ABSTRACT

Two cultural groups, American and Japanese, were compared on two levels

of the accounts of everyday experiences: dreams and personal narratives.

American and Japanese undergraduate and graduate students participated in the

study. Our hypotheses were: a) Americans agree that dreams come from internal

sources; b) Americans have more lucid dreams; c) American descriptions of dreams

and personal narratives are lengthier than Japanese ones; d) Japanese mention

others and groups more frequently in dreams and personal narratives; and e)

Americans mention both positive and negative emotions more frequently in dreams

and personal narratives than do Japanese. We also assumed continuity between

dreaming and waking experiences. Our hypotheses were partially supported by

the results: a) Americans agreed with sources of dreams as internal more strongly

than did Japanese; b) Americans had more lucid dreams than did Japanese; c)

Americans had lengthier dreams than did Japanese, but there was no difference in

personal narratives; d) Japanese mentioned groups more frequently only in their

dreams; e) Americans mentioned negative and total emotions more frequently only

in their personal narratives. The present study reiterated a few cultural

differences between Americans and Japanese. Americans believe internal,

psychological nature of dreams more strongly. They might be more in touch with

inner states such as emotions and are willing to express emotions. Japanese sense

of self may be more embedded in social and group contexts.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES IN DREAMS AND PERSONAL

NARRATIVES:

A Comparison between American and Japanese Undergraduate and Graduate

Students.

by

Misa Tsuruta, MA

December 2015

Submitted to The New School for Social Research of The New School University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Joan G. Miller

Dr. Wendy D’Andrea

Dr. William Hirst

Dr. Victoria Hattam

ⓒCopyright 2015

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my heartfelt thank you to the individuals who were

willing to get involved in my dissertation process. My first and foremost thank you

goes to my wonderful committee members: Joan G. Miller, Ph.D, Wendy D’Andrea,

Ph.D, William Hirst, Ph.D and Victoria Hattam, Ph.D. In particular, Dr. Miller

helped me enormously in finishing up my project.

Also, the following outstanding individuals helped and facilitated my

process at its various points : Marcel Kinsbourne, M.D. who first expressed interests

in an idea of dream research and gave a form to the present research; Shuhei

Enomoto and Isaac Taits for their cooperation in the phase of the pilot study; late Dr.

Ernest Hartmann, M.D. and late Bob van de Castle, Ph.D. for their encouragement

and guidance in the early stage of this project; Yojiro Nakata, Kotaro Taneichi, Ph.D.,

Chie Sawa, Edward Hoffman, Ph.D., William Compton, Ph.D., Brittany List,

Janiera Warren and Michael Bonomo, Ph.D. for their help in the data collection

phase; Takami Hikokubo for her intellectual insights; Dominique Ghiraldi for her

help in managing data; Robert Waggoner, Ryan D. Hurd, Michael Shredl, Ph.D. and

Tore A. Nielsen, Ph.D. for their help in locating and accessing relevant references.

Without their generous help this project could have not been completed; I

will continue to feel indebted to all of them even after the completion of this

dissertation.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWEDGMENTS v

INTRODUCTION 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

General Features of Dreams 5

Social Situations and Nightmares 6

Emotions in Dreams 8

Cultural Contexts of Dreaming 8

Content Analysis of Dreams 10

Cross-Cultural Research on Narratives 14

Cultural Variation of the Sense of Self 17

Emotion in Cultural Contexts 19

METHOD 23

Participants 23

Procedure 24

Qualitative Coding 26

Materials 27

RESULTS 29

vii

DISCUSSION 36

REFERENCE 47

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire 56

Appendix B: Dream Style Questionnaire 57

Appendix C: Recent Event Form 59

Appendix D: Dream Record Form 60

Appendix E: Instructions to the Judges 61

Table 1: Summary of Dream Qualities and Behaviors 63

Table 2: Summary of Factors in Dreams 64

Table 3: Summary of Factors in Personal Narratives 65

１

Introduction

Dreaming appears to be a universal phenomenon that has been commonly

experienced by the ancient and the modern as well as by people in both the Eastern

and the Western hemispheres. For example, in the European tradition, the ancient

Greeks visited the temple of Asclepius to incubate dreams, obtain answers for their

problems, and heal their ailments (Meier, 2003). These temples were destroyed

when Christianity swept over the Roman Empire which succeeded the Greek culture

and religion. On the other hand, in the Eastern tradition, the Chinese philosopher

