Is dream recall underestimated by retrospective measures and enhanced by keeping a logbook? An empirical investigation.

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.

Is dream recall underestimated by retrospective measures and enhanced by keeping a logbook? A review.

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.