difficult-to-read paragraph, 26% (n =

11) appropriated strings of text of five words in length, whereas 9% (n = 4) appro-

priated strings of eight words or longer. These findings are comparable to those of

Study 2 (see Table 2). Sixty-four respondents paraphrased the easy-to-read para-

318 ROIG

TABLE 2

Percentages of College Professors and APS Members Who Appropriated Five-, Six-,

Seven-, and Eight-Word Strings From the Original, and Who Distorted and Reversed

Portions of the Original Text for the High- and Low-Readability Paragraphs

APS Members

Variable

College Professorsa

(Study 2), High Readability High Readabilityb Low Readabilityc

String length (words)

5 30 26 3

6 22 19 3

7 18 16 0

8 9 9 0

Distortions 24 14 11Reversals 22 16 11

Note. APS = American Psychological Society.an = 109. bn = 43. cn = 64.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



graph. Of these, none of the respondents appropriated seven- or eight-word strings

of text, and only 3% (n = 2) of the sample appropriated strings of five words in

length; another 3% (n = 2) appropriated six-word strings.As was done in Study 1, demographic factors were analyzed to determine

whether they moderated the extent of text appropriation. Neither type of degree

obtained, years of teaching experience, nor publication record seemed to be related

to individuals’ writing practices.

That the quality of a paraphrase appears to depend on the readability of the orig-

inal makes sense in the context of known evidence from the area of text processing

(e.g., Masson & Waldron, 1994). Unfortunately, because of the specific design of

this study, it is not possible to determine whether the extent of text appropriation is

due to primarily to differences in topic familiarity (mental imagery vs. astrology)or to differences in text complexity (e.g., readability level). Future research should

address the specific contribution of these and other variables.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results of all three studies suggest the existence of wide differences in para-

phrasing practices of college professors, even within members of a single disci-

pline. However, in spite of using a more ecologically meaningful approach to as-sess these writing practices in Studies 2 and 3, the methodology used included a

number of constraints that, in all likelihood, artificially impaired respondents’ abil-

ity to produce effective paraphrases. For example, some respondents who supplied

uninvited (but welcomed) comments about the study complained that it was diffi-

cult for them to adequately paraphrase the original text given the limited amount of

information (e.g., background material, general context of the paper being written)

provided in the study’s scenario. Under normal circumstances, individuals para-

phrasing such material would surely have some knowledge of the topic and would

likely have access to additional information, sources on the subject matter, or both,including the entire article or chapter from which each paragraph was obtained.

Anothermajor issue thatneedstobe takenintoaccount is the distinctionbetween

paraphrasingandsummarizing.Althoughparaphrasing involves restatingtext from

anoriginal source in thewriter’sown words, the process ofsummarizing condenses

larger amounts of text into a few sentences for the purpose of conveying the main

points of theoriginal. Although scholarly writing involves both processes, summa-

rizing may be the more frequently used technique when writing from sources

(Troyka,1999).Inviewoftheseconsiderations,particularlywithrespecttotheissue

ofreadabilityoftext,professorsinthisstudy(andstudentsintheRoig,1999,studies)may havebeen“forced” tostayasclose aspossible to the original language toavoid

conveying inaccurate information. Incontrast, if theconstraintspreviouslyoutlined

only have a minimal impact on individuals’ paraphrases and the preceding results




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



represent actual writing practices, then the issue of how paraphrasing is defined

within and across disciplines needs to be seriously considered.

Most modern manuals of writing that discuss the parameters of correct para-phrasing (e.g., Aaron, 1998; Hacker, 1994; Nadell et al., 1994; Troyka, 1999) are

relatively clear on the extent to which the original material must be modified to be

considered properly paraphrased. For example, Troyka stated, “Even though a

paraphrase is not a direct quotation, you must use DOCUMENTATION to credit

your source. Also, you must reword your source material, not merely change a few

words” (p. 498). In another manual, Aaron suggested that when paraphrasing a

source, “Restate the source’s ideas in your own words and sentence structures” (p.

257). Other writers offer even stricter definitions of paraphrasing. For example,

consider Howard’s (1993; cited in Howard, 1999) definition of patchwriting, aform of writing that she considers plagiarism: “copying from a source text and then

deleting some words, altering grammatical structure, or plugging in one-for-one

synonym-substitutes” (p. 89). Accordingly, paraphrases such as those supplied by

respondents who appropriated strings of words in Studies 2 and 3 are certainly not

within the guidelines of paraphrasing outlined by these manuals and would there-

fore constitute possible instances of plagiarism.

If indeed college professors paraphrase in a manner similar to that observed in

the studies in this article, can we conclude that a small but significant proportion of

writing by college professors may be classified as plagiarism? Obviously, such aconclusion would depend on a number of factors. For example, has text appropria-

tion occurred systematically across various works cited throughout the paper, or is

it confined to one or two instances of, say, a description of a complex methodology

section of an experimental research report? In addition, how many strings of con-

secutive words have been appropriated and of what length are these strings of text?

Clearly, these and other issues need to be taken into account when making a deter-

mination of plagiarism.

