Gender differences in the content
analysis of 240 dream reports from Brazilian participants in Dream
Seminars
Stanley Krippner & Jan Weinhold
Abstract
This study asked the questions, “Are there significant content
differences between male and female dream reports obtained in
dream seminars conducted in Brazil?” Each of the 240 (137
female, 103 male) research participants volunteered recent dream
reports (one per person) during dream seminars that he or she
attended between 1990 and 1998. Dreams were scored according to
Hall-Van de Castle criteria. Comparative Cohen h - statistics
revealed several gender differences. Further study is recommended
because the dream reports did not represent Brazil’s social-economic
diversity, and may not have been characteristic of the totality
of participants’ dream lives.
Introduction
Most investigators realize that the dreams with which they work
are simply reports; the actual dream as directly experienced can
not be studied. The shaman, the psychotherapist, and the dream
researcher all deal with verbal or, in some cases, pictorial dream
- reports. These reports may be incomplete, poorly remembered,
or completely fabricated; they may change or undergo revision
depending on the social or temporal context. Not only does a dream
report represent a dialogue between one’s waking and sleeping
mentation, it reflects a discourse between the dreamer and the
listener. Dreamers may provide one version of the recalled dream
to family members, a second version to their friends, and a third
version to their psychotherapist. What is disclosed about the
dream may vary considerably, depending on how the dreamer forgets,
embroiders, or reconstructs different portions of the report.
In postmodern terms, dream reports are fluid texts rather than
fixed texts; rather than remaining static, their meaning and even
their words vary as they are told and retold at different times
in different settings. Hence, dreamwork of any type needs to be
done with care, with attentiveness, and with modesty.
The association between dream reports and the dreamer’s everyday
activities and concerns has been demonstrated both for individuals
(e.g., Winget, Kramer, & Whitman, 1972) and cultures (e.g.,
D’Andrade, 1961; Prasad, 1982). Dream reports have been used
to study cross-cultural differences which have often yielded striking
results (e.g., Heynick, 1993). The manifest content of reported
dreams also has been used to study groups within cultures. Gender
differences, for example, constantly have emerged in the literature
(e.g., Soper, Rosenthal, & Milford,1994). Therefore, the question
asked in this study was, “Are there significant content differences
between male and female dream reports obtained in dream seminars
conducted in Brazil?”.
Only one previous study on this topic has been reported. Luciano
Ribeiro Pinto, Jr. (in Ludwig & Cristiane, 1999, pp. 66-67)
of the Institute of Sleep, Federal University of Sao Paulo, queried
70 Brazilian men and women about their dreams. Overall, the most
frequent content items reported were friends, family, travelling,
and sex, in that order. Women recalled their dreams more frequently
than men; men reported less auditory dream content as well as
fewer vivid and repetitive dreams; women reported more dream content
concerning family members, friends, work, and emotions.
Methodology
Content analysis is a research procedure, not a research method.
However, it does employ an explicit, organized plan for assembling
data, quantifying them to measure the concepts under study, examining
their patterns and interrelationships, and interpreting quantitative
comparison of verbal reports elicited by research participants
(Riley & Stoll, 1968). In this case, Brazilian men and Brazilian
women were compared. The research method utilized to obtain data
on gender differences was J. Cohen’s (1977) h-statistic.
Research Participants
The 137 female and 103 male research participants for this study
were members of dreams seminars that one of the authors (SK) conducted
in Brazil between 1990 and 1998. These events were held in various
Brazilian cities, specifically Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Curitiba,
Fortaleza, Porto Alegre, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, and
Sao Paulo.
The age range spanned people from their 20s to their 70s, with
a few outliers on each end of the spectrum. Using Stephen’s
(1997) classification terms, the “upper” and “middle”
classes were over-represented as there were entrance fees for
most of the seminars; however, a few scholarships were available
for other individuals. Many seminars were held at colleges and
universities; as a result, the educational level of the participants
was higher than would have been found in the general population.
A variety of ethnic groups were represented in the sample.
