“. . . that although he had lost all conscious recollection of Binet’s work, it had none the less borne fruit in his personal unconscious.” ― Anthony Stevens, Jung: A Very Short Introduction
Cryptomnesia, an intricate and often misunderstood psychological phenomenon, pertains to instances where an individual mistakenly believes a memory or idea is novel when, in reality, it is a recollection of a past experience or previously encountered information.
Understanding Cryptomnesia
Cryptomnesia is derived from the Greek words "krypto" (hidden) and "mneme" (memory). It occurs when an individual unconsciously retrieves a memory but perceives it as a new inspiration. This phenomenon is not limited to any specific type of memory and can encompass ideas, melodies, words, phrases, or even entire narratives (Brown & Nix, 1996).
Causes and Mechanisms
The root causes of cryptomnesia are complex and multifaceted. One primary factor is the failure of source memory, which is the ability to recall the origin of a piece of information (Mitchell & Johnson, 2009). When this aspect of memory falters, individuals may recognize familiar information but fail to attribute it to the correct source. Furthermore, factors like attentional focus, similarity between the new and original context, and the passage of time can influence the likelihood of cryptomnesia occurring (Thomas, Bulevich, & Loftus, 2003).
Differentiating Cryptomnesia from Plagiarism and Déjà Vu
Cryptomnesia is distinct from intentional plagiarism. In plagiarism, there is a conscious awareness of the source, coupled with an intentional decision to claim it as one's own. In contrast, cryptomnesia is an unconscious process, devoid of intentional deceit (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1997).
Similarly, cryptomnesia differs from déjà vu. Déjà vu involves a vague and fleeting sense of familiarity with a novel situation, whereas cryptomnesia involves concrete, specific memories or ideas that are mistakenly believed to be new (Brown & Nix, 1996).
Implications of Cryptomnesia
Cryptomnesia has significant implications in various domains, such as creative industries, academia, and legal settings.
Creative Industries
In creative fields like music, literature, and art, inadvertent replication due to cryptomnesia can lead to accusations of plagiarism. Famous cases in music and literature underscore the fine line between unconscious influence and intentional copying (Bellido, 2023; Stark, Perfect & Newstead, 2005). Understanding cryptomnesia is vital for artists and creators to navigate these complexities.
Academic and Research Settings
In academia, unintentional replication of ideas or text due to cryptomnesia can be misconstrued as academic dishonesty. Awareness and preventive strategies are crucial for researchers and students to maintain integrity in their work (Marsh & Bower, 1993).
Legal Considerations
Legally, cryptomnesia poses challenges in copyright infringement cases. Distinguishing between unconscious copying and deliberate plagiarism can be difficult, impacting judgments and resolutions in these cases (Jaeger, 2008; Shane, 2012).
Preventing and Addressing Cryptomnesia
Preventive measures against cryptomnesia include enhancing source memory, maintaining detailed records of research and idea development, and fostering awareness of this phenomenon. When instances of cryptomnesia are identified, acknowledging and rectifying them transparently is crucial to uphold ethical standards in any field (Brown & Nix, 1996).
Cryptomnesia represents a fascinating intersection of memory, psychology, and ethics. Its understanding is pivotal across various disciplines, from creative arts to legal arenas. As research continues to unravel its complexities, acknowledging and addressing cryptomnesia becomes increasingly important for maintaining ethical standards and fostering genuine creativity and innovation.
References
Bellido, J. (2023) Pop and the Musical Unconscious. In: Bonadio, E and Zhu, C, eds. Music Borrowing and Copyright Law: A Genre-by-Genre Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 113-126.
Brown, A. S., & Nix, L. A. (1996). Turning lies into truths: Referential validation of falsehoods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1088.
Jaeger, C. B. (2008). Does That Sound Familiar: Creators' Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61, 1903.
Marsh, E. J., & Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cryptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 673-688.
Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., & Hicks, J. L. (1997). Contributions of inadequate source monitoring to unconscious plagiarism during idea generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 886-897.
Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 638-677.
Shane, K. (2012). The Unconscious Erosion of Copyright Legitimacy By The Unconscious Copying Doctrine. University of Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 13, 53.
Stark, L. J., Perfect, T., & Newstead, S. (2005). When elaboration leads to appropriation: Unconscious plagiarism in a creative task. Memory, 13(6), 561-573.
Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Exploring the role of repetition and sensory elaboration in the imagination inflation effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(4), 630-640.