dream structure-five personality dimensions

Relationship Between Dream Structure, BoundaryStructure and the Big Five Personality Dimensions

Carolin Aumann, Olaf Lahl, and Reinhard PietrowskyUniversity of Dusseldorf

The present study aimed at investigating the relationship between dream struc-ture, the concept of boundary structure, and the Big Five personality dimensions.Dream structure was assessed with the recently developed Dusseldorf DreamInventory, which is based on a factorial assessment of dream structure. Dreamstructure was correlated with boundary structure (Boundary Questionnaire) andpersonality dimensions (Big Five Inventory) in 1,958 participants in an onlinestudy. The results show that boundary structure, openness to experience andneuroticism were associated with dream structure. Participants with thin bound-aries had a higher dream recall frequency (DRF), considered their dreams to bepersonally more significant, exhibited more bizarre and aversive dreams, andmore incorporation of elements from waking life. Openness to experience waspositively correlated with DRF and personal significance of dreams. Neuroticismwas correlated positively with aversive dreams, more incorporation from wakinglife, and personal significance of dreams. The present results confirm previouscorrelations between dream structure and personality and identify dream struc-tures that are relevant for these associations.

Keywords: dreams, dream recall frequency, personality, boundary structure, Big Fivepersonality dimensions

A great number of studies have investigated the relationship between dreams andthe personality of the dreamer. For this purpose, various studies have been undertakento assess the quantity and less frequently the quality of dreams, that is, the number ofdreams recalled and aspects related to the content or the structure of dreams withrespect to personality variables (e.g., Blagrove & Akehurst, 2000; Hill, 1974; Lang &O’Connor, 1984; Levin, Fireman, & Rackley, 2003; Schredl & Montasser, 1996).

The most frequently studied characteristic of dreams with respect to person-ality is the dream recall frequency (DRF). In general, only few studies have found

Carolin Aumann, Olaf Lahl, and Reinhard Pietrowsky, Institute of Experimental Psychology,Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.

We thank Gregor Linke for technical support, Dr. Philipp Zygojannis for supporting the recruit-ment of the participants, and Helen-Rose Cleveland for language editing. The authors state that noconflict of interest arose in conducting this study, nor has there been an involvement of organizationswith financial interest in the subject matter of the article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reinhard Pietrowsky, Universityof Dusseldorf, Klinische Psychologie, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. E-mail:[email protected]

124Dreaming © 2012 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 22, No. 2, 124–135 1053-0797/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0028977

a relationship between DRF and personality (Blagrove & Akehurst, 2000; Levin etal., 2003). Weak and contradictory results exist for neuroticism, length of sleep,creativity, and gender (Blagrove & Akehurst, 2000; Brand et al., 2011; Schredl &Montasser, 1996). A recent study showed that sex role orientation was associatedwith DRF (Schredl & Lahl, 2010). Likewise, openness to experience was positivelycorrelated to DRF (Hill, Diemer, & Heaton, 1997) but this result could not bereplicated (Schredl, 2002). These weak associations between personality and DRFwere observed independently of the manner of dream recollection assessment, thatis, if dream recall was assessed via retrospective rating or by using a dream log.

However, one personality variable, boundary structure, has shown a clear androbust association with DRF in several studies (Hartmann & Kunzendorf, 2007).Boundary structure is a personality concept developed by Hartmann (1989) whichdescribes the thinness or thickness of boundaries by which a person separatesdifferent mental areas or processes, such as thoughts and feelings in waking life.Boundary structure is measured with the boundary questionnaire (BQ; Hartmann,1989, 1991). Hartmann (1991) found a positive relation between DRF and bound-ary structure, with correlation coefficients ranging from .2 to .5. He also reportedsignificant correlations between the thinness of boundaries and length of sleep (r �.16; Hartmann, 1989). The association between DRF and boundary structureremains when items dealing with any aspect of sleep, waking, or dreaming wereomitted from the BQ, in order to prevent a facilitating influence of these items ondream recall (Hartmann & Kunzendorf, 2007). In their meta-analysis, Beaulieu-Prevost and Zadra (2007) propose that boundary structure is not related to DRFper se, but rather to the individual tendency to over- or underestimate the DRFretrospectively. However, the correlation between boundary structure and DRFincreases when over- or underestimation of DRF is diminished by the use of adream log (Hartmann & Kunzendorf, 2007), indicating a direct relation betweenDRF and boundary structure. In addition, the correlation between DRF andboundary structure is markedly enhanced when groups of subjects with either lowor high boundary thinness were investigated rather than individual subjects (Hart-mann & Kunzendorf, 2007). This result further strengthens the hypothesis of a solidrelationship between the boundary structure and DRF.

