Ethics & Behavior

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

Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College

and 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: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8

Published online: 08 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1095

View related articles

Citing articles: 106 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 11(3), 307–323
Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria

of College and University Professors
Miguel Roig
Department of Psychology
St. 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 (Study 2) 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-six
percent of the psychologists appropriated text from the original version, whereas only
3% appropriated text from the one that was easier to read. 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 forms of cheating (e.g., McCabe, 1992), plagiarism by college pro-
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%.

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: roigm@stjohns.edu
308 ROIG

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 a
phenomenon 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 a
citation. 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 with
rewritten 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
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 309

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 and
predicate.
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 usually
use 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 a
paragraph 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 reference citation 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-
310 ROIG

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 reported
that 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
47 years. Some participants did not provide information about their age or gender.
From the private teaching university, 55 useful surveys were returned out of a to-
tal of 483 that were sent (11% return rate). Of the 199 surveys sent to faculty from the
private 4-year college, 20 useful surveys were returned (10%). For the community
college, 247 surveys were sent and 34 were completed and returned (10%), whereas
for the TIPS discussion group, 485 surveys were sent and 49 were completed and 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 rewritten
versions. Four of the rewritten versions were incrementally modified but not suffi-

1Copies of instruments used in all three studies are available from me.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 311

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 their department’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 preceded each 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 via
e-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.
 312 ROIG

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 Paragraph 4 that shows that 44% of the sample of professors considers
this rewritten version as not being a case of plagiarism. Using a procedure identical
to one implemented in the study with undergraduates (see Roig, 1997), a plagiarism
score was computed for each respondent. Low plagiarism scores indicated that the
individual held plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria that were consistent with 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

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 the
paragraph 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.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 313

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–moment
correlations, 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 scores
suggesting 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 did not was 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.
That neither of the paragraphs yielded 100% agreement among respondents (Ta-
ble 1) indicates that professors’ conceptions of plagiarism and correct paraphrasing
can range widely from a very lax set of criteria for determining plagiarism to criteria
that can be even more rigorous than those prescribed by traditional definitions. It is
worth noting that, even within groups of academic specialties, respondents appeared
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

The preceding methodology was conceptualized as an attempt at estimating college

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

fessors’ actual paraphrases evidence the same criteria that they applied to the sce-
nario presented in Study 1? Evidence from a study with undergraduates suggests that
their paraphrases may be based on somewhat less rigorous criteria. In the first of two
studies, Roig (1999) gave students the Paraphrasing Practices Survey (PPS; Roig,
1996) that consisted of the same paragraph by Zenhausern (1978) used in his earlier
study with undergraduates (Roig, 1997) and in Study 1. Students were placed in a
scenario in which they were asked to paraphrase the Zenhausern paragraph for inclu-
sion in a paper they were writing. Consistent with the results of Roig’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 total of 198 surveys mailed (5%), and the community college
produced 16 responses from the 248 surveys that were sent (6%). As with the previ-
ous study, return rates could not be established for the public 4-year college and the
public university. For the Internet discussion group, 486 surveys were e-mailed and
23 useful paraphrased paragraphs were 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 to comparing rewritten versions to
an original). Based on those respondents who identified their sex and age, there
were 70 men and 34 women who ranged in age between 25 and 75 years, with an av-
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 were
placed 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
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 315

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.

Results and Discussion

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
accuracy of the paraphrases by noting the number of distortions in the meaning of the
original paragraph. A surprising 24% of the paraphrases evidenced some type of dis-
tortion, although most of these distortions were negligible at best. For example, for
the original sentence “ … many nonvisual thinkers have rather vivid imagery, but
they can state with confidence that they do not think in pictures,” the following para-

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

1. At that point, the decision was made to carry out both studies simultaneously. Thus, one half of 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 study
packets 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.
316 ROIG

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 this
study with 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 legal documents 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

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.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 317

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 the
same scenario conditions as those used in the first study. As expected, only between
9% and 19% 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 sample of 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 other half received the difficult-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
318 ROIG

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 sentences
on 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.