Research Instrument
Content analysis is a research procedure developed to systematically
and objectively quantify textual characteristics and themes. It
also identifies the relative extent to which these schema pervade
a given communication, document, or other text. In 1966, The Content
Analysis of Dreams (Hall & Van de Castle, 1966) was published;
this book outlines a thorough coding system with which the authors
investigated 1,000 dreams collected from 200 undergraduates from
Case Western Reserve University between 1947 and 1952. Since that
time, the Hall-Van de Castle system has been used to compare groups
of varying gender, age, cultural background, and diagnostic category
(e.g., Kane, Mellen, Patten, & Samano, 1993; Krippner, Lenz,
Barksdale, & Davidson, 1994; Krippner, Posner, Pomerance,
Barksdale, & Fischer, 1974; Lortie-Lussier, Schwab, &
De Konick, 1985).
The Hall-Van de Castle (1966) system is one of several which has
been developed over the years in an attempt to reflect the relation
between a dream report and the dreamer’s environment, or,
in the case as such scales as “ego strength” (pp. 208-210),
a theoretical conjecture about the dreamer’s inner world.
Reliability and validity concerns have been addressed by Van de
Castle (1969) and the system’s utility has been evaluated
by Winget and Kramer (1979). Hobson (1988), however, makes a distinction
between dream-content and dream-form, holding that the latter
(e.g., discontinuities, incongruities, uncertainties) are the
most interesting features of a dream because this dream “architecture”
more clearly differentiates it from waking consciousness (pp.
233-234).
Research Procedure
At the beginning of each seminar, participants were invited to
write down “a recent dream,” providing no information
on this report other than their gender, and to place it on a centrally
located desk. Several of these dreams were used to illustrate
concepts explored in the seminar, and a few dreams were explored
in detail, with the donor’s participation.
Following a procedure approved by the Saybrook Institutional Review
Board (for the protection of human subjects), participants were
told that the entire collection of dream reports would be used
for research purposes unless anyone objected. Those who did, were
requested to withdraw their dream report at the end of the seminar.
Following a procedure often used in the content analysis of dreams
(Domhoff, 1996), all dream reports below 50 words and above 250
words were eliminated from consideration.
Four judges, working blind and independently, coded the dream
reports following the rules outlined by Hall and Van de Castle
(1966) as well as those more recently contributed by Domhoff (1996),
whose book contains the complete HallBvan de Castle system. The
Hall-Van de Castle categories coded were total characters, total
aggressive interactions, total friendly interactions, total sexual
interactions, total settings, total emotions, total activities,
total successful outcomes, total failure outcomes, total outcomes
ending in misfortune, total outcomes ending in good fortune, total
objects, total modifiers, total negative descriptions, total temporal
descriptions and dramatic intensity score (the sum of the categories
aggressive interactions, friendly interactions, sexual interactions,
successful outcomes, failure outcomes, outcomes ending in misfortune
and outcomes ending in good fortune).
Many of these categories are subdivided in the Hall-Van de Castle
system; those subcategories coded were male characters, female
characters, strangers, family members and relatives, children,
animals, dreamer as aggressor, dreamer as victim, dreamer witnessing
but uninvolved in the aggression, aggression by a male, aggression
by a familiar person, aggression by a stranger, dreamer as both
aggressor and victim, indoor settings, outdoor settings, architecture,
household objects, food and eating, tools and implements, travel
objects and conveyances, streets and roadways, regions and land
areas, nature, body parts, clothing, communication objects and
money.
An Aggression per Character (i.e., A/C Index) score was determined;
this index indicates the number of characters involved in aggressive
interactions. In much the same way, Friendliness per Character
(i.e., F/C Index) and Sexuality per Character (i.e., S/C Index)
scores were derived. Finally the number of dreams with aggressive,
friendliness, sexuality, success, failure, misfortune, and good
fortune content was tallied. (See Figure 1 for a listing of these
categories, subcategories, and indices).
Each of the 240 dream reports was coded for these 53 categories,
subcategories, and indices. However in reviewing the data, it
must be recalled that percentages of objects in each subcategory,
characters in each subcategory, settings in each subcategory and
aggression subcategories were calculated from the total number
of objects, characters, settings and aggressive interactions.
Hence when percentages are given, these are the percentages of
the content item in their categories, not the percentages of the
total dream reports. The exception, of course, is the final tally
in which all dreams were assessed to determine aggression, friendly,
sexual, success, failure, misfortune, and good fortune content.
Data Analysis
For 30 of the 53 content categories, subcategories, and indices
coded, the mean frequencies were computed between genders and
analyzed statistically. No correlations could be computed for
the other categories (e.g., emotions) because there are no proportions
involved in the total findings; the data simply represent numerical
differences between one series and another.
For the data for which statistical tests could be performed, J.
