Abstract
A fascinating area of dream research is the analysis of long dream series. However, research regarding differences between long-term journalists and normal persons is lacking. The present online survey (N = 2,492) focused on the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and frequency of recording dreams. As expected, dream recall frequency, nightmare frequency, and attitude towards dreams were related to the frequency of recording dreams. Unexpectedly, conscientiousness was negatively related to recording dreams—a finding that warrants further research. Similarly, the effects of education and agreeableness on recording dreams are not yet understood. Given those interindividual differences, one should be cautious in generalizing findings obtained from long dream series.
Introduction
Instructing participants to keep a dream diary is one method to elicit dream reports (Schredl, 2018b). The advantage compared to the method of eliciting most recent dreams (Domhoff, 1996) is the minimizing of possible retrospective biases, for example, reporting only intense or bizarre dreams that occurred weeks, months, or even years ago. In addition, the researcher can easily obtain several dreams per participant (depending on dream recall frequency and study duration) which is helpful if trait aspects like personality dimensions are related to dream content characteristics (e.g., König, Mathes, & Schredl, 2016). The diary approach also has advantages compared to eliciting dreams via awakenings in the sleep laboratory because 19.4% of sleep lab dreams included some reference to the lab setting like electrodes, experimenter, and so on (Schredl, 2008) and, thus, did not reflect dream content of the participants everyday life. Only in 0.8% of diary dreams a direct reference to the experiment could be found (Hall, 1967). One drawback of the diary method is motivation; dream recall frequency and dream length drop after 5 to 7 days of dream journaling (Schredl, 2018b; Zadra & Robert, 2012), especially in high dream recallers (Schredl, 2002).
The typical duration of keeping a diary within a dream study is 1 to 6 weeks (Schredl, 2018b; Zadra & Robert, 2012). It seems obvious that a voluntary or paid participant is not willing to spend 15 to 30 minutes every morning recording dreams for weeks, month, or even years. However, there are persons doing just that for personal reasons, recording an abundance of dreams over long periods of time, for example, several thousand dreams (Garfield, 1973), N = 4,254 dreams of “Barb Sanders” (Domhoff, 2018), N = 4,435 dreams (Gassmann, 2015), more than 6,000 dreams of an former member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Bulkeley, 2018), 6,100 dreams of a psychology professor (Uslar, 2003), 10,952 dreams analyzing the occurrence of former romantic partners in dreams (Schredl, 2018a), or 12,224 dreams studying spiritual content in dreams (Paquette, 2018).
The advantages of such long dream series are evident, for example, studying dreams during the course of a romantic relationship and after separation (Domhoff, 2018; Schredl, 2011) or studying the effect extraordinary events like being a political prisoner for several years on social relationships in dreams (Merei, 1994). Hartmann and Brezler (2008) were able to recruit 44 dream journalists who recorded their dreams before and after the 9/11 terror attacks: There were more intense central images within the dreams after the attack but not exact replays of televised pictures of the attacks. One has to keep in mind that analyzing a long dream series is a single-case study and the long-term journalist might differ in a lot of variables from the general public. Up to now, this question had not been addressed in a systematic way. Interestingly, recording dreams is also used as a coping strategy for dealing with nightmares: About 15% of the participants (N = 2,872) stated that they recording their nightmares at least once and about 40% of those persons indicated that it was helpful (Schredl & Göritz, 2014). In two studies (Lancee, Spoormaker, & van den Bout, 2010; Neidhardt, Krakow, Kellner, & Pathake, 1992), the participants in the recording group showed a significant reduction in nightmare frequency (smaller compared to active treatment like imagery rehearsal therapy), but this effect was not present in all studies (Augedal, Hansen, Kronhaug, Harvey, & Pallesen, 2013).
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the frequency of recording dreams, dream recall frequency, nightmare frequency, attitude towards dreams, and the Big Five personality dimensions in a community sample. It was expected that dream recall frequency, nightmare frequency, and attitude towards dreams are positively related to the frequency of recording dreams. Regarding the relationship between personality and frequency of recording dreams, no predictions were made as it is unclear how these relationships look like if dream recall and attitude towards dreams that are typically related to openness to experience (Schredl & Göritz, 2017) are statistically controlled.
