Reply
Is the threat simulation theory threatened by recurrent dreams?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.04.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Zadra, Desjardins, and Marcotte (2006) tested several predictions derived from the Threat Simulation Theory of dreaming (Revonsuo, 2000a) in a large sample of recurrent dreams. In response to these findings, Valli and Revonsuo (2006) presented a commentary outlining alternate conceptualizations and explanations for the results obtained. We argue that many points raised by Valli and Revonsuo do not accurately reflect our main findings and at times present a biased assessment of the data. In this article, we provide necessary clarifications and responses to each one of their main points of discussion.

Section snippets

Clarification of the concept of adaptation

Valli and Revonsuo (2006) begin their commentary by presenting a detailed clarification of the concept of “adaptation” and state that the correct interpretation of this term has implications for the empirical testing of TST. In doing so, they implicitly suggest that we incorrectly defined this key concept and that we also failed to clarify an important difference between the concepts of biological and psychological adaptation. This is both wrong and misleading. In fact, great care was taken in

Differences in the frequency of threats in everyday dreams versus recurrent dreams

In addressing divergent results in the frequency and severity of threats observed in our sample of recurrent dreams versus their findings on everyday dreams, Valli and Revonsuo (2006) dedicate part of their commentary to “the possible effects of different data collection methods on the results.” In this section, they essentially suggest that the observed differences may be due to dream report length, sampling methods or memory bias. To an inattentive reader, this part of the commentary may be

Proportion of recurrent dreams that contain realistic and probable threats

The third point raised by Valli and Revonsuo (2006) concerns their disagreement with our interpretation of the data as indicating that the majority of recurrent dreams do not constitute realistic threat simulations. The numbers are as follows: 34% of the recurrent dreams had no threatening elements whatsoever and that more than 80% of the threats found in the remainder of our sample were not realistic or probable. In other words, less than 15% of recurrent dreams studied contained realistic and

The dreamer’s reaction to the threatening events

The fourth point raised in the commentary appears to us as reflecting the authors’ tendency to gloss over data that contradict TST while focusing on elements that support it. In response to the finding that only a small proportion of recurrent dreams portrayed a successful action in reaction to a threat, Valli and Revonsuo (2006) point out that the dreamer showed active participation in 78% of the cases. They are correct and this percentage is reported in the original article. This figure,

Categorization of threats

The last issue discussed in the commentary primarily concerns the categorization of threatening elements described in dream reports. After observing, for example, that the prevalence of escapes and pursuits in our sample differed from what was found in their study, Valli and Revonsuo (2006) suggest that escapes and pursuits could be considered as particular forms of aggression. Once categorized in this fashion, the proportion of dream reports containing this type of threat becomes similar in

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Reply to Commentary by Valli, K., & Revonsuo, A., (2006): Recurrent dreams: Recurring threat simulations?, Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 464–469.

View full text