In addition to DRF, boundary structure is also correlated to other aspects ofdreaming. People with thinner boundaries exhibit longer, more bizarre, vivid,emotional, and unrealistic dreams and report more aversive dream contents, inter-actions, and conflicts or nightmarish dreams (Hartmann, Elkin, & Garg, 1991;Hartmann, Rosen, & Rand, 1998; Kunzendorf, Hartmann, Cohen, & Cutler, 1997;Schredl, Kleinferchner, & Gell, 1996; Zborowski, McNamara, Hartmann, Murphy,& Mattle, 1998). Schredl Kleinferchner, and Gell (1996) pointed out that dreams ofpersons with a thick or a thin boundary structure differ with respect to the sameaspects as dreams of persons with high or low DRF do. In detail, thinness ofboundaries was significantly correlated with intensity of dream feelings. Among theBig Five personality traits that are related to boundary thinness, openness toexperience seems to be of particular relevance. Openness to experience is associ-ated with creativity, fantasy, sense for art, and unconventional thinking. Thus, thistrait seems to cover some of the same aspects as boundary thinness.

While DRF can be easily assessed by asking subjects to retrospectively ratetheir dream recall frequency, the use of a dream log has been shown to be the more

Dream Structure and Personality 125

reliable method and has an increased DRF (Schredl, 2007). In contrast, methods tomeasure dream structure vary from dream diaries and laboratory awakenings toretrospective dream questionnaires. While several questionnaires to assess dreamstructure have been developed, only a few were based on a factor analysis (e.g.,Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997; Yu, 2008; Horton & Conway, 2010). The Multidimen-sional Dream Inventory (Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997) assesses dreams with the foursubscales dream importance, dream usefulness, dream vividness, and dream recall,each by three items. The Dream Intensity Inventory (Yu, 2008) assesses dreamsaccording to the subscales dream quantity, altered dream episodes and dreamvividness. The 30-item Memory Experience and Dreams Questionnaire (MED-Q;Horton & Conway, 2010) focuses on memory of dreams and waking states assessedby the factors awareness of dreaming, daydreaming, dream sensations upon waking,deja-vu-states, comprehensibility of dream content and senses. All three question-naires have in common the subscales for recall or awareness of dreams and dreamvividness.

Although there is evidence for correlations between DRF and personalityvariables, mainly boundary structure, there is less evidence for correlations be-tween other measures of dream structure with personality variables. Thus, thepresent study aims at further investigating the relationship between DRF, measuresof dream structure and personality variables. We expected to replicate findings onthe relationship between DRF and personality variables and to extend findings onthe relationship between qualitative measures of dream structure and personalityvariables. Therefore, dream structure was assessed with the Dusseldorf DreamInventory (DDI), a recently developed questionnaire based on a factor analysis toassess dream structure. Personality variables were assessed using short versionsof the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and the Boundary Questionnaire (BQ). Weexpected positive correlations between DRF and personality variables, such asneuroticism, openness to experiences, and boundary thinness. Likewise, corre-lations between measures of dream structure and personality variables andboundary thinness were expected. In order to further specify the relationshipbetween personality variables and measures of dream structure, multiple re-gression analysis served to determine the predictive value of personality vari-ables on each single measure of the dream structure. To assess gender effects,analysis were undertaken for differences between sexes. Finally, we expected toreplicate previous empirical findings on dream structure as outlined by previousfactor-analysis based dream inventories (Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997; Horton &Conway, 2010; Yu, 2008) using the DDI.

