Continuity or compensation? – A hypothesis testing study concerning two types of dreamers’ Aggressive Behaviors in Nightmares

Abstract

Being the aggressor in dreams has been investigated relatively sparsely. On the one hand, these kinds of nightmares may represent continuity of aggression in waking-life, but on the other hand, being the aggressor in dreams may compensate failing (suppressed) aggression from waking-life. Two subtypes of aggressor nightmares should thus be distinguished: Those in which the dreamer is the primary aggressor and those, in which the dreamer reacts with aggression to a threatening event. We hypothesized that nightmares in which the aggressive event was caused by the dream-self may be related to waking-life aggression according to the continuity hypothesis, while in nightmares, in which the aggressive event by the dream-self was the response to threats caused by other dream-characters, the dream-self may be reacting in self-defense. Thus, participants who dreamt that the aggressive act was initiated by the dream-self should be more aggressive in waking-life (supporting continuity) than those who dreamt that the offending act was initiated by other dream characters, and the dream-self was only reacting (supporting compensation). Waking-life aggression was obtained with the Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Results showed that dreamers who dreamt that their dream-self initiated the aggressive act were more aggressive in waking-life than those who dreamt that other dream characters had initiated the aggressive act. Nightmares with aggression done by the dream-self thus support the continuity hypothesis of dreaming while aggressor nightmare with reactive aggression of the dream-self support the compensatory hypothesis of dreaming.