Method
Research Instruments
For eliciting the frequency of recording dreams, an 8-point rating scale was presented (“How often do you record your dreams?” 0 = never, 1 = less than once a year, 2 = about once a year, 3 = about two to four times a year, 4 = about once a month, 5 = two to three times a month, 6 = about once a week, and 7 = several times a week). The retest reliability of this scale was r = .765 (Schredl, Berres, Klingauf, Schellhaas, & Göritz, 2014). To obtain the dream recall frequency, a 7-point scale (coded as 0 = never, 1 = less than once a month, 2 = about once a month, 3 = about 2 to 3 times a month, 4 = about once a week, 5 = several times a week, and 6 = almost every morning) was presented. The retest reliability of this scale for an average interval of 8 weeks is high: r = .85 (Schredl, 2004). To assess nightmare frequency, an 8-point rating scale was presented (“How often do you experience nightmares?” 0 = never, 1 = less than once a year, 2 = about once a year, 3 = about 2 to 4 times a year, 4 = about once a month, 5 = about 2 to 3 times a month, 6 = about once a week, and 7 = several times a week). Retest reliability of the nightmare frequency scale is high: r = .75 (4 weeks retest interval; Stumbrys, Erlacher, & Schredl, 2013).
Attitude towards dreams was measured by six items that were modified from a previous study (Schredl, Brenner, & Faul, 2002) as this scale was developed for students. The items have a 5-point format, for example, “I think that dreaming is in general a very interesting phenomenon” (0 = not at all, 1 = not that much, 2 = partly, 3 = somewhat, and 4 = totally). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was high (r = .910) as well as the retest reliability over a 2-week interval (r = .842; Schredl et al., 2014).
The Big Five personality factors were measured with the German version of the NEO-FFI-30, which includes 30 items (Körner, Drapeau, et al., 2008). Each personality factor (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) were computed as the sum score of the six corresponding items. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of the five scales of the 30-item version were comparable to those of the 60-item version of the NEO-FFI and ranged from r = .67 (openness to experience) to r = .81 (neuroticism) (Körner, Geyer, et al., 2008).
Procedure and Participants
Overall, 2,492 persons (1,437 women and 1,055 men) completed the online survey between March 23, 2015, and April 8, 2015. The mean age of the sample was 47.75 ± 14.41 years (range: 17 to 93 years). The link of the study was posted on the online panel www.wisopanel.net. Within this panel, persons with an interest in online studies and with heterogenic demographic backgrounds are registered. The participation was voluntary and unpaid.
Statistical procedures were carried out with the SAS 9.4 software package for Windows. An ordinal regression was used for analyzing the effect of different predictors (the Big Five personality dimensions, dream recall frequency, and nightmare frequency) on the frequency of recording dreams controlled for age, sex, and education. The variables were entered simultaneously.
Results
The distribution of the frequency of recording dreams is depicted in Table 1. About 17% of the participants reported that they had recorded a dream at least once in their lives whereas 2% recorded their dreams quite often.
Frequency of Recording Dreams (N = 2,492).
In Table 2, the ordinal regression analyses for frequency of recording dreams are depicted. In Analysis 1, significant relationships were found for the neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness factors. As expected, dream recall frequency showed a strong relationship to the frequency of recording dreams. Age was negatively correlated with the frequency of recording dreams. In Analysis 2, attitude towards dreams was additionally entered, showing—as expected—a very strong relationship to the frequency of recording dreams. Controlling for this variable, age was no longer significant related to the frequency of recording dreams, but higher education was related to higher dream recording as was nightmare frequency (in addition to the relationship to dream recall frequency). Regarding the Big Five personality factors, the largest regression coefficient was found for conscientiousness. Persons with low conscientiousness scores were more likely to record their dreams. The coefficient for openness to experience decreased in magnitude but was still significant whereas the relationship between neuroticism and frequency of recording dreams was no longer significant. The negative association with agreeableness remained significant. Gender was not related to the frequency of recording dreams.
Ordinal Regression Analyses for the Frequency of Recording Dreams.
Note. SS = Standardized estimates. Analyses include age, gender, education, dream recall frequency, nightmare frequency, and all five personality factors entered simultaneously; in Analysis 2, attitude towards dreams was also entered.