Chuang Tzu asked the famous question of a butterfly dream that fascinated

generations of thinkers: upon waking the dreamer did not know whether he was

dreaming of a butterfly or a butterfly was dreaming of him, referring to the blurred

boundary between the reality and the dream (Tatara, 1976; Kawai, 1995).

In the modern times of the Western world, scholars in different disciplines

have studied dreaming. In the early history of psychology, psychologists such as

Alfred Maury and Marquis d’Hervey de Saint-Denys in France and Friedrich Hacker

and Paul Köhler in Germany began examining dream phenomena scientifically

(Strauch & Meier, 1996). Wundt and Fechner also speculated on the nature of

dreams in terms of their physiology and neurology (Prasad, 1982). Wundt,

Titchener, and Calkins all studied senses in dreams by using methods of

introspection and data collection (Titchener, 1895). Although Wundt’s interests in

dreams were only peripheral, his insight that “experiences from days elapsed” (p. 98,

Marinelli, 2006) such as childhood and youth produced dreams inspired many

psychologists to follow. Dream research posits questions and challenges of

２

investigation of subjective psychological phenomena; nonetheless dreams certainly

consist of our mental and psychological activities and experiences (Kramer, 2007).

Perhaps it is needless to mention the significance of the contribution that

Sigmund Freud (1900/1955) made to the revival of interests in dreams, by his

epoch-making Interpretations of Dreams. He studied the content of his patients’

and his own dreams and considered that there were manifest content and latent

content, essentially believing that dreams were wishes and fears in disguise. In his

theory major processes of the dream formation are condensation and displacement

(Freud, 1900; Blechner, 2000). Although he started off calling dreams as “the royal

road to the unconscious,” his attitudes toward dreams were inconsistent through his

career. Still, some of his followers in the psychoanalytic community inherited his

initial interests, although their interests have fluctuated as well (Harris & Lane,

2003; Lane & Harris, 2002). One of Freud’s most prominent students, Carl G. Jung,

shared interests in dreams with Freud. Once realizing that their approaches were

extremely different, Jung departed Freud to establish the foundations of what would

eventually be called Jungian school, depth psychology, or transpersonal psychology.

Still Freud’s and Jung’s influences on psychologists and the general public

were immeasurable. Eventually some psychologists took particular interests in

dreams and developed more scientific and sophisticated methods such as the content

analysis to investigate phenomena of dreaming. They developed a body of dream

research (Strauch & Meier, 1996). In particular, the discovery of the REM (rapid

eye movements) sleep and the accompanying dreaming mind (Aserinsky & Kleitman,

1953; Strauch & Meier, 1996) constitute a pivotal point in the history of scientific

research on dreams. Aserinsky and Kleitman (1953) found that a certain sleep

３

stage was characterized by rapid eye movements and also by physiological arousal

as measured by electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (EKG). They

speculated that the arousal, namely the increased heart rate and breathing rate,

was indicative of emotional arousal of the subjects in reaction to their dream. In

fact, when subjects in the laboratory were woken up during the REM sleep, the

subjects frequently reported a dream. This result proved that virtually all of us

dreamed during the REM sleep whether we recalled the dream or not.

Dreams can be juxtaposed with waking narratives that take place on a more

conscious level in the individual mind. There is the continuity hypothesis (Schredl,

2000; Hobson & Schredl, 2011) that posits that dreams and waking life experiences

are continuous rather than discontinuous. This continuity, however, is limited by

… the fact that people can have dreams about experiences that they have never had

in waking life; for example, flying dreams (i.e. flying with one’s own body) are fairly

common but nobody can experience flying in the physical reality (Hobson & Schredl,

2011); relatively common experiences such as “ the 3 R’s” (reading, writing, and

arithmetic) are not usually dreamed about (Hartmann, 2000).