METHOD

Participants

A total sample of 1,964 participants took part in the online study. The partic-ipants were recruited through an e-mail distribution list including all 50,000 stu-dents of the University of Cologne, Germany, and an announcement on the Website of a popular psychology magazine. Six participants were excluded for technicalreasons or missing answers. Thus, 1,958 participants (mean age: 24.4 years, SD: 5.5

126 Aumann, Lahl, and Pietrowsky

years, range: 18–72 years; 1,447 females and 511 males) fully completed the study.It can be assumed that this sample of 1,958 participants is representative of youngand well-educated adults; 86.1% of the sample were students and the rest wereemployed, most of them with a university degree.

Research Instruments

Dream Recall Frequency (DRF)

DRF was assessed by as single item asking the participants for the number ofdreams they could remember within the last four weeks. In addition, DRF was alsoassessed via the subscale “dream recall” of the DDI (see below).

Dusseldorf Dream Inventory (DDI)

The Dusseldorf Dream Inventory (DDI) is a hitherto unpublished ques-tionnaire developed by two of the authors (O.L. and R.P.). It consists of sevenitems which comprise statements about sleep behavior (sleep duration, sleeponset latency, frequency of nocturnal awakenings, restfulness of sleep, subjec-tive sleep depth, alcohol consumption and consumption of sedatives or hypnot-ics) and 51 items concerning dreaming. These 51 items load on five scales: dreamrecall (9 items, e.g., I often remember my dreams when I wake up), aversivedream contents (10 items, e.g., I dream of frightening events), personal signif-icance of dreams (13 items, e.g., my dreams give me advice), incorporations ofelements from waking life into dreams (13 items, e.g., I dream of people I metthe preceding day), and bizarreness of dreams (6 items, e.g., I often dream ofthings that cannot happen in waking life). It has to be noted that the subscale“dream recall” not only includes items for dream recall quantity (e.g., I usuallywake from a deep and dreamless sleep) but also items for the impact of dreamremembrance on waking life (e.g., my dreams affect me the following day).Answers are given on a 4-point Likert scale with the following graduations:“applies”�“mainly applies”–“partially applies”–“does not apply.” For dataanalysis, scores were calculated for each scale. Reliability of the DDI revealedthat the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient averaged .77 for the five subscales incommon (incorporations: .85; personal significance of dreams: .84; dream recall:.84; aversive dream contents: .77; bizarreness: .55). With the exception of thesubscale bizarreness, the internal consistency of the DDI is comparable to otherdream questionnaires (e.g., Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997), indicating a reliable anduseful instrument. An explicit validation of the questionnaire with otherdream questionnaires was not undertaken since there is no German translationof any other standardized dream inventory. However, the subscales of the DDIresemble those of the Multidimensional Dream Inventory (Kallmeyer & Chang,1997) and the Dream Intensity Inventory (Yu, 2008), indicating a plausiblevalidity.


Boundary Questionnaire—Short Version (BQ-18)

The short version of the Boundary Questionnaire (Hartmann, 1991), theBQ-18, consisting of 18 items, assesses the boundary structure, as introduced byHartmann (1991), ranging as a continuum from thin to thick boundaries. Thequestionnaire was used in the German translation, offered by the PsychologicalInstitute at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. Answers were scored on ascale between 0 and 4. The total score (sum bound) was calculated in order todetermine the boundary structure. Although there are no absolute standardcut-off points for the BQ-18, cut-offs of the total scores of the BQ-18 were usedapplying the suggested cut-offs by Kunzendorf, Hartmann, Cohen, and Cutler(1997) to separate between thick boundaries (less than or equal to 29), mediumboundaries (between 30 and 42), and thin boundaries (greater than 42).

Big Five Inventory—Short Version (BFI-10)

The Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10; Rammstedt & John, 2007) is a short 10item version of the Big Five Inventory with 44 items (John, Donahue, & Kentle,1991), which refers to the big five factor taxonomy that also underlies the NEO-FFI(Costa & McCrae, 1992). For each factor, neuroticism (N), extraversion (E),openness to experience (O), agreeableness (A), and conscientiousness (C) theBFI-10 contains two items, each of which measure either the positive or thenegative pole of the dimension. Answers were recorded on 5-point Likert scaleswith the following graduations: “applies”�“mainly applies”–“partially applies”–“does mainly not apply”–“does not apply.”

