How You Measure Is What You Get: Differences in Self- and External Ratings of Emotional Experiences in Home Dreams
Pilleriin Sikka, Diana Feilhauer, Katja Valli, Antti Revonsuo
The American Journal of Psychology August 21, 2017 DOI: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.3.0367 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Observational cohort Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 44 |
| Population | Adults (16 men, 28 women, average age 26.9 ± 5.1 years) |
| Duration | 3 consecutive weeks |
| Topics | Lucid dreaming |
| Keywords | Narrative Scale ratio Developmental psychology Psychotherapist |
| Citations | 63 |
| Key findings | Self-ratings of dream emotions yield more positive and more emotional ratings than external ratings, with the majority of self-rated dreams being positively valenced and the majority of externally-rated dreams being negatively valenced. |
Abstract
Abstract This study demonstrates that different methods for measuring emotional experiences in dreams—self-ratings of dreams using emotion rating scales versus external ratings in the form of content analysis of narrative dream reports—can lead to strikingly different results and contradicting conclusions about the emotional content of home dreams. During 3 consecutive weeks, every morning upon awakening, 44 participants (16 men, 28 women, average age 26.9 ± 5.1 years) reported their dreams and rated their emotional experiences in those dreams using the modified Differential Emotions Scale. Two external judges rated emotional experiences in the same 552 (M = 12.55 ± 5.72) home dream reports using the same scale. Comparison of the 2 methods showed that with self-ratings dreams were rated as more emotional and more positive than with external ratings. Moreover, whereas with self-ratings the majority of dreams was rated as positively valenced, with external ratings the majority of dream reports was rated as negatively valenced. Although self- and external ratings converge, at least partially, in the measurement of negative emotional experiences, they diverge greatly in the measurement of positive emotional experiences. On one hand, this discrepancy may result from different biases inherent in the 2 measurement methods highlighting the need to develop better methods for measuring emotional experiences. On the other hand, self- and external ratings may capture different phenomena and should thus be considered complementary and used concurrently. Nevertheless, results suggest that negative emotional experiences can be measured in a more valid and reliable manner than positive emotional experiences. Supplementary results are available at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/ajp/media/sikka/how_you_measure/