Cohen’s (1977) h- statistic was used for all percentage differences
finding p by using a weighted N and doing a z -score transformation.
Cohen’s h-statistic shows effect size and prevents one from
regarding some statistically significant differences as containing
important meaning.
A reliability check was made between the four coders, yielding
intercoder reliability scores by the method of common agreement
with a range between 90% and 100%. Table 1 presents the intercoder
reliability report for two of these judges.
Results
For 30 comparisons, one or two would be significant at.05 by chance
alone (i.e., “false positives”). Instead, 7 comparisons
obtained significance (see Table 2).
In comparison with Brazilian females, dream reports from Brazilian
males contained more references to household objects (p<.000),
and fewer references to food (p=.008) and body parts (p=.001).
Strangers appeared more frequently in male (37%) than in female
(26%) dream reports (p<.008), while children appeared more
frequently in female (6%) than in male (2%) dream reports (p<.028).
The A/C Index was about the same for males (12%) and for females
(14%); this index measures how many dream characters engaged in
aggression. The F/C Index was higher for females; more characters
(23%) in female dream reports engaged in friendly interactions
than characters (14%) in male reports. However, is it improper
to apply Cohen’s h-statistic to these ratios, so statistical
comparisons could not be made.
More female dream reports contained friendliness (p=.035) and
had successful outcomes (p=.004). Female dream reports contained
the same amount of sexual content as did male reports according
to both the S/C Index which reflects the number of characters
who engage in sexual interactions (6% vs. 6%) and a tabulation
of the dreams themselves (12% vs. 11%).
The areas in which no differences were reported are also of interest.
Both genders displayed about the same proportions of male characters
(56% for female dream reports, 60% for male reports) and female
characters (44% for female reports, 40% for male reports). There
were no differences regarding aggressive interactions, sexual
interactions, or the mention of tools and implements, or of travel
objects and conveyances.
The average number of words per dream was 88 for females and 84
for males; therefore, gender differences could not be attributed
to disparate word frequencies. Table 2 presents the content categories,
subcategories, and indices, noting for which ones statistical
analysis was possible.
An earlier analysis of Brazilian dream reports used a subset of
these data (Krippner, Winkler, Rochlen, & Yashar, 1998). After
comparing 60 female and 66 male reports, it was observed that
witnessed aggression was more frequent in female dream reports
(p=.024) and that there were more communication objects in female
reports (p=.004), findings not repeated when the number of dream
reports was increased. However, the other major gender differences
were repeated in this study. Perhaps the two other differences
were “false positives,” or perhaps the larger sample
presented a more accurate picture of Brazilian dream content.
Discussion
Bateson (1972) has written a thoughtful perspective on the issue
of “national character,” and several studies of dream
reports in non - U.S. societies have been conducted in an attempt
to explore this topic. Monroe, Monroe, Brasher, Severin, Schweickart,
and Moore (1985) studied gender differences in dream content of
325 secondary school children who were members of the East African
Gusli, Kipsigic, and Logoli tribes, observing that women’s
dream reports included as much physical aggression and more verbal
aggression than male dream reports. In other aspects of aggression,
however, the data were similar to those reported by Hall and Van
de Castle. Gregor (1981) studied Mehinaku dream reports, noticing
a much higher amount of aggression, especially initiated by animals,
for both genders than had Hall and Van de Castle. However, the
gender differences emerging from Gregor’s study were virtually
identical to those found in the U.S. sample.
These latter data, and data from studies in some 30 different
social groups, support Hall’s (1984) suggestion that there
was an “ubiquitous sex difference in dreams”, i.e.,
the percentage of male characters is higher in male dreams than
in female dreams. This finding was not confirmed in this study,
nor was Hall’s earlier report that women dreamed about indoor
settings and family members more frequently than men, and less
frequently about outdoor settings, tools and implements, and successful
outcomes. However, some of our other Brazilian data resemble Hall’s
earlier work: Women’s dream reports contained more references
to children.
Hall’s “ubiquitous sex difference” was not found
in six other groups outside the United States (Hall, 1984; Van
de Castle, 1994, p. 320); therefore, our results are not singular.
Of the Brazilian female dream reports, 38% contained friendly
interactions as compared with 25% of the male dream reports, resembling
the U.S. data. Sexual content was about the same for both Brazilian
genders, as opposed to U.S. data where men report sexual interactions
far more often than do women (Domhoff, 1996, p. 327). Some groups
may be reluctant to share sexual dreams, even if their personal
identities are withheld. However Hall’s (1953) and D. Cohen’s
(1973) continuity view of dreams finds support in these data.
