Dream Study Discussion Section -
|
Can we even be objective with “subjective” research? Wilhelm Wundt relied on the subjective experience of participants to obtain data for his studies which ushered in the age of experimental psychology. The first great American psychologist, William James, favored the self-report method, and Dream Studies might be said to have begun with Freud’s psychoanalytics, a talk method. Dream research necessitates the inclusion of retrospection. Harvard neurobiologists Hobson and McCarley (2009) say that although brain imaging technologies have added to our understanding of consciousness, the relative poverty of these approaches alone in relation to paradigms which are complimented by subjective experience has limited scientific progress. Even John Watson, the die-hard proponent of Behaviorism, said “saying is doing—that is, behaving,” and in so stating gave words an objective reality (1924/1998). Just as in any other operationalization of a concept which is interpreted through data, word reports must be given meaning. Unless lucid dream paradigms are used which corroborate subjective experience in real time with other physiological data, we assume that a dream report is telling us about how a dream is recalled, and proceed from there.
Limited sample. Just as the results from this study infer a preference toward the recall of different dream themes between Earliest and Most Recent Dreams (such as more Attacks in the former), it is likely that dream narrative changes across the life-span. In a similar fashion, because day-residue does enter into dreams, we would expect some level of cultural influence to affect dream content. However, dreams have been found to be very generic across time and locale. By employing a similar coding system as those used in previous studies testing the Threat Simulation Theory (TST) for the function of dreaming, with new coders and in a fresh sample population, the TSTS’s tenant that many dreams serve to rehearse (specific) threatening situations has here been corroborated. Suppression rebound. Willpower, or self-control, has been shown to be a limited resource, and our ability to regulate our thoughts and behaviors gives way upon reaching an exhaustive threshold (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). The so-called “ironic-process” of suppressed thought rebound, whereby thoughts which were actively suppressed ultimately find enhanced expression, occurs when the energy sustaining volitional control subsides. As one might imagine, an exhaustive threshold is met every time we fall into sleep. The ironic process has been shown to manifest in dreams and especially at sleep onset (Schmidt & Gendola, 2008; Wegner, Wenzlaff, & Kozak, 2004). The rebound in dreams of suppressed thoughts has been proposed to be the reason why we so often dream of scenarios which we would rather avoid during the day, rather than as the realization of a threat simulation system (Wegner, et al., 2004). Perhaps these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and instead reinforce each other. Then again, many dreams, perhaps most dreams, are not exact “what-if” plays depicting the rebound of our suppressed fears and desires. Many dreams, especially early dreams, do in fact appear to be running scripts for scenarios which we have never “dreamed” might occur, almost as if they were vestigial remnants from another time and place. Further research will be needed to tease apart the minutia of how and why particular dreams are related to waking experience. |