Results and Discussion

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-

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

College Professorsa
Variable (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 11
Reversals 22 16 11

Note. APS = American Psychological Society.

an = 109. bn = 43. cn = 64.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 319

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.
Another major issue that needs to be taken into account is the distinction between
paraphrasing and summarizing. Although paraphrasing involves restating text from
an original source in the writer’s own words, the process of summarizing condenses
larger amounts of text into a few sentences for the purpose of conveying the main
points of the original. Although scholarly writing involves both processes, summa-
rizing may be the more frequently used technique when writing from sources
(Troyka, 1999). In view of these considerations, particularly with respect to the issue
of readability of text, professors in this study (and students in the Roig, 1999, studies)
may have been “forced” to stay as close as possible to the original language to avoid
conveying inaccurate information. In contrast, if the constraints previously outlined
only have a minimal impact on individuals’ paraphrases and the preceding results
320 ROIG

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, a
form 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 a
conclusion 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 important factor to be considered when reviewing others’ work for potential
plagiarism is the discipline of the writer. For example, if the writer is a psychology
student or professor, then perhaps those paraphrases might be acceptable within 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
some of the words is paraphrasing” (p. 292). A comparison of the Publication Man-
ual definition with the definitions of traditional writing manuals outlined earlier in-
dicates some obvious differences in the extent to which text should be modified to be
considered a proper paraphrase. Unfortunately, the absence of a general operational
definition for paraphrasing leaves plenty of room for disagreement as to when a para-
phrase might be considered an instance of plagiarism.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 321

Curiously, in spite of the apparently lax definition of paraphrasing, the example

offered by the Publication Manual (APA, 1994, p. 292) is more consistent with the
stricter definitions of paraphrasing found in the writing manuals previously cited.
However, the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (APA,
1992), from which the Publication Manual definition was probably derived, is con-
sistent with the Publication Manual definition. Principle 6.22 states, “Psychologists
do not present substantial [italics added] portions or elements of another’s work or
data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally” (APA,
1992, p. 1609). Do the principles imply that the appropriation of small portions of
others’ text is an acceptable practice? Some within the field of psychology (e.g.,
Saxe, 1996) appear to subscribe to a lenient approach to paraphrasing. Yet, others’
advocate the application of a stricter definition (e.g., Rathus, 1993; Szuchman,
1999). For example, handouts designed to prevent student plagiarism, from psy-
chology departments at a number of colleges and universities (e.g., Bishop’s Uni-
versity, 1994; Monmouth University, 1995), contain guidelines that are more
consistent with the stricter approach to paraphrasing than with the approach sug-
gested by the Publication Manual. Clearly, the guidelines for paraphrasing and pla-
giarism in the field of psychology are being subjected to different interpretations by
some of its members and are therefore in need of further clarification.
Evidence of scholarly productivity in the form of publications and successful
grant applications continues to be an important basis for obtaining an academic po-
sition, as well as, for attaining promotion and tenure (Boice, 1990). More impor-
tant, scholarly work is increasingly multidisciplinary in nature. Yet, the evidence
indicates that there can be substantial differences in how paraphrasing and plagia-
rism are defined even within a single discipline. At a time when college faculty and
administrations are drawing increasing attention to the problem of plagiarism in
the academy, the current situation represents a highly undesirable state of affairs in
need of immediate attention.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The studies reported in this article were partially supported by a St. John’s Univer-
sity 1997 summer research grant and were carried out during the period between the
fall semesters of 1996 and 1997.
Portions of these data were presented at the 9th and 10th annual meetings of the
American Psychological Society, both held in Washington, DC, in May 1997 and
May 1998, respectively.
I am indebted to the many individuals at the institutions where data were col-
lected who provided assistance in this project. Particular appreciation is expressed
to some of the respondents who provided insightful comments on the project and
322 ROIG

to Judith Nye, who personally facilitated the approval process and other 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 manual of the American 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). An alternative conceptualization to memory “strength” in re-
ality monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 804–809.
Bink, M. L., Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Howard, J. D. (1999). The credibility of 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 as writers: A self-guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums
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.). New York: 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.),
Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 87–95). New York:
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-
conscious plagiarism during 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.
 PLAGIARISM AND PARAPHRASING OF PROFESSORS 323

McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociolog-
ical Inquiry, 62, 365–374.
Miller, D. J. (1992). Plagiarism: The case of Elias A. 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). The Macmillan 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). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychologi-
cal Record, 47, 113–122.
Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagia-
rism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973–982.
Saxe, L. (1996). Scientific integrity: We have met the enemy and it is us. 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.