Cognitive Differences in Dream Content between English Males and Females Attending Dream Seminars Using Quantitative Content Analysis

Abstract

This study investigated if dream content differences exist between male and female dreamers in England. One most recent dream report was collected from each of the 100 male and 100 female research participants during dream seminars and a dream research project held in England between 1990 and 2004. The Hall-Van de Castle System of Content Analysis (1966) was used to score each dream report. Major findings showed that English males scored significantly higher on the Aggression/Friendliness index compared to English females. By contrast, English females reported a significantly higher Physical Aggression index compared to males. Females also reported a much higher Bodily Misfortunes percentage compared to males. Although some findings were similar to past studies using American participants, others were unique to this study and may be attributable to the particular sample used in this study (dream seminar attendees), or may suggest actual underlying cultural patterns of contemporary English men and women.

Cognitive differences in dream content between Japanese males and females using quantitative content analysis.

“…However, Argentine male dreamers reported more bodily misfortunes than did females, although the difference was not significant (Tartz & Krippner, 2008). In our previously mentioned English (Tartz et al, 2007) and Brazilian (Krippner & Weinhold, 2001) samples, there were few dreams concerning bodily misfortunes and no gender differences.…”

“…For example, data gathered in some 30 different social groups support Hall’s (1984) suggestion that there is a ubiquitous sex difference in dreams; that is, the percentage of reported male characters is about twice as high in male dreams as in female dreams, whereas females typically report roughly equal numbers of male and female characters in their dreams (Domhoff, 1996; Hall, 1984; Hall & Domhoff, 1963b). Exceptions were Krippner and Weinhold’s (2001) study of 240 Brazilian dream reports, Tartz and Krippner’s (2008) study of 200 Argentine dream reports, and Tartz et al’s (2007) study of 200 English dream reports, in which both genders displayed about the same proportion of male characters. However, Hall’s (1984) ubiquitous sex difference was found in this study: Japanese males dreamed of male characters much more frequently than female characters (M–F index = 80%), whereas Japanese females dreamed of both genders more equally (M–F index = 53%).…”

“…Brazilian (Krippner & Weinhold, 2001), or English (Tartz et al, 2007) samples. There were several other findings commonly reported in the literature not found in this study.…”

“…In particular, gender differences in dream content might reveal some intriguing insights into Japanese culture and the complex differences and similarities between Japanese men and women. Prior cross-cultural quantitative analysis of dream content has yielded revealing results in cultures when gender differences have been studied (e.g., Kane, Mellen, Patten, & Samano, 1993; Krippner & Weinhold, 2001; Krippner & Weinhold, 2002; Krippner, Winkler, Rochlen, & Yashar, 1998; Tartz, Baker, & Krippner, 2007). Therefore, in the present study we asked the question, “Are there significant content differences between male and female dream reports obtained during dream seminars conducted in Japan?”…”

Gender differences in the frequency of aggression in dreams: A meta-analysis.

“…The remaining 182 full-text references were evaluated for eligibility. From these, 170 full-text references were excluded for the stated inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a total of 12 studies were incorporated into the final meta-analysis (Avila-White et al, 1999; Crugnola, Maggiolini, Caprin, Martini, & Giudici, 2008; Karagianni et al, 2013; Krippner & Weinhold, 2001, 2002; Maggiolini, Cagnin, Crippa, Persico, & Rizzi, 2010; Mazandarani et al, 2013; Oberst, Charles, & Chamarro, 2005; Saline, 1999; Tartz, Baker, & Krippner, 2007; Tartz & Krippner, 2008, 2017). This yielded 14 data sets because two of the included studies, conducted by Oberst et al (2005) and Karagianni et al (2013), divided subjects into groups of children and teenagers.…”