Stone A A, Schwartz J E, Neale J M, Shiffman S, Marco C A, Hickcox M, Paty J, Porter L S, Cruise L J
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook 11794-8790, USA.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Jun;74(6):1670-80. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1670.
Recent research suggests that retrospective coping assessments may not correspond well with day-to-day reports. The authors extended this work by examining the correspondence between short-term (within 48 hr) retrospective coping reports and momentary reports recorded via a palm-top computer close in time to when the stressor occurred. There was relatively poor correspondence between the 2 assessments. Some reports of momentary coping were not reported retrospectively, and some coping reported retrospectively was not reported at the time the stressor occurred. Cognitive coping was more likely to be underreported retrospectively; behavior coping was overreported. Participants were consistent in their discrepancies, but there was no correspondence between discrepancy rates and demographic or personality variables.
近期研究表明，回顾性应对评估可能与日常报告不太相符。作者通过研究短期（48小时内）回顾性应对报告与通过掌上电脑在应激源发生时及时记录的即时报告之间的对应关系，拓展了这项研究。这两种评估之间的对应关系相对较差。一些即时应对的报告没有被回顾性报告，而一些回顾性报告的应对在应激源发生时并未被报告。认知应对在回顾性报告中更有可能被少报；行为应对则被多报。参与者在差异方面保持一致，但差异率与人口统计学或个性变量之间没有对应关系。