Stephen (1997) has documented the growth of the women’s movement
in Brazil, and the growing availability of birth control devices
and family planning procedures, including sterilization.
Espinoza (1996), in reporting on sexual behavior in Rio de Janeiro,
asserts that the average interviewee claimed to have sex 2 or
3 times a week, with 17% having sex every day. The amount of time
spent per sexual encounter was 45 minutes for Brazilians in contrast
to 8 for the Italians, 6 for the French and U.S. residents, and
3 for the British. In contrast to an estimated 27% of women worldwide
who have orgasm during virtually every sex act, 55% of Brazilian
women make such a claim (Espinoza, 1996).
The earlier study by Luciano Ribeiro Pinto, Jr., did not utilize
a standard content analysis technique, but reported that women’s
dream reports contained more emotional content. In our sample,
the dramatic intensity of female dreams was stronger than in male
dreams, reflecting Ribeiro Pinto’s notation that female dreams
are more vivid. A number of Ribeiro Pinto’s dreamers noted
that the dream they volunteered was repetitive; almost all of
these dreamers were women. Travel was a common theme in these
dream reports, as well as in ours; 6% of female dream reports
and 7% of male reports contained references to travel objects
and conveyances.
When Ribeiro Pinto checked the educational level of his dreamers,
he found that those who had completed more years of education
contributed more dream reports containing work settings and travel.
Those with less education contributed more dream reports containing
references to death and aggression. In other words, there seem
to be class differences in Brazilian dream reports, and Ribeiro
Pinto’s data helps inform the questions raised by our data.
Stephen (1997) has described four classes of Brazilian women:
upper class, middle class, peasants and rural workers, working
class; future research would be advised to examine dream report
content differences among these classes.
These interpretive comments reflect the perspectives of Mary Calkins
(1893), Alfred Adler (1938) and Calvin Hall (1953), all of whom
pointed out the congruence of dreaming life and waking life. Some
dreams may rehash past traumas or fantasized desires (e.g., Freud,
1933/1965), others may rehearse future activities (e.g., Jung,
1956), and others may be a “knitting together” of images
that occur during brain activation during sleep (McCarley &
Hobson, 1979, pp. 124-125). However, there is a body of research
that supports the idea that there is a basic continuity between
dream content and the waking emotional concerns and cognitive
style of the dreamer (e.g., Cartwright, 1986). Hendricks and Cartwright
(1978) reported high correlations between subjects’ cognitive
style during waking activity and cognitive style in dream reports.
Foulkes (1981) found that the test-assessed cognitive development
of children is mirrored in their dreams. Domino (1976) and Urbina
(1972) attained significant correlations between dream analyses
and data from both projective techniques (e.g., Rorschach) and
standardized personality measures (e.g., MMPI). Winget and Kramer
(1979), in summarizing research in this area, concluded that “the
content of dreams has most often, but not always, been found to
be continuous with, rather than compensatory to, waking life”
(p. 23).
This concept of similarities and continuities between dream life
and waking life is supported by cross-cultural research. Van de
Castle (1971) studied the Cuna Indians in Panama, noting that
their dreams included very few acts of aggression against other
people - a trait observable in their daily lives. However, Punamaki
and Joustie (1998) found that Palestinian children living in violent
and dangerous environments recorded dream reports (in a 7-day
diary) the contents of which “incorporated persecution and
aggressive themes” in comparison with Palestinian and Finnish
children living in peaceful areas. In all three groups, girls’
unpleasant dreams typically incorporated negative feelings, whereas
boys’ dreams involved horror scenes, ventures, and actions.
Gender differences were greater in both national groups from peaceful
areas.
Monroe, Nerlove, and Daniels (1969) reported that East Africans
living in areas of high-density population where food is often
scarce, have an unusually low frequency of food consumption in
their dreams. Kane, Mellen, Patten, and Samano (1993) used the
Hall-Van de Castle scales to compare dream content of Mexican,
Mexican American, and Anglo American college women, finding that
Mexican American college women were the median group insofar as
similarities were concerned. For example, Mexicans and Mexican
Americans did not differ regarding dream content but Anglos reported
significantly fewer emotions.