On the other hand, personal narratives are narratives of experiences on the

waking level. Narratives are structured differently according to culture and

language. Just as they learn words and phrases along with language and social

development, children also learn how to tell stories appropriately in their culture

from their caretakers, peers, and teachers.

While accounts of dreams can be regarded as a form of narrative, the degree

to which the storyteller feels that it is “his/her own narrative” may be different.

While waking narrative might be almost always regarded as their own products by

４

most people, the degree to which dreams feel like their own products may vary from

person to person. Some dreams feel more egosyntonic while others do not, as in the

case of intrusive nightmares that trouble the individual.

Just as psychologists have been interested in the impact of culture on

individual behaviors, dream researchers have examined the effects of culture on

dreams. Such areas of research encompass the content analysis research (Hall &

Van de Castle, 1966; Tonay, 1991-1992; Prasad, 1982; Domhoff, 2001; Schneider &

Domhoff, 2008; Tarts, Baker, & Krippner, 2006), the effects of war and combat on

dreams (Punamaki & Joustie, 1998; Levine, 1991; Punamaki, Karzan, Karaman &

Nuutine, 2005; Valli, Revonsuo, Paklas & Punamaki, 2006), emotions and dreams

(Gilchrist, Davidson & Shakespeare-Finch, 2007; Yu, 2007), and social realities and

dreams (Burkeley, 1994; Watkins, 1992). On the other hand, anthropologists as

experts of cultures (e.g. Mageo, 2004; Pandya, 2004; Peluso, 2004; Renne, 2004) have

explored dreaming in various non-Western cultures.

In this study we focus on the possible relationships between dreams and

cross-cultural differences found in dream research and research on personal

narratives. Are dreams “averaged out” in the unconscious mind so that they do not

make distinctions among different individuals and cultures? If there are any

cultural differences in dreams, what are they and what are their magnitudes? Are

there relations between dream contents and the cultural/social characteristics that

are discussed by psychologists? Although dreaming is a universal phenomenon, for

dream contents such universality might be merely an assumption, just as many

other assumptions that have been made in the field of psychology regarding cultural

invariance. It is worth examining whether cultural differences penetrate as deeply

５

as to the layer of dreaming. In the following sections, these topics will be discussed:

cultural similarities and differences found in dream research, narratives and

autobiographical memory, and emotions in dreams and in cross-cultural contexts.

Review of Literature

General Features of Dreams

There are general features of dreams that are commonly investigated in

dream research. Dream recall, nightmares, lucid dreams, and color dreams are

among those topics. Throughout the history of dream research, the results on

whether people dream in color or black and white have been inconsistent (Schredl,

Fuchedzhieva, Hamig & Schindele, 2008). Okada and colleagues (Okada,

Matsuoka & Hatakeyama, 2011) conducted a research that spanned over 16 years,

found there was an age effect in color dreams; as people get older, they have less

incidents of color dreams. However, it is also reported that color dreams are not

consistent across different individuals: Schredl and colleagues found that the

incidents of black and white dreams were inversely related to color memory and

dream recall frequency (Schredl, Fuchedzhieva, Hamig & Schindele, 2008). It was

concluded that some kind of memory processes were involved in recalling colors in

dreams explicitly.

The prevalence of lucid dreams has been studies in different countries.

Lucid dreams, nightmares, and dream recall are interrelated (Erlacher, Schredl,

Watanabe, Yamana & Gantzert, 2008). Nightmares can motivate the onset of lucid

dreaming because by deliberately waking up it is possible to take a flight from a

６

nightmare. If the individual recalls nightmares, his/her dream recall rate can be

higher than those who do not recall nightmares so often.

