Measuring nightmare and bad dream frequency: impact of retrospective and prospective instruments

Studies on nightmare frequency have yielded inconsistent results. We compared the frequency of nightmares and bad dreams obtained with retrospective methods (annual and monthly estimates) and with two types of prospective measures (narrative and checklist logs). Four hundred and eleven participants completed retrospective estimates of nightmare and bad dream frequency and recorded their dreams in either narrative or checklist logs for 2-5 weeks. When measured prospectively with narrative logs, nightmare frequency was marginally higher than the 1-year estimate (P = 0.057) but not significantly different from the 1-month estimate (P > 0.05). Prospective bad dream frequency was significantly greater than the two retrospective estimates (ps < 0.0005). There were no significant differences in the frequency of nightmares and bad dreams reported prospectively with narrative versus checklist logs (ps > 0.05). However, checklist logs yielded a significantly greater number of everyday dreams per week (P < 0.0001). Taken together, the results provide partial support for the idea that when compared to daily logs, retrospective self-reports significantly underestimate current nightmare and bad dream frequency. Prospective studies of dream recall and nightmare frequency should take into account the type of log used, its duration, and the participants' level of motivation over time.

Gender differences in dream recall: a meta-analysis

Many studies have reported gender differences in dream recall. Data from 175 independent studies have been included in the analyses. Overall, estimated effect sizes in five age groups of healthy persons differed significantly from zero. Variables like measurement method and publication year did not affect the gender difference but age groups showed different effect sizes. The smallest effect size was found for children (0.097), the largest for adolescents (0.364), whereas the three adult groups ranged from 0.242 to 0.270. The findings suggest that the age-dependent gender differences in dream recall might be explained by gender-specific 'dream socialization'. Longitudinal studies in this area, however, are still lacking.

Absorption, psychological boundaries and attitude towards dreams as correlates of dream recall: two decades of research seen through a meta-analysis

Many studies have reported positive correlations between dream recall frequency (DRF) and measures of absorption, psychological boundaries and attitude towards dreams. A majority of these studies, however, have relied exclusively on retrospective measures of DRF even though daily dream logs are generally considered to be more direct and valid measures of DRF. The first goal of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect sizes of three variables (absorption, psychological boundaries and attitude towards dreams) as correlates of DRF. The second goal was to evaluate if these effect sizes varied as a function of how DRF was operationalized (i.e. retrospective measure versus dream log). Data from 24 studies were included in the analyses. For each of the three variables investigated, correlations with retrospective measures of DRF were of greater magnitude than those obtained with daily logs. These results indicate that scores on measures of absorption and psychological boundaries are not related to DRF per se, but rather to people's tendency to retrospectively underestimate or overestimate their DRF, while attitude towards dreams is related both to DRF per se and to people's retrospective estimation bias. Implications of these findings for dream research are discussed.