Design and Procedure

The study was designed as a correlation study. Data were collected online andthe participants were informed prior to the survey that the collected data would betreated confidentially and anonymously. The order of the administered questionsand questionnaires was the same for all participants. After participants answeredpreliminary demographic questions (age, gender, educational achievement, field ofstudy or occupation, psychiatric disease), they were asked two questions concerningDRF, followed by the DDI, BQ-18 and BFI-10. The participants were not informedabout the purpose of the study until after the survey had been completed.

Data Analysis

Questionnaire data (DDI, BQ-18, and BFI-10) were analyzed as described forthe respective questionnaire. The DDI results on sleep behavior are not reportedhere. In order to investigate the associations between dream variables and person-ality dimensions, two-tailed Pearson product–moment correlations were computedbetween subscales of the questionnaires. Subsequently, multiple regression analy-ses were carried out to assess the predictive value of personality variables on DRF


and dream structure. Gender differences were computed via t tests for DRF andeach of the questionnaire subscales. The significance level was set at 0.05; p valuesare not Bonferroni-corrected.

RESULTS

Dream Recall Frequency

The correlation between DRF (single item) and the subscale “dream recall”from the DDI was moderate, but highly significant at r � .57, p � .001. Accordingto the single item, DRF was 7.22 (�6.64) dreams within the last four weeks, with arange of 0 to 50 dreams. There was a significant difference in DRF between malesand females: on average, female participants reported 7.93 (�6.97) dreams duringthe past four weeks, whereas male participants remembered only 5.23 (�5.10)dreams, t(1956) � 8.02, p � .01. Likewise, the dream recall subscale of the DDIdiffered with respect to gender, with scores of 13.26 (�5.26) for females and 10.00(�4.89) for males, t(1956) � 22.22, p � .001, Table 1.

Descriptive Data of DDI, BQ-18, and BFI-10

The overall means and standard deviations for the different scales of the DDI,the BQ-18 and the BFI-10 are presented in Table 1. In the DDI, the femaleparticipants described their dreams as being of stronger personal significance andmore aversive, and as having a higher rate of incorporation of elements fromwaking life into dreams compared to male participants. These gender-specificdifferences were significant at a level of p � .01. Only dream bizarreness did notdiffer significantly between genders. Likewise, the mean value of the BQ-18 (sum

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Scales From the DDI, Mean Total Scores for theBQ-18 and BFI-10

QuestionnairesGeneralM � SD

FemaleM � SD

MaleM � SD t

DDIDream recall 12.41 � 5.36 13.26 � 5.26 10.00 � 4.89 12.22��

Aversive dreamcontents 15.93 � 6.15 16.64 � 6.28 13.92 � 5.29 8.76��

Personal significance 12.12 � 5.37 12.58 � 5.19 10.81 � 5.64 6.48��

Incorporation 11.31 � 5.64 12.24 � 5.58 8.65 � 4.89 12.87��

Bizarreness 10.35 � 3.45 10.26 � 3.39 10.59 � 3.61 1.91BQ

Sum bound 38.86 � 7.66 39.99 � 7.48 36.61 � 7.73 7.86��

BFIExtraversion 2.44 � 1.00 2.49 � 1.00 2.29 � 0.99 3.80��

Agreeableness 2.47 � 0.67 2.50 � 0.66 2.39 � 0.68 3.14��

Openness 2.87 � 0.93 2.92 � 0.91 2.71 � 0.98 4.59��

Neuroticism 2.13 � 0.97 2.27 � 0.95 1.71 � 0.93 11.61��

Conscientiousness 2.46 � 0.88 2.57 � 0.86 2.17 � 0.85 8.88��

� p � .05. �� p � .01. �� p � .001 (two-tailed).


bound) indicated thinner boundaries for women than for men, t(1956) � 7.86, p �.001. Classification of participants according to boundary structure revealed that219 participants (11.2%) had thick boundaries, 1,132 participants (57.8%) hadmedium boundaries, and 607 participants (31%) had thin boundaries. On average,women had slightly but significantly higher scores on all five personality dimensionsof the BFI-10.

