Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports
Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports
复制标题
自传体记忆和回顾性报告的有效性
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Sudman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Schwarz;S. Sudman
“自传体记忆和回顾性报告的有效性”介绍了认知心理学家和研究方法学家在自传体记忆领域的合作努力。编辑们包括一群受人尊敬的研究人员，他们的工作涵盖了与自传体记忆和回顾性报告有效性相关的广泛问题，反映了认知心理学和调查研究的不同传统。本书的第一部分提供了关于回顾性报告的不同理论观点，沿着了支持性的实验证据。本卷的第二部分特别关注行为的回顾性报告，包括回忆身体疼痛的频率和强度，吸烟的数量，饮食习惯和子女抚养费。下面的部分将讨论事件日期和时间估计所涉及的认知过程，以及自我报告和代理报告之间的差异。最后一部分从不同的方向扩展了对自传体记忆的讨论，包括自传体记忆对个人对当前生活的评估的影响，基于回顾性报告的社会变革评估，以及集体记忆的问题。这本书，一个宝贵的和及时的资源，为研究人员和学生的认知心理学以及调查方法学家和统计学家，展示了相当大的进展，在理解认知动态的回顾性报告。
"Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports" presents the collaborative efforts of cognitive psychologists and research methodologists in the area of autobiographical memory. The editors have included an esteemed group of researchers whose work covers a wide range of issues related to autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports, reflecting the diverse traditions in cognitive psychology and survey research. The first part of the book provides different theoretical perspectives on retrospective reports, along with supporting experimental evidence. The second part of this volume focuses specifically on retrospective reports of behaviours, including recall of the frequency and intensity of physical pain, of the number of cigarettes smoked, of dietary habits, and of child support payments. The following sections address the cognitive processes involved in event dating and time estimation, and a discussion of the differences between self and proxy reports. The final part extends the discussion of autobiographical memories in different directions, including the impact of autobiographical memories on individuals' assessment of their current life, the assessment of social change on the basis of retrospective reports, and the issue of collective memories. This book, a valuable and timely resource for researchers and students of cognitive psychology as well as to survey methodologists and statisticians, demonstrates the considerable progress made in understanding the cognitive dynamics of retrospective reports.