Aspy Denholm J
School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace Campus, Level 4 Hughes Building, SA 5005, Australia.
Conscious Cogn. 2016 May;42:181-203. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.015. Epub 2016 Mar 26.
In a recent review, Aspy, Delfabbro, and Proeve (2015) highlighted the tendency for retrospective measures of dream recall to yield substantially lower recall rates than logbook measures, a phenomenon they termed the retrospective-logbook disparity. One explanation for this phenomenon is that retrospective measures underestimate true dream recall. Another explanation is that keeping a logbook tends to enhance dream recall. The present study provides a thorough empirical investigation into the retrospective-logbook disparity using a range of retrospective and logbook measures and three different types of logbook. Retrospective-logbook disparities were correlated with a range of variables theoretically related to the retrospective underestimation effect, and retrospective-logbook disparities were greater among participants that reported improved dream recall during the logbook period. These findings indicate that dream recall is underestimated by retrospective measures and enhanced by keeping a logbook. Recommendations for the use of retrospective and logbook measures of dream recall are provided.
在最近的一篇综述中，阿斯皮、德尔法布罗和普罗埃夫（2015年）强调，与日志记录法相比，梦境回忆的回顾性测量方法得出的回忆率要低得多，他们将这一现象称为回顾性-日志记录差异。对这一现象的一种解释是，回顾性测量方法低估了真实的梦境回忆。另一种解释是，记日志往往会增强梦境回忆。本研究使用一系列回顾性和日志记录测量方法以及三种不同类型的日志，对回顾性-日志记录差异进行了全面的实证研究。回顾性-日志记录差异与一系列理论上与回顾性低估效应相关的变量相关，并且在日志记录期间报告梦境回忆有所改善的参与者中，回顾性-日志记录差异更大。这些发现表明，回顾性测量方法低估了梦境回忆，而记日志则增强了梦境回忆。文中还提供了关于使用回顾性和日志记录法测量梦境回忆的建议。