Correlations Between DRF and Personality Variables

Dream recall frequency was correlated positively with extraversion, openness,and neuroticism. These correlations were observed for both kinds of DRF measures(single item and DDI subscale “dream recall”). However, only when DRF wasassessed with the DDI subscale it was positively correlated with conscientiousness(for details see Table 2). DRF was also positively correlated with boundary struc-ture, indicating a higher dream recall in participants with thinner boundaries (seealso Table 2). This effect was observed for both measures of DRF.

Correlations Between Dream Structure and Personality Variables

Several measures of dream structure as assessed by the DDI were correlatedwith the personality traits assessed by the BFI-10 (see Table 2). The DDI scalesaversive dream content, personal significance, incorporation, and bizarreness werepositively correlated with openness and neuroticism. Extraversion was negativelycorrelated with aversive dreams and bizarreness, positively with incorporation.Agreeableness was negatively correlated with aversive dreams and positively withpersonal significance. Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with bizarreness.

Correlations Between Dream Structure and Boundary Thinness

Dream structure was also associated with boundary structure. All five sub-scales of the DDI were positively correlated with boundary thinness ( p � .001),

Table 2. Pearson Correlations Between Dream Recall Frequency (DRF) and Measures of DreamStructure (DDI) With Personality Factors (BFI-10, BQ-18)

Extraversion Agreeableness Openness Neuroticism Conscientiousness BQ-18

DRF (single item) .087�� .00 .154�� .079�� .01 .180��

DDI:Dream recall .083�� .03 .224�� .180�� .049� .312��

Aversive dreamcontents �.093�� .085�� .070�� .350�� .02 .172��

Personalsignificance .03 .101�� .215�� .201�� .03 .404��

Incorporation .068�� .04 .105�� .320�� .03 .344��

Bizarreness �.074�� .04 .129�� .122�� .136�� .204��

� p � .05. �� p � .01. �� p � .001 (two-tailed).


indicating that thinner boundaries are associated with a better dream recall, moreaversive dream content, more personal significance in dreams, more incorporationof elements from waking life into dreams, and more bizarre dreams (see Table 2).

Regression Analysis

The regression analysis served to examine the prediction of the criteria vari-ables DRF and dream structure (DDI subscales dream recall, aversive dreams,personal significance, incorporation, and bizarreness) by the predictor variablesboundary structure, personality traits, age, gender, and profession (whereby professionrefers to the distinction between being a student or being employed; Table 3).

As assessed by the single item question, the total amount of variance of DRFexplained by the predictor variables was 7.9% (R2 � .079; F � 18.66, p � .001),while it was 17.2% (R2 � .172; F � 45.03, p � .001) when DRF was assessed by thesubscale “dream recall” of the DDI. For aversive dream content, the predictorvariables explained 15% of the variance (R2 � .15; F � 38.29, p � .001). Thepredictor variables explained 20.3% of variance of personal significance of dreams(R2 � .203; F � 55.27, p � .001). For the DDI subscale incorporation, the predictorsaccounted for 22.8% of the total variance (R2 � .228; F � 63.96, p�.001). For theDDI scale bizarreness all predictor variables explained 7.7% of the variance (R2 �.077; F � 18.04, p�.001). Successive elimination of variables did not result in asubstantial enhancement of explained variance for the criteria variables.

Table 3. Regression Analysis for the Criteria Variable DRF and the Five Subscales of the DDI(Dream recall, Aversive Dream Contents, Personal Significance, Incorporation, Bizarreness) as

Predicted by the Respective Predictor Variable Age, Gender Profession, the Personality DimensionsAssessed by the BFI-10 [Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Openness (O), Neuroticism (N),

Conscientiousness (C)] and The Boundary Structure Assessed by the BQ-18

Criteriavariables

Predictor variables

Age Gender Profession E A O N C BQ-18

DRF ß �0.04 0.12 0.08 0.09 �0.03 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.12(single item) t �1.93 4.94 3.77 3.83 �1.58 3.53 0.93 �0.10 4.94

p 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.35 0.92 0.01Dream Recall ß 0.01 0.17 0.06 0.10 �0.01 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.22

t 0.62 7.68 2.64 4.41 �0.46 4.93 3.81 1.03 9.62p 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.01

