The Daily Life Study: How Survey Methods Change Self-Reports

Michelle Eisenkraft
{"title":"The Daily Life Study: How Survey Methods Change Self-Reports","authors":"Michelle Eisenkraft","doi":"10.1037/e741612011-009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two studies were conducted. The first study examined the impact of survey methods on self-reports. Participants were put into Retrospection or No Retrospection conditions, within the Diary, Panel, or Cross-Section conditions. Participants within each condition completed diaries with differing frequencies. Within the diary conditions, participants were put into a \"Test\" condition and told that the researchers were studying students' daily lives leading up to midterms, or a \"Neutral\" condition and told that the investigators were studying students' daily lives. Differences between conditions were measured based on \"negative emotions\" (depression and anxiety). Participants completing diaries most frequently reported lower levels of negative emotion than students completing diaries less frequently, and participants in the Test condition reported higher levels of negative emotion compared to participants in the Neutral condition. The second study examined participants' accuracy in retrospective weekly self-reports, focusing on participants in the Retrospective Diary condition and comparing daily self-reports of time spent in activities to weekly estimates of average time spent in the same activities. There were significant differences in participants' average hours spent in class, and marginally significant differences in hours spent sleeping and studying. Results from these studies can help social scientists gain understanding of how participants complete self-reports, and have implications for research that requires self-reports.","PeriodicalId":30144,"journal":{"name":"The New School Psychology Bulletin","volume":"2 1","pages":"105-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The New School Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e741612011-009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two studies were conducted. The first study examined the impact of survey methods on self-reports. Participants were put into Retrospection or No Retrospection conditions, within the Diary, Panel, or Cross-Section conditions. Participants within each condition completed diaries with differing frequencies. Within the diary conditions, participants were put into a "Test" condition and told that the researchers were studying students' daily lives leading up to midterms, or a "Neutral" condition and told that the investigators were studying students' daily lives. Differences between conditions were measured based on "negative emotions" (depression and anxiety). Participants completing diaries most frequently reported lower levels of negative emotion than students completing diaries less frequently, and participants in the Test condition reported higher levels of negative emotion compared to participants in the Neutral condition. The second study examined participants' accuracy in retrospective weekly self-reports, focusing on participants in the Retrospective Diary condition and comparing daily self-reports of time spent in activities to weekly estimates of average time spent in the same activities. There were significant differences in participants' average hours spent in class, and marginally significant differences in hours spent sleeping and studying. Results from these studies can help social scientists gain understanding of how participants complete self-reports, and have implications for research that requires self-reports.
日常生活研究:调查方法如何改变自我报告
进行了两项研究。第一项研究考察了调查方法对自我报告的影响。参与者被置于回顾或无回顾的条件下,在日记、小组或横截面条件下。在每种情况下,参与者以不同的频率完成日记。在日记组中,参与者被置于“测试”组,并被告知研究人员正在研究学生在期中考试前的日常生活;或者被置于“中立”组,并被告知调查人员正在研究学生的日常生活。不同条件之间的差异是根据“负面情绪”(抑郁和焦虑)来衡量的。完成日记频率最高的参与者报告的负面情绪水平低于完成日记频率较低的学生,而测试条件下的参与者报告的负面情绪水平高于中立条件下的参与者。第二项研究考察了参与者回顾每周自我报告的准确性,重点关注回顾日记条件下的参与者,并将每天在活动中花费的时间的自我报告与每周在相同活动中花费的平均时间的估计进行比较。参与者的平均上课时间有显著差异,睡眠和学习时间有轻微差异。这些研究的结果可以帮助社会科学家了解参与者如何完成自我报告,并对需要自我报告的研究具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信