| Literature DB >> 24550849 |
Christopher L Edwards1, Perrine M Ruby2, Josie E Malinowski3, Paul D Bennett1, Mark T Blagrove1.
Abstract
This paper addresses claims that dreams can be a source of personal insight. Whereas there has been anecdotal backing for such claims, there is now tangential support from findings of the facilitative effect of sleep on cognitive insight, and of REM sleep in particular on emotional memory consolidation. Furthermore, the presence in dreams of metaphorical representations of waking life indicates the possibility of novel insight as an emergent feature of such metaphorical mappings. In order to assess whether personal insight can occur as a result of the consideration of dream content, 11 dream group discussion sessions were conducted which followed the Ullman Dream Appreciation technique, one session for each of 11 participants (10 females, 1 male; mean age = 19.2 years). Self-ratings of deepened self-perception and personal gains from participation in the group sessions showed that the Ullman technique is an effective procedure for establishing connections between dream content and recent waking life experiences, although wake life sources were found for only 14% of dream report text. The mean Exploration-Insight score on the Gains from Dream Interpretation questionnaire was very high and comparable to outcomes from the well-established Hill (1996) therapist-led dream interpretation method. This score was associated between-subjects with pre-group positive Attitude Toward Dreams (ATD). The need to distinguish "aha" experiences as a result of discovering a waking life source for part of a dream, from "aha" experiences of personal insight as a result of considering dream content, is discussed. Difficulties are described in designing a control condition to which the dream report condition can be compared.Entities:
Keywords: Dream; REM sleep; insight; psychotherapy; sleep
Year: 2013 PMID: 24550849 PMCID: PMC3872037 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Group (.
| Own ATD | 0–7 | 5.00 | 1.67 |
| Significant others ATD | 0–5 | 2.55 | 1.57 |
| Society ATD | 0–4 | 3.73 | 0.47 |
| Exploration-Insight gains | 1–9 | 8.17 | 0.54 |
| Experiential gains | 1–9 | 7.28 | 1.94 |
| Action gains | 1–9 | 5.78 | 1.04 |
| Exploration-Insight gains item 6 | 1–9 | 7.64 | 1.12 |
| Exploration-Insight gains item 7 | 1–9 | 7.36 | 1.12 |
| Exploration-Insight gains item 13 | 1–9 | 8.36 | 0.92 |
| I feel sensitive to aspects of my life I typically ignore | 0–9 | 6.36 | 1.86 |
| My dream influenced my mood even after awakening | 0–9 | 5.64 | 2.98 |
| My dream reminded me of events that occurred in my past | 0–9 | 6.91 | 2.77 |
| My dream made me feel like changing the way I live | 0–9 | 2.73 | 3.04 |
Comparison of Exploration-Insight gains and Experiential gains with Action gains:
p < 0.001,
p < 0.05.
Due to a typographical error, item 2 of the Gains from Dream Interpretation questionnaire, “I learned more about what this dream meant for me personally during the session,” is omitted.
Item 6 “I learned more from the session about how past events influence my present behavior.”
Item 7 “I learned more about issues in my waking life from working with the dream.”
Item 13 “I was able to make some connections between images in my dream and issues in my waking life that I had not previously considered.”
Gains from Dream Interpretation subscale means (and SDs) from papers by Hill, with comparison of current study with Hill studies' subscale means, and comparison of current study means with weighted subscale means of all Hill dream conditions.
| Current study | Ullman dream group. ( | 8.17 (0.54) | 7.28 (1.94) | 5.78 (1.04) | |
| Heaton et al. | Therapist-facilitated, following Hill ( | 8.03 (0.73) | 7.06 (1.50) | 6.98 (1.07) | |
| Self-guided, following Hill ( | 6.61 (1.35) | 6.76 (1.74) | 5.99 (1.11) | ||
| Hill et al. | Participants elaborate on image details in dream, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill ( | 4.61 (1.71) | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Participants provide associations to images, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill ( | 6.48 (1.35) | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Participants elaborate on image details and provide associations. Following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill ( | 5.84 (1.76) | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Zack and Hill | Used Hill ( | 7.67 (1.10) | 7.09 (1.42) | 6.34 (1.74) | |
| Rochlen et al. | Pre-study discussion of benefits of dream contemplation. Participants encouraged to use strategies to boost dream recall prior to study following Hill ( | 7.48 (1.48) | 7.00 (1.70) | 6.03 (1.41) | |
| Involved an introduction to Hill model and participation in two sessions of the group procedure prior to study following Hill ( | 8.04 (0.96) | 6.79 (1.97) | 7.01 (1.34) | ||
| Pre-study discussion of theoretical perspectives regarding counseling prior to study following Hill ( | 7.92 (0.82) | 7.32 (1.48) | 6.79 (1.22) | ||
| Hill et al. | Dream condition, following Hill ( | 8.08 (0.52) | 7.43 (0.97) | 7.54 (0.49) | |
| Control condition: Recent loss focussed on, not a dream ( | 6.63 (0.76) | 6.59 (0.99) | 6.12 (0.82) | ||
| Wonnell and Hill | Hill ( | 7.88 (1.06) | Not reported | 6.10 (1.24) | |
| Hill ( | 7.99 (1.00) | Not reported | 6.98 (1.45) | ||
| Hill et al. | Followed Hill ( | 7.77 (1.20) | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Hill et al. | Participants type dream and computer-generated voice asks questions, following Hill ( | 6.72 (1.27) | Not reported | 6.12 (1.73) | |
| Therapist empathy: Followed Hill ( | 7.75 (0.85) | Not reported | 6.60 (1.16) | ||
| Therapist empathy + input: Followed Hill ( | 7.93 (0.93) | Not reported | 6.81 (1.05) | ||
| All Hill studies | Weighted mean (SD) of all Hill dream conditions | 7.40 (1.15) | 7.03 (1.56) | 6.51 (1.34) |
Significant difference between current study mean and Hill condition mean:
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01.
Conditions reported used Hill (1996) one-to-one therapeutic procedure unless otherwise stated.
A parallel form of the GDI, called the Gains From Therapy, was used for the loss condition, with the word dream replaced by the word problem.
Weighted mean uses all Hill conditions in this Table except for the Hill et al. (2000) control condition. Means are calculated with weighting for number of participants in each condition. There were no significant differences between current study subscale means and weighted subscale means of all Hill dream conditions.