Aspy Denholm J, Delfabbro Paul, Proeve Michael
School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, Level 4 Hughes Building, SA 5005, Australia.
School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, Level 4 Hughes Building, SA 5005, Australia.
Conscious Cogn. 2015 May;33:364-74. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Feb 25.
There are two methods commonly used to measure dream recall in the home setting. The retrospective method involves asking participants to estimate their dream recall in response to a single question and the logbook method involves keeping a daily record of one's dream recall. Until recently, the implicit assumption has been that these measures are largely equivalent. However, this is challenged by the tendency for retrospective measures to yield significantly lower dream recall rates than logbooks. A common explanation for this is that retrospective measures underestimate dream recall. Another is that keeping a logbook enhances it. If retrospective measures underestimate dream recall and if logbooks enhance it they are both unlikely to reflect typical dream recall rates and may be confounded with variables associated with the underestimation and enhancement effects. To date, this issue has received insufficient attention. The present review addresses this gap in the literature.
在家中测量梦境回忆通常有两种方法。回顾性方法是要求参与者根据一个单一问题来估计他们的梦境回忆,而日志法是每天记录自己的梦境回忆。直到最近,一直隐含的假设是这些测量方法在很大程度上是等效的。然而,回顾性测量得出的梦境回忆率显著低于日志法这一趋势对这一假设提出了挑战。对此的一个常见解释是回顾性测量低估了梦境回忆。另一个解释是记日志会提高梦境回忆。如果回顾性测量低估了梦境回忆,并且如果记日志会提高梦境回忆,那么它们都不太可能反映典型的梦境回忆率,并且可能与与低估和增强效应相关的变量混淆。迄今为止,这个问题尚未得到足够的关注。本综述弥补了文献中的这一空白。