There have been controversies over whether dreams are continuous/

consistent with waking experiences. While dreams process emotions of waking

experiences (Hartmann, 1998) and capture elements of waking experiences. Life

events and experiences, personal characteristics and psychopathology seem to be

reflected in dream (Schredl & Hofmann, 2003). However, not all waking activities

and experiences are incorporated into dreams; for example, highly cognitive

activities such as reading, writing, and arithmetic are very rare to be observed in

dreams (Hartmann, 2000; Schredl & Hofmann, 2003; Hobson & Schredl, 2011).

Social Situations and Nightmares

Nightmare is a kind of dream that is commonly defined as “a frightening

dream that awakens the sleeper” (Nielsen & Zadra, 2005, p. 926). It is known that

people have nightmares after experiencing stressful events. This is particularly

notable in posttraumatic dreams, dreams that individuals have as a reaction to

preceding exposure to traumatic experiences. Hartmann (1998) assumed that

dreams process negative emotions experienced in waking life. According to

Revonsuo (2000) nightmares are failed cases of dream generation where negative

emotions are not processed enough to become less harmful forms.

The impact of sociocultural/political factors on dreams has also been

examined in research on the influences of war/combat on dreams. As well known,

there are close relationships between trauma and dreams, nightmares in particular.

One of the functions of dreaming may be to process overwhelming emotions that are

７

experienced during the waking life (Hartmann, 1998). People who have been

exposed to traumatic experiences tend to suffer from nightmares, whether the

dream content is similar to or different from the original experiences (Davis, Byrd,

Rhudy & Wight, 2007). In this case, individual experiences of shared social reality

of war/combat are internalized in dreams.

Researchers have compared dreams of children in combat zones and those of

children in peaceful zones (Punamaki & Joustie, 1998; Levine, 1991; Valli, Revonsuo,

Paklas, & Punamaki, 2006). Dreams of traumatized children were less

“dream-like,” less bizarre, more mundane, and more intense and vivid than dreams

of non-traumatized children (Punamiki & Joustie, 1998); less self-involved, less

other-related, less realistic and less hedonistic, and in general more “removed” from

the world (Levine, 1991). Traumatized children had more dreams, had more

threatening contents in their dreams, and the threats were more severe (Valli,

Revonsuo, Paklas, & Punamaki, 2006).

Wars/combats are not the only social situations that affect dreaming.

The dreams that Charlotte Beradt (1985) collected during the government of the

Third Reich indicate that dreams as our inner space can be greatly influenced by

terror that exist in the society (Burkeley, 1994). Similar examples are those in the

Soviet Union where oppression posed by the system was represented by dark

shadows in dreams. As the transition to democracy took place, it was expressed as

brightening of those shadows in the dreams (Watkins, 1992).

In relations to nightmares Revonsuo (2000) proposed Threat Simulation

Theory (TST) that posited that dreams are the place where we rehearse threatening

situations. Revonsuo observed more negative emotions in dreams collected from

８

college students. TST is one response to a long-standing question in dream

research: What are the evolutionary functions of dreams?

Evolutionary speaking, by rehearsing in dreams and being effectively able

to cope with threatening situations in waking life human beings are able to increase

the chance of survival and leaving offspring. By having more psychological and

other resources they may not avoid such situations but approach them.

Emotions in Dreams

In the past research it has been reported that negative emotions

predominate in dreams. However, this effect tended to be reduced when dream

emotions were rated by the dreamers themselves. External raters can

underestimate positive emotions in dreams. There might also be a recall bias on

the part of dreamers; when dreams are not collected relatively right after dreaming,

negative emotions and negative dreams tend to be more easily recalled (Schredl &

Doll, 1998).

Nielsen and colleagues (Nielsen, Deslauriers & Baylor, s1991) compared 22

types of emotions in waking states and emotions in dreams in North American

students and found that dreams had less positive emotions and disproportionately

more fears than waking events. As in the case of threat simulation theory,

facilitating fears is one of the functions of dreams as discussed in relation to

nightmares (Revensuo, 2000).