Levine (1966) investigated three groups of male Nigerian students,
finding that dream content differed in relation to their tribal
values. For example, the Ibo culture has a value system and social
structure favoring upward mobility of its members. The Hausa culture
does not support social mobility and individual achievement, while
the Yoruba culture takes an intermediate position. Dream reports
from Yoruba students contained more achievement themes than those
of Hausa students, but fewer than those of Ibo students, which
is what one would predict if dream life reflects waking life.
Globus (1987) proposes that dream life and waking life share more
similarities than differences, and that both are “thought”
into existence in a manner not unlike the way in which the Upanishads
described how Vishnu “dreamed” human beings and their
world into existence. In the case of waking life, environmental
information passes freely across a person’s sensory receptors.
As these receptors match the “tunings” of neural filters,
they constitute that person’s life world. In dreaming life,
information from the preceding days, and from earlier life experiences,
become reoperative. But the dreamer creates a specific life world
out of many possibilities; “dream life is our own formative
creation” (p. 173). Again, Globus echoes Hindu scripture’s
description of dreaming sleep as an opportunity for human beings
to create as the gods create, by emitting images. However, Hindu
philosophy used a divine artisan as its model, while Globus’
mechanism is “a possible world machine” that creates
by selection from a plenum of enfolded possibilities that includes
genetic predispositions, life experiences, and the random stimulation
of brain centers during sleep (p. 174).
In this manner, dreamers and their culture operate in tandem,
“making each other up” (Shweder, 1993). To understand
a person’s dreams, one must also understand his or her cultural
milieu (Hall, 1991). To thoroughly describe and/or understand
a culture, the investigation of dreams is a necessity. Dreams
have social roots, and society not only reflects its members’
dreams but might be influenced and often changed by them. Unfortunately,
psychology has too often ignored culture as a source of influence
on human behavior (Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998, p. 1101).
Limitations
A number of limitations caution against engaging in overinterpretation
of these data. A large number of comparisons were made, and some
of the statistically significant results may have been artifacts,
especially those hovering near the.05 significance level. Our
sample was not representative of the general population of Brazilian
males and females, under-representing the less affluent social-economic
classes. A plethora of literature demonstrates the importance
of class differences in Brazil (e.g., Stephen, 1997; Surratt &
Inciardi, 1998; Wood & Magno de Carvalho, 1988).
Furthermore, the dreams submitted may have been selected because
they were particularly memorable or provocative; mundane dreams,
often more reflective of one’s daily attitudes and activities,
may have been excluded. Hall and Van de Castle collected five
dreams per person, tapping into each dreamer’s nighttime
mentation more broadly than our procedure of asking for a single
dream.
The time of year that dreams are collected could influence content,
reflecting weather conditions (e.g., the indoor settings subcategory),
holidays (e.g., the good fortune subcategory), or publicized behavior
of celebrities (e.g., the sexual interactions subcategory). However,
the dreams in this study were obtained at many different times
of the year and never during holidays as no dream seminars were
held at that time.
Nor was our research instrument without its limitations. In addition
to the criticism already cited that more can be learned from the
form of a dream report than from its content (Hobson, 1988), it
is apparent that content analysis permits only a partial assessment
of dream reports. Content analysis does not deal with the dream
report as a whole, with the life context of the dreamer, or with
factors in waking life that might underlie particular items. One
dreamer may be the victim of an aggressive act in a dream because
he lives in a dangerous neighborhood, another because she is being
verbally attacked in the workplace, another because he engages
in paranoid fantasies, and another because she saw a violent film
before retiring for the night. Other research strategies could
use the same collection of dream reports and discover important
levels of meaning and application only hinted at in this study.
When such scales as that developed by Hall and Van de Castle are
used in other cultural settings, additional problems emerge. The
selection mechanisms that to into the act of volunteering a dream
may be quite different from country to country. Translations,
even when carried out by native speakers, may lead to distortions
when subjected to an analysis originally designed for English
language dream reports.
There are several Hall-Van de Castle measures (e.g., the psychodynamic
scales) we did not utilize; there are other content analysis systems
that have been developed by other researchers. Any and all of
these may have produced results that would have been of interest
to dream researchers. Finally, this project suggests the need
to investigate such topics as how different cultures actually
interpret their dreams, as well as the accompanying differences
in attitudes about dreams.
Conclusion
Phenomenologically, dreams are a series of images that are experienced
during sleep, and reported in narrative form during wakefulness.
