Is dream recall underestimated by retrospective measures and enhanced by keeping a logbook? A review.
Denholm J Aspy, Paul Delfabbro, Michael Proeve
Consciousness and Cognition May 1, 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.005 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Dreaming |
| Keywords | Dream diaries Methodology Self-report methods |
| Key findings | Retrospective measures tend to yield significantly lower dream recall rates than logbooks, and neither method may reflect typical dream recall rates due to potential underestimation and enhancement effects. |
Abstract
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.