One importantfactor tobeconsideredwhenreviewingothers’workfor potential

plagiarism is the discipline of the writer. For example, if the writer is a psychologystudent or professor, then perhaps those paraphrases might be acceptablewithin the

psychology community. Consider how the psychology profession defines para-

phrasing and plagiarism. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Association (APA; APA, 1994), a source used by most psychologists and others in

the social sciences (e.g., sociologists, social workers), offers the following guide-

lines: “Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing

someof the words isparaphrasing” (p. 292). A comparisonof the Publication Man-

ual definition with the definitions of traditionalwriting manuals outlined earlier in-

dicatessomeobviousdifferences inthe extent towhich textshouldbemodifiedtobeconsidereda properparaphrase.Unfortunately, theabsenceof a generaloperational

definitionforparaphrasingleavesplentyofroomfordisagreementastowhenapara-

phrase might be considered an instance of plagiarism.

320 ROIG



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



to Judith Nye, who personally facilitated theapprovalprocess andother accommo-

dations to carry out the study at one of the academic institutions.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manualof theAmerican Psychological Asso-

ciation (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aaron, J. E. (1998). The Little, Brown Compact Handbook (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Bink,M.L.,Marsh,R.L., & Hicks, J.L.(1999).Analternativeconceptualization tomemory “strength”inre-

alitymonitoring. Journal ofExperimentalPsychology:Learning,Memory,andCognition,25,804–809.

Bink, M.L., Marsh,R.L., Hicks,J.L., & Howard, J.D. (1999). The credibilityof a source influences the

rate of unconscious plagiarism. Memory,7, 293–308.

Bishop’s University,Department of Psychology. (1994). Guide to academic honesty (avoidance of pla-

giarism). Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada: Author.

Boice,R. (1990). Professors aswriters: A self-guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: NewForums

Press.

Bowers, N. (1994). A loss for words: Plagiarism and silence. American Scholar, 63, 545–555.

Brown, A. S., & Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 432–442.

Coon,D.(1995). Introduction to psychology: Exploration and application (7th ed.).NewYork:West.

Dant, D. (1986). Plagiarism in high school. English Journal, 75(2), 81–84.Hacker, D. (1994). The Bedford handbook for writers (4th ed.). Boston: Bedford Books.

Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports, 4, 66–70.

Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching and Writing, 11, 233–246.

Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarism, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57,

788–806.

Howard, R. M. (1999). The new abolitionism comes to plagiarism. In L. Buranen & A. M. Roy (Eds.),

Perspectivesonplagiarism andintellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 87–95). NewYork:

State University of New York.

Julliard, K. (1994). Perceptions of plagiarism in the use of other author’s language. Family Medicine,

26, 356–360.

LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publish-ing. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Landau, J. D., & Marsh, R. L. (1997). Monitoring source in an unconscious plagiarism paradigm.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 265–270.

Leatherman, C. (1999). At Texas A & M, conflicting charges of misconduct tear a program apart. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (11), pp. A18–A20.

Levin, J.R., & Marshall,H. (1993). Publishing in the Journal of Educational Psychology: Reflections at

midstream [Editorial]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 3–6.

Marsh, R. L., & Landau, J. D. (1995). Item availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two para-

digms of unconscious plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 21, 1568–1582.

Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., & Hicks, J. L. (1997). Contributions of inadequate source monitoring to un-consciousplagiarismduring idea generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem-

ory, and Cognition, 23, 886–897.

Masson, M. E. J., & Waldron, M. A. (1994). Comprehension of legal contracts by non-experts: Effec-

tiveness of plain language redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 67–85.

322 ROIG



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6



McCabe, D.L. (1992). Theinfluenceof situational ethicsoncheating amongcollege students.Sociolog-

ical Inquiry, 62, 365–374.

Miller, D. J. (1992). Plagiarism: The case of EliasA. K. Alsabti. In D. J. Miller & M. Hersen (Eds.), Re-

search fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences (pp. 80–96). New York: Wiley.

Monmouth University, Department of Psychology. (1995). Avoiding plagiarism in psychological writ-

ing. West Long Branch, NJ: Author.

Nadell, J., McMeniman, L., & Langan, J. (1994). TheMacmillan writer: Rhetoric and reader (2nd ed.).

New York: Macmillan.

Parrish, D. (1994). Scientific misconduct and the plagiarism cases. Journal of College and University

Law, 21, 517–554.

Rathus, S. A. (1993). Thinking and writing about psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Roig, M. (1995). The plagiarism knowledge survey. Unpublished instrument.

Roig, M. (1996). The paraphrasing practices survey. Unpublished instrument.

Roig, M. (1997). Canundergraduate students determinewhether text hasbeen plagiarized? Psychologi-cal Record, 47, 113–122.

Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasingbecomeinstances of potentialplagia-

rism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973–982.

Saxe, L. (1996). Scientific integrity: Wehavemet the enemy and it isus. APS Observer, 9(7),16, 20.

Spilich, G. J., Gregg, T., Vesonder, H. L., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of do-

main-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275–290.

Szuchman, L. T. (1999). Writing with style: APA style made easy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Taylor, F. K. (1965). Cryptomnesia and plagiarism. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 1111–1118.

Tenpenny, P. L., Keriazakos, M. S., Lew, G. S., & Phelan, T. P. (1998). In search of inadvertent plagia-

rism. American Journal of Psychology, 111, 529–559.Troyka, L. O. (1999). Simon & Schuster handbook for writers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Weaver, C. A., III, & Bryant, D. S. (1995).Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in

metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23, 12–22.

Zenhausern, R. (1978). Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking: Unified field model. Bulle-

tin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 381–384.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6

roig et al 2001 plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors

Documents