Discussion
The findings indicate that keeping a dream journal on a regular basis is relatively rare in the general population (about 2%). Overall, 17% of the participants recorded at least one dream in their lifetime. After controlling for dream recall frequency, nightmare frequency, and attitude towards dreams, conscientiousness was the personality strongest related to the frequency of recording dreams.
From a methodological viewpoint, it has to be considered that the present sample is very divers regarding age and educational background but not representative. A previous study (Schredl et al., 2014) using this online panel indicated that there is a slight but significant overrepresentation of high dream recallers in the sample. That is, the percentages for persons recording dreams would be somewhat smaller for a representative sample. Another issue that should be noted that the current study measured the frequency of recording dreams but did not elicited whether the person is keeping a dream journal over a longer period of time (long-term journalists).
The positive correlation between dream recall frequency and frequency of recording dreams has been reported previously (Schredl et al., 2014); the basis for that seem obvious: If a person cannot recall any dreams, she or he cannot record dreams. Also the strong relationship between recording dreams and attitude towards dreams seems evident, that is, only persons with a strong interest in dreams are willing to put in the work to record their dreams in the morning. The small but significant relationship between dream recording frequency and nightmare frequency support the notion that recording dreams might be a helpful coping strategy for nightmares (Schredl & Göritz, 2014). Interestingly, education is related to frequency of recording dreams, maybe persons with higher education are more prone to keeping a diary not only for dreams. It would be interesting whether modern technology (voice-recording dreams; e.g., Vallat, Chatard, Blagrove, & Ruby, 2017) might have an effect on the relationship between education and recording (writing down) dreams. As a gender difference in recording dreams have been reported previously (Schredl et al., 2014) and women tend to recall their dreams more often (Schredl & Reinhard, 2008), share their dreams more often (Schredl & Schawinski, 2010), and are more interested in dreams (Schredl, 2007), it was unexpected that there was no gender difference in the present study after controlling for dream recall frequency and attitude towards dreams. This is an interesting topic for future research.
The conscientiousness personality dimension encompasses facets such as competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). As recording dreams during the night or in the morning regularly is quite an arduous task (Garfield, 1973), one would expect a positive correlation between self-discipline (it would be much easier to stay a few more minutes in the cozy and warm bed) and frequency of recording dreams. But the findings clearly indicate a negative association between conscientiousness and the frequency of recording dreams. So, it would be very interesting to take a closer look whether persons keeping a dream journal are not as achievement oriented, orderly, less self-controlled, and traditionalistic (Green, O’Connor, Gartland, & Roberts, 2015) than person not keeping a journal. Qualitative studies in this field might enable a deeper understanding of the relationship between conscientiousness and frequency of dream recording. The negative correlation between agreeableness and the frequency of recording dreams also warrants further investigation. It might be possible that persons how are friendly, cooperative, and compassionate to other individuals (Shiraev, 2017) are more likely to share their dreams instead of recording their dreams for themselves.
That persons who are curious, inventive, and exploratory (high openness to experience scores) (Shiraev, 2017) are recording their dreams more often—see Analysis 1 in Table 2—seems plausible. Analysis 2 indicated that this relationship is largely mediated by the attitude towards dreams, that is, person with high openness to experience scores are more interested in dreams and, thus, record their dreams more often; even though the small correlation between frequency of recording dreams and openness to experience after controlling for attitude towards dreams suggested that there is a motivation to go deeper, learn more about the own dreams by recording them in persons with high openness to experience.
To summarize, the findings of the present study clearly implicate that persons who record their dreams regularly differ from persons who are not recording their dreams. Therefore, generalizing findings obtained from long dream series must be done very carefully. Individual differences between long-term journalists should also be studied in a more detailed way, for example, the mean dream length for one journalist was 54 words (Bulkeley, 2018), whereas another journalist’s dreams included on average 131 words (Schredl, 2015). It would be also very interesting to study how dream journaling is affecting dream content; Schredl (2015) found that 0.3% of the 10,148 dreams included the activity of recording dreams—comparable to the figure of 0.6% of diary dreams including references to the experiment for which the participants recorded the dreams (Hall, 1967). In conclusion, studying dream series of long-term journalists is a very promising research field, but it should be complemented by research studying the differences between long-term journalists and normal persons.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.