The dream report can be conceptualized as a text, hence its content
is influenced by the linguistic style of the subject. Differences
in dream content among individuals or groups may reflect their
differences in verbal behavior more than any other measure (Winget
& Kramer, 1979, p. 14). In one of the few studies relevant
to this issue, people who were asked to make up a dream while
awake produced accounts that judges could not discriminate from
written reports of their nighttime dreams (Cavallero & Natale,
1988-1989).
There are dangers in accepting language as an accurate representation
of experience. Instead, it exists in relation to its world; the
ensuing back-and-forth communication makes it difficult to compare
dream reports even from a single culture or group, much less between
groups. Culture can be conceptualized as a shared reality or way
of life around which people have developed values, norms, life-styles,
and social roles (Kane, Mellen, Patten, & Samano, 1993); imperfect
though it may be, the role of language is paramount in understanding
the interaction between individuals and their cultural setting.
The use of dream reports may become an important research tool
in the emerging field of cultural psychology, the discipline that
studies interactions between individuals and their cultural environment.
It is the premise of cultural psychology that there is no population,
least of all urban, Euro-American males, whose activities, practices,
and ideals can be presumed to be a universal normative base line
for human development and mental health (Shweder, 1991). Dream
reports can provide a glimpse into the variety of human worldviews
and experiences.
Dream reports could be discounted as providing dependable data
for the study of culture/person interaction as long as they were
considered meaningless, on the one hand, or contradictory to daily
experience on the other. In contradistinction to Freud, it was
Adler (1938) who stressed the congruent relationship of dreams
to the lifestyles of their dreamers. For Adler, the dream is not
significantly different from waking thoughts; like all cognitive
and emotional activity, the dream becomes part of the process
of rehearsal for future behavior and achievements. Bonime (1960)
also insisted that dreams are less disguised than uncensored and,
therefore, authentic self-presentations that express the individual’s
shifting motivations, attitudes, and actions. However, we agree
with Tedlock (1987) that waking consciousness itself is not unitary
but is constantly shifting between foreground and background,
between the internal world and the external world, between arousal
and dissociation. This paradox has not kept psychology from attempting
to study waking experience. Why should the paradox of dream life
present obstacles to disciplined inquiry into dream reports?
References
Adler, A. (1938). Social interest: Challenge to mankind. London:
Faber and Faber.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco:
Chandler.
Bonime, W. (1960). The clinical use of dreams. New York: Basic
Books.
Calkins, M.H. (1893). Statistics of dreams. American Journal of
Psychology 5, 311-324.
Cartwright, R. (1986). Affect and dream work from an information
processing point of view. Journal of Mind and Behavior 7, 411-428.
Cavallero, C., & Natale, V. (1988-1989). Was I dreaming or
did it really happen? A comparison between real and artificial
dream reports. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 8,19-24.
Cohen, D.B. (1973). Sex role orientation and dream recall. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 246-252.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Academic Press.
D’Andrade, R.G. (1961). Anthropological studies of dreams.
In F.L.K. Hsu (Ed.) Psychological anthropology (pp. 296-332).
Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Domhoff, G.W. (1996). Finding meaning in dreams: A quantitative
approach. Santa Cruz, CA: Privately printed.
Domino, G. (1976). Primary process thinking in dream reports as
related to creative achievement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 44, 929-932.
Espinoza, R. (1996). More sex, please. We are Brazilian. News
from Brazil, pp. 8-16.
Foulkes, D. (1981) Children’s dreams. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Freud, S. (1965). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis
(J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York: Avon. (Original work
published 1933).
Globus, G. (1987). Dream life, wake life: The human condition
through dreams. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gregor, T. (1981). A content analysis of Mehinaku dreams. Ethos,
9, 352-390.
Hall, C.S. (1953). The meaning of dreams. New York: Harper.
Hall, C.S. (1984). “A ubiquitous sex difference in dreams”
revisited. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 5, 188-194.
Hall, C.S. (1991). The two provinces of dreams. Dreaming, 1, 91-93.
Hall, C., & Van de Castle, R.L. (1966). The content analysis
of dreams. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hendricks, M., & Cartwright, R. (1978). Experiencing level
in dreams: An individual difference variable. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 15, 292-298.
Heynick, F. (1993). Dream “mirror of the soul” reflects
differences between cultures. Psychology International pp.1, 3.
Hobson, J.A. (1988). The dreaming brain. New York: Basic Books.
Jung, C.G. (1956). Two essays on analytical psychology. New York:
Meridian.