Cultural Contexts of Dreaming

In terms of attitudes toward and conception of dreams, there might be some

９

universal elements while other qualities might be shaped by cultural contexts. For

example, when Finnish children and Palestinian children were compared, the

former believed that dreams had internal sources, while the latter believed that

dreams derive from external spiritual sources (Punamaki & Joustie, 1998). A study

conducted on university students in Poland (Szmigielska & Holda, 2007) revealed

that most liked, shared, thought about, and tried to interpret their dreams. They

also believed that dreams come from their thoughts, emotions, and experiences.

According to them, those beliefs are passed down from generation to generation.

Anthropologists as specialists on cultures have investigated and discussed

the relationships between cultural contexts and use of dreams. Compared to

Western culture where dreams are considered to be purely “inner,” psychological

phenomena, there seem to be other societies where dreams are treated as more

social and public entities. For example, in the Andaman Island of India, village

people gathered at the camp site to incubate, dream, and share their dreams to

contribute to their hunting (Pandya, 2004). Dreams are used to solve problems

that are critical to the survival of the community. At one independent African

church in Nigeria, church leaders created clothing based on their dreams to assert

their higher rank and spiritual connections to the Heaven (Renne, 2004). And in

an Ese Eja group in Peru, people name their children by dreams. Typically, this

naming process starts with a relationship with an animal in dreams. This practice

reflects close connections between the people and animals in the spiritual sense and

their collective belief that dreams provide knowledge and visions that are wider

than what is accessible to the waking person (Peluso, 2004).

Some researchers believe that dreams have facilitated transitional phases

１０

of culture (Lohmann, 2001; Mageo, 2004). In mid-1990s Lohmann (2001)

conducted a field research in the community of the Asabano of Papua New Guinea.

The local people often mentioned dreams as explanations for the conversion

experience from their local religion to Christianity, a process that took several

decades. Mageo (2004) collected 500 dreams from young women and other subjects

in Samoa in 1980s. Analyses revealed many underlying postcolonial themes. For

example, these young women often dreamed of marrying an American man, a

variation of conventional hypergamy in Samoa.

Content Analysis of Dreams

Now turning our eyes to psychology, content analysis, developed by Hall and

Van de Castle (1966) is a systematic method for coding dream contents and

computing various ratios. It quantifies various elements of dreams, such as

characters, settings, emotions, and so on. Dream contents have been classified into

ten categories: characters, social interactions, activities, success/failure,

misfortune/good fortune, emotions, settings, objects, descriptive modifiers, and

temporal references (Schneider & Domhoff, 2010). Some categories also have

subcategories: for example, the category “characters” has animals, male/female,

strangers, and friends as its subcategories; “social interactions” has friendliness,

aggression, and sexuality (Domhoff, 2001).

These categories and subcategories of the content analysis enable

researchers to compute various percentages and ratios of dreams collected from

many subjects to find differential trends in dreams. For instance, if the researcher

is interested in gender issues represented in dreams, the male/female percentage

１１

can be looked at. If aggression is of interest, the A/C ratio (aggressive interactions

divided by characters) can be examined. There are also ratios such as the animal

percentage (animals divided by characters), the physical aggression percentage

(physical aggressions divided by aggressions), the friends percentage (known

characters divided characters), and the F/C ratio (friendly interactions divided by

character) (Domhoff, 2001).

In the course of establishing the method, Hall and Van de Castle (1966)

collected 500 dreams from 100 American male college students and 500 dreams from

100 American female college students. This data have been used as the norms for

the research to follow (Strauch & Meier, 1996). In the 1990s Schneider and

Domhoff (2010) collected the most recent dreams from 100 college women and

obtained very similar percentages of each category to those of the original sample.

Not surprisingly, content analysis has been used in investigating cultural

similarities and differences of dreams. Researchers have compared the original

1950 sample and a more recent sample, between Western culture and non-Western

culture, and so on (Domhoff & Schneider, 2008). The conclusions of cross-cultural

research in the content analysis have somewhat varied: some researchers claim that

there are no significant cultural differences