Dream recall frequency and sensory-processing sensitivity.

Abstract

The lifestyle hypothesis of dream recall emphasizes psychological factors in explaining interindividual differences in dream recall frequency. Recent findings suggest that neurophysiological traits such as default mode network connectivity might also help to explain differences in dream recall. A sample of 1,807 participants (1,008 women, 799 men) with a mean age of 47.75 6 14.41 years completed an online survey including the Highly Sensitivity Person Scale, the Big Five personality questionnaire, and a dream recall frequency scale. The finding of a relationship between aesthetic sensitivity (a subfactor of sensory processing sensitivity) and dream recall frequency supports the hypothesis that neurophysiological traits might also be important in explaining interindividual differences in dream recall. Large-scale studies using, for example, brain imagining techniques will be necessary to link interindividual differences in information processing to differences in dream recall frequency.

Nightmare frequency and nightmare distress: Relationship to the big five personality factors and sensory-processing sensitivity.

“…SPS may thus be a more precise behavioral or even neurobiological correlate of nightmare frequency. However, the relationship between nightmare frequency and Aesthetic Sensitivity might be mediated by dream recall frequency in general—as Aesthetic Sensitivity was the only sensory-processing factor that was associated with dream recall frequency (Schredl et al, 2022). This is most likely explained by the relationship of openness to experience with dream recall frequency based on the lifestyle hypothesis of dreaming (Schonbar, 1965), that is, persons who are open are more interested in dreams and, therefore, recall their dreams (and nightmares being a subgroup of dreams) more often.…”

On the feeling of being different–an interview study with people who define themselves as highly sensitive

“…than one standard deviation above the mean of the HSPS total score in the study by Schredl, Blamo [31] (EOE: 74%, AES: 92%, LST: 82%). This impressively illustrates that our sample-at least in comparison the unselected sample by Schredl, Blamo [31]-actually contains "highly sensitive persons" as defined in the HSPS by Aron and Aron [5].…”

“…than one standard deviation above the mean of the HSPS total score in the study by Schredl, Blamo [31] (EOE: 74%, AES: 92%, LST: 82%). This impressively illustrates that our sample-at least in comparison the unselected sample by Schredl, Blamo [31]-actually contains "highly sensitive persons" as defined in the HSPS by Aron and Aron [5]. With respect to the dimensions of the five-factor model of personality, our sample is more agreeable, more open to experiences, and more conscientious compared to the sample of the "Fachkraft 2030" survey by Seegers, Bergerhoff [39], as well as less emotionally stable.…”

“…At this point, we would like to make a first attempt to relate this pattern of results to the lack of separability between HS and neuroticism [e.g., 6,18,31]: Neuroticism is commonly evaluated negatively, as seen when individuals are asked to report their personality traits under "faking good" instructions [e.g., 44,45]. This is likely reinforced by terms such as "emotional lability".…”

“…To address this issue, disattenuated estimates of the found correlations can be calculated using Spearman's formula to correct for attenuation. Thus, in the four studies reporting both correlation coefficients between the HSPS and Big Five traits and reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha in all cases) for the scales [18,25,30,31], the attenuation-corrected correlations reach r = .87 for EOE and neuroticism and r = -.64 for extraversion and EOE. For LST, the highest correlation is .49 for neuroticism.…”