Kane, C., Mellen, R.R., Patten, P., & Samano, I. (1993). Difference
in the manifest dream content of Mexican, Mexican American, and
Anglo American college women: A research note. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 134-139.
Krippner, S., Lenz, G., Barksdale, W., & Davidson, R. (1994).
Content analysis of 30 dreams from 10 pre-operative male transsexuals.
Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and
Medicine, monograph supplement 2.
Krippner, S., Posner, N.A., Pomerance, W., Barksdale, W., &
Fischer, S. (1974). An investigation of dream content during pregnancy.
Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and
Medicine, 21, 111-123.
Krippner, S., Winkler, M., Rochlen, A., & Yashar, B. (1998).
Gender, national, and regional differences in a content analysis
of 799 dream reports from research participants in Argentina,
Brazil, and the United States. Interamerican Journal of Psychology,
32, 71-97.
Levine, R. (1966). Dreams and deeds: Achievement motivation in
Nigeria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lortie-Lussier, M., Schwab, C., & De Konick, J. (1985). Working
mothers versus homemakers: Do dreams reflect changing roles of
men? Sex Roles, 12, 1009-1021.
Ludwig, A., & Segatto, C. (1999). O sentido dos sonhos. Epoca,
pp. 65-69.
McCarley, R.W., & Hobson, J.A. (1979). The form of dreams
and the biology of sleep. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of dreams:
Research, theories and applications (pp. 76-130). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Monroe, R.L., Monroe, R.G., Brasher, A., Severin, T., Schweickart,
D., & Moore, R. (1985). Sex differences in East African dreams.
Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 405-406.
Monroe, R.L., Nerlove, S., & Daniels, R. (1969). Effects of
population density on food concerns in three East African societies.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 10, 161-171.
Punamaki, R.-L., & Joustie, M. (1998). The role of culture,
violence, and personal factors affective dream content. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 320-342.
Prasad, B. (1982). Content analysis of dreams of Indian and American
college students - a cultural comparison. Journal of Indian Psychology,
4, 54-64.
Riley, M.W., & Stoll, C.S. (1968). Content analysis. In International
encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 371-377). New York: Macmillan/Free
Press.
Segall, M.H. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly
discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research.
American Psychologist, 53, 1101-1110.
Shweder, R.A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in
cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shweder, R.A. (1993). “Why do men barbecue?” and other
postmodern ironies of growing up in the decade of ethnicity. Deadalus,
122 (1), 279-308.
Soper, B., Rosenthal, G., & Milford, G. (1994). Gender differences
in dream perspectives. Psychological Reports, 74, 311-314.
Stephen, L. (1997). Woman and social movements in Latin America.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Surratt, M.A., & Inciardi, J.A. (1998). Unraveling the concept
of race in Brazil: Issues for the Rio de Janeiro cooperative agreement
site. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 30, 255-260.
Tedlock, B. (1987). Dreaming and dream research. In B. Tedlock
(Ed.), Dreaming: Anthropological and psychological interpretations
(pp. 1-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Urbina, S. (1972). Cultural and sex differences in affiliative
and achievement drives as expressed in reported dream content
and a projective technique. Dissertation Abstracts International,
33, 432B.
Van de Castle, R.L. (1966). Animal figures in dreams: Age, sex,
and cultural differences. (Abstract.) American Psychologist, 21,
623.
Van de Castle, R.L. (1969). Problems in applying the methodology
of content analysis to dreams. In M. Kramer (Ed.). Dream psychology
and the new biology of dreaming (pp. 185-197). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Van de Castle, R.L. (1971). The psychology of dreaming. Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Corporation.
Van de Castle, R.L. (1994). Our dreaming mind. New York: Ballantine.
Winget, C., & Kramer, M. (1979), Dimensions of dreams. Gainesville,
FL: University of Florida Press.
Winget, C., Kramer, M., & Whitman, R.M. (1972). Dreams and
demography. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 17, 203-208.
Wood, C.H., & Magno de Carvalho, J. (1988). The demography
of inequality in Brazil. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Stanley Krippner Ph.D.
Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
450 Pacific Avenue
San Fransisco, CA 94133 B 4640 / USA
e-mail: skrippner@saybrook.edu
Jan Weinhold
Humboldt University of Berlin
Simon-Dach-Str. 7
10245 Berlin / Germany
e-mail: jan@nervenet.de
>>Up