Aversive ß �0.02 0.10 0.04 �0.02 �0.09 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.07Dream t �0.99 4.39 2.03 �0.92 �4.34 0.66 12.76 0.75 2.90Contents p 0.36 0.01 0.51 0.45 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04Personal ß 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.11 0.09Significance t 2.57 3.34 2.84 1.87 2.82 15.27 1.16 4.77 4.10

p 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.01Incorporation ß �0.09 0.15 �0.01 0.12 0.01 �0.03 0.24 0.01 0.27

t �4.30 6.90 �0.38 5.84 0.59 �1.22 10.9 0.58 12.08p 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.56 0.22 0.01 0.56 0.01

Bizarreness ß �0.06 �0.09 0.03 �0.02 �0.03 0.08 0.09 �0.09 0.16t �2.62 �3.78 1.25 �1.05 �1.47 3.26 3.65 �4.09 6.35p 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.30 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01


DISCUSSION

The present study sought to investigate associations of dream recall frequencyand other measures of dream structure with boundary structure and personalityvariables. Gender differences were observed for all measures, indicating thatfemale participants remembered their dreams more frequently than male partici-pants, more frequently showed thin boundaries, and scored higher on all fivepersonality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, neuroticism, and consci-entiousness). In accordance, gender significantly predicted DRF and dream mea-sures derived from the DDI. DRF, when assessed by a single item as well as by thedream recall subscale of the DDI, was positively correlated to extraversion, open-ness, neuroticism, and boundary thinness. The personality variables werecorrelated to the DDI subscales in various ways, with neuroticism, openness andboundary thinness correlating positively to all subscales, while extraversion, agree-ableness, and conscientiousness showed differential results. The personality vari-ables also significantly predicted DRF and DDI dream measures, most consistentfor boundary thinness.

The observed gender differences of a better dream recall in females than inmales are in line with other studies (Giambra, Jung, & Grodsky, 1996), and alsosupported by a recent meta-analysis of Schredl and Reinhard (2008). Likewise, theobserved gender effect on boundary thinness is in line with previous results(Hartmann, 1991; Hartmann & Kunzendorf, 2007). The Big Five personality vari-ables are also known to differ between the sexes, with women scoring higher onneuroticism and agreeableness, whereas men tend to score higher on extraversionand conscientiousness (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Schmitt, Realo, Vo-racek, & Allik, 2008). These findings oppose the results of the present study.

In the present study, DRF was assessed by a single item as well as by the DDIsubscale “dream recall,” the latter reflecting quantitative and qualitative aspects ofdream recall. As expected, the correlation between the two measures was moder-ate, which indicates that both measures differ in what they measure. The latter is abroader and more general measure, which also encompasses the influence ofdreams on waking life, such as their influence on mood after waking or how detailedthe dreams are remembered.

The DDI, which is based on a factor analysis performed on its items, describesthe dream structures according to five independent factors, thus partially confirm-ing previous dream inventories, which also found a comparable factor structure(Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997; Yu, 2008). The factor dream recall appears to becomparable to the respective factors in the other inventories and the factor per-sonal significance seems to cover the factors dream importance and dream useful-ness in the Kallmeyer and Chang (1997) inventory. On the other hand, we did notfind a factor comparable to dream vividness (Kallmeyer & Chang, 1997; Yu, 2008).However, dream vividness seems to be reflected by the DDI dimensions aversivedream recall and bizarreness. The factor incorporation resembles the factor aware-ness of dreaming in the inventory by Horton and Conway (2010). In sum, thefactorial structure of the DDI resembles those of other dream inventories. As is thecase for all the published dream inventories, there are minor differences betweentheir factorial structures. Although the DDI achieved sufficient results with regard


to psychometric measures such as reliability, there is need for further validation ofthe DDI and replication of the findings.

