The Honor Code of the Liberal Arts and Sciences of Tulane University defines plagiarism as "Unacknowledged or falsely acknowledged presentation of another person's ideas, expressions, or original research as one's own work." The Honor Code further notes that "Such an act often gives the reader the impression that the student has written or thought something that he or she has in fact borrowed from another. Any paraphrasing or quotation must be appropriately acknowledged." Ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism does not excuse students for this violation of the honor code.

Although consistent with it, the following section is not part of Tulane's Honor Code. Rather, it reflects one instructor's effort to clarify for students what constitutes plagiarism and inappropriate citation of sources. For further information, please consult an excellent insert regarding the appropriate acknowledgment is included in hard copies of Tulane Honor's Code. This insert, based on published sources (Dartmouth College, 1987; Tulane University, 1982) was consulted in preparation of this effort.

Examples of Plagiarism and Inappropriate Citation include:

Verbatim or near verbatim reproduction of material from a published source, without both placing quotation marks around the expression and citing the source.

Verbatim or near verbatim reproduction of material from an unpublished source (e.g., a fellow student's paper), without both placing quotation marks around the expression and citing the source.

The failure to cite a source for unique information or ideas, even if the words are not verbatim. If you did not know the information prior to consulting the source, you must cite it.

Although interdependence reliably increases attention to inconsistent information, studies supporting the continuum model all share a feature that is paradigmatic in the literature on interdependence and impression formation: immediate disclosure of the relevant category or stigma. Do these effects generalize to situations in which stigma disclosure is delayed? Indeed, delayed disclosure might produce different effects to the extent that it can encourage people to focus on stigma-consistent information (Ruscher & Hammer, 1994). The newly-labeled person falls under heightened scrutiny, and the stigma conceivably eclipses the person's individual attributes (Goffman, 1963; Jones et al, 1984). In one study, for example, a student who disclosed his suspension for plagiarism late in an interview was evaluated more negatively than if he disclosed this fact at the beginning of the interview (Jones & Gordon, 1972). Delayed disclosure of a "conduct" stigma, that is, a stigma associated with socially inappropriate behaviors, therefore may ruin an otherwise favorable or neutral impression. To address whether interdependence can buffer against such effects, the present study similarly examines the differences between early and late disclosure.

Any of the following reflect inappropriate citation, and involve plagiarism:

Verbatim lifting:

Delayed disclosure might produce different effects to the extent that it can encourage people to focus on stigma-consistent information (Ruscher, 1991).

Verbatim lifting, no citation:

Delayed disclosure might produce different effects to the extent that it can encourage people to focus on stigma-consistent information.

Near verbatim lifting:

Delayed disclosure could produce different results to the extent that it encourages people to look at stigma-consistent information (Ruscher, 1991).

Verbatim lifting, omitting some intermediate text:

Delayed disclosure might produce different effects, and may ruin an otherwise favorable or neutral impression (Ruscher, 1991).

Verbatim lifting, rearranging the order of the text:

To the extent that it can encourage people to focus on stigma-consistent information, delayed disclosure might produce different effects (Ruscher, 1991).

In contrast, any of the following would reflect an appropriate citation for use of this source:

Citation and quotation:

Drawing upon the work of Ruscher and Hammer (1994), Ruscher (1991) concluded that "delayed disclosure might produce different effects to the extent that it can encourage people to focus on stigma-consistent information."

Paraphrase and citation of ideas, in author's own words:

According to Ruscher (1991), all previous work on the continuum model examines the effects of immediate disclosure. Ruscher speculates that delayed disclosure might have different effects than immediate disclosure. Specifically, she suggests that delayed disclosure causes a perceiver to scrutinize the target individual and, in particular, to pay especial attention to attributes that are congruent with the stigma.

---

These examples use the citation format of the 4th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Writers should conform to the citation method particular to their discipline.

---

References

Dartmouth College (1987). Sources: Their use and acknowledgment.Dartmouth College: Hanover, New Hampshire
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.

Jones, E. E., & Gordon, E. (1972). The timing of self-disclosure and its effects on personal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 358-365.

Ruscher, J. B. (1991, June). Skeleton out of the closet: How previously-concealed stigma affects on-going impressions. American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C.

Ruscher, J. B., & Hammer, E. D. (1994). Revising disrupted impressions through conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 530-541.

Tulane University (1982). Literary honesty and elementary documentation.Tulane University: New Orleans, Louisiana.