Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:50:50.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prevalence of typical dream themes challenges the specificity of the threat simulation theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2001

Anne Germain ,
Tore A. Nielsen ,
Antonio Zadra  and
Jacques Montplaisir
Anne Germain
Affiliation:
Sleep Research Center, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H4J 1C5, [email protected]
Tore A. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Sleep Research Center, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Department of Psychiatry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H4J 1C5, Canada
Antonio Zadra
Affiliation:
Sleep Research Center, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H4J 1C5, [email protected]
Jacques Montplaisir
Affiliation:
Sleep Research Center, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Department of Psychiatry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H4J 1C5, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evolutionary theory of threat simulation during dreaming indicates that themes appropriate to ancestral survival concerns (threats) should be disproportionately represented in dreams. Our studies of typical dream themes in students and sleep-disordered patients indicate that threatening dreams involving chase and pursuit are indeed among the three most prevalent themes, thus supporting Revonsuo's theory. However, many of the most prevalent themes are of positive, not negative, events (e.g., sex, flying) and of current, not ancestral, threat scenarios (e.g., schoolwork). Moreover, many clearly ancestral themes (e.g., snakes, earthquakes) are not prevalent at all in dreams. Thus, these findings challenge the specificity of the threat simulation theory.

[Revonsuo]

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , December 2000 , pp. 940 - 941
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)