As expected, a high DRF was associated with thin boundaries, openness toexperiences, and neuroticism (Blagrove & Akehurst, 2000; Hartmann, 1991; Hill etal., 1997; Schredl, Ciric, Götz, & Wittmann, 2004). In contrast to previous studies(Lang & O’Connor, 1984), extraversion was also correlated with an enhanced DRF,although this association was rather weak. Moreover, not only a high DRF but alsoother dream variables, as assessed by the DDI, were associated with personalityvariables. Most prominent, boundary thinness was strongly positively correlatedwith all five subscales of the DDI. This result is not surprising, as boundary thinnessis a psychological concept derived from research in nightmare sufferers and in-tended to describe dream phenomena. However, boundary structure is intendednot only to describe dream phenomena but mainly to be a broad dimension ofpersonality. In accordance, boundary structure was correlated with dream measuresas were some of the other personality variables, but even stronger. Likewise,openness to experience and neuroticism were positively correlated to all of the fiveDDI subscales, indicating that dream structure—as assessed by the DDI— is closelyrelated to these personality traits. Since there is rare evidence for the association ofpersonality variables with dream dimensions, there is no empirical reference.

The correlations between the other personality variables and DDI subscalesare more differentiated, indicating that these personality variables are associatedonly with specific dream aspects. Extraversion is positively correlated with dreamrecall and incorporation, but negatively with aversive dream contents and bizarre-ness. This result contradicts the result of Lang and O’Connor (1984) who reporteda negative correlation between extraversion and dream recall. Further, it indicatesthat extraversion may protect from aversive dream contents and bizarre dreams.Higher scores of agreeableness, which are also negatively correlated to aversivedream contents, may similarly protect from aversive dreams. On the other hand,subjects with higher agreeableness regard their dreams as being of stronger per-sonal significance, which in turn, may support this personality factor. Subjectsscoring high on conscientiousness have a better general dream recall rate and alsoreport less bizarre dreams.

The multiple regression analysis with demographic and personality factors aspredictor variables and dream measures as criteria variables revealed moderateexplanations of these variables. The explained variances ranged from 7.7%to 22.8%. For the DDI subscales personal significance and incorporation, theexplained variance exceeded 20%, which indicates that a sufficiently high amountof the variance of these subscales can be explained by the predictor variables. Theseare mainly openness to experience in the case of personal significance and gender,extraversion, and boundary thinness for the subscale incorporation. Similar findingswere reported by Schredl et al., (2004), who included the predictor variablessleeping behavior, openness to experiences, creativity and attitude toward dreamswhich explained 8.4% of the total variance for the DRF compared to 7.9% in ourstudy.

In the present study, we used the BFI-10 to assess the Big Five personalitytraits. The BFI-10, which is derived from the more extensive Big Five Inventory(BFI; John et al., 1991), was developed at the same time as the Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI;


Costa & McCrae, 1992). We chose the BFI-10 due to its shortness and thuspracticability, although it has been criticized for its limited scope and possibledisregard of other personality factors. However, this critique also holds for otherwell-established personality inventories such as the NEO-FFI. And while there areserious arguments that more than five personality factors may be of relevance (John,1990), the present study was restricted to the relation of the DDI to the five factors ofthe BFI, acknowledging that there may be more personality traits. On the other hand,the German version of the BFI-10 has been proven to have a sufficient retest reliabilityof .78 (Rammstedt & John, 2007) and the correlations of the BFI with other personalityinventories are .83 with the BFI-44 and .68 with the NEO-PI-R, indicating a sufficientvalidity of the questionnaire.

In sum, the present study showed that measures of dream structure and DRFare significantly associated with several personality variables, such as boundarystructure, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and extraver-sion. Thus, not only the quantity of recalled dreams, but also the quality of dreams,is modified or even determined by personality traits. It seems clear, that personalitytraits do not simply determine the quality of dreams directly. Rather, they canaffect the way in which the subjects may perceive their environment, interactsocially, and cope with personal problems. Personality traits thus become a mod-ulator of the appraisal of the world, also affecting the content and structure ofdreams and the extent, to which they are remembered.

REFERENCES

Beaulieu-Prevost, D., & Zadra, A. (2007). Absorption, psychological boundaries and attitudes towardsdreams as correlates of dream recall: Two decades of dream research seen through a meta-analysis.Journal of Sleep Research, 16, 51–59. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2007.00572.x

Blagrove, M., & Akehurst, L. (2000). Personality and dream recall frequency: Further negative findings.Dreaming, 10, 139–148. doi:10.1023/A:1009482223115

Brand, S., Beck, J., Kalak, N., Gerber, M., Kirov, R., Puhse, U., . . . Holsboer-Trachsler, E. (2011).Dream recall and its relationship to sleep, perceived stress, and creativity among adolescents.Journal of Adolescent Health, 49, 525–531. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.04.004

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEOFive-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits acrosscultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Giambra, L. M., Jung, R. E., & Grodsky, A. (1996). Age changes in dream recall in adulthood.Dreaming, 6, 17–31.

