People's views on dreaming: Attitudes and subjective ream theories, with regard to age, education, and sex

Michael Rohde Olsen, Michael Schredl, Ingegerd Carlsson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The study investigated subjective theories of dream function (why do we dream)- measured as level of agreement with selected prescientific and contemporary views of science (N = 667) and thus explored differences in dream attitude with respect to age, educational level, and sex. A factor analysis revealed 3 factors. One can be described as seeing dreams as meaningful information processing (memory consolidation, sorting inputs, and solving problems), a 2nd included prescientific dream theory (dreams as messages from outside and/or from deceased, or dreams as prophecies). A 3rd factor included viewing dreams as insignificant products of the brain (random chemical signal interpretation and garbage products of the brain). Factor 1 was highly related to dream attitude-the more generally approving of dreams and dreaming, the more participants would regard dreams as meaningful information processing. Factor 2 was related to sex (women being more approving) and negatively related to level of education. Factor 3 was negatively related to the dream attitude scale but positively related to dream recall, which seemed counterintuitive. This could be seen as a way of explaining the often irrational content of dreams that participants were then able to recall. Women had a more supportive attitude toward dreams and dreaming.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)158-168
Number of pages11
JournalDreaming
Volume26
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jun 1

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)

Free keywords

  • Laymen theory of dream function
  • People view on dreaming
  • Sex difference
  • Subjective theory of dream function

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'People's views on dreaming: Attitudes and subjective ream theories, with regard to age, education, and sex'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this