Hartmann, E. (1989). Boundaries of dreams, boundaries of dreamers: Thin and thick boundaries as anew personality dimension. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 14, 557–560.

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.Hartmann, E., Elkin, R., & Garg, M. (1991). Personality and dreaming: The dreams of people with very

thick or very thin boundaries. Dreaming, 1, 311–324.Hartmann, E., & Kunzendorf, R. G. (2007). Boundaries and dreams. Imagination, Cognition and

Personality, 26, 101–115. doi:10.2190/HK76-038K-407M-8670Hartmann, E., Rosen, R., & Rand, W. (1998). Personality and dreaming: Boundary structure and dream

content. Dreaming, 8, 31–39. doi:10.1023/B:DREM.0000005913.21794.1fHill, A. B. (1974). Personality characteristics of dream recall. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 42, 766–773. doi:10.1037/h0037545Hill, C. E., Diemer, R. A., & Heaton, K. J. (1997). Dream interpretation sessions: Who volunteers, who

benefits, and what volunteer clients view as most and least helpful. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 44, 53–62. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.1.53


Horton, C. L., & Conway, M. A. (2010). The memory experience and dreams questionnaire (MED-Q):A validated measure of dream remembering. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 29, 3–29.doi:10.2190/IC.29.1.b

John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural languageand its questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.66–100). New York, NY: Guildford.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley,CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Kallmeyer, R. J., & Chang, E. C. (1997). The Multidimensional Dream Inventory: Preliminary evidencefor validity and reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 803–808. doi:10.2466/pms.1997.85.3.803

Kunzendorf, R. G., Hartmann, E., Cohen, R., & Cutler, J. (1997). Bizarreness of the dreams anddaydreams reported by individuals with thin and thick boundaries. Dreaming, 7, 265–271.

Lang, R. J., & O’Connor, K. P. (1984). Personality, dream content and dream coping style. Personalityand Individual Differences, 5, 211–219. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(84)90053-9

Levin, R., Fireman, G., & Rackley, C. (2003). Personality and dream recall frequency: Still furthernegative findings. Dreaming, 13, 155–162. doi:10.1023/A:1025321428651

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item shortversion of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sexdifferences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 94, 168–182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Schredl, M. (2002). Dream recall frequency and openness to experience: A negative finding: Personalityand Individual Differences, 33, 1285–1289. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00013-2

Schredl, M. (2007). Dream recall: Models and empirical data. In D. Barrett & P. McNamara (Eds.), Thenew science of dreaming, Vol. 2: Content, recall, and personality correlates (pp. 79–114). Westport,CT: Praeger.

Schredl, M., Ciric, P., Götz, S., & Wittmann, L. (2004). Typical dreams: Stability and gender differences.Journal of Psychology, 138, 485–494. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.6.485-494

Schredl, M., Kleinferchner, P., & Gell, T. (1996). Dreaming and personality: Thick versus thin bound-aries. Dreaming, 6, 219–223.

Schredl, M., & Lahl, O. (2010). Gender, sex role orientation, and dream recall frequency. Dreaming, 20,19–24. doi:10.1037/a0018578

Schredl, M., & Montasser, A. (1996). Dream recall: State or trait variable? Part I: Model, theories,methodology and trait factors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 16, 181–210.

Schredl, M., & Reinhard, I. (2008). Gender differences in dram recall. A meta-analysis. Journal of SleepResearch, 17, 125–131. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00626.x

Yu, C. K.-C. (2008). Dream intensity inventory and Chinese people’s dream experience frequencies.Dreaming, 18, 94–111. doi:10.1037/1053-0797.18.2.94

Zborowski, M., McNamara, P., Hartmann, E., Murphy, M., & Mattle, L. (1998). Boundary structurerelated to sleep measures and to dream content. Sleep, 21, 284.


dream structure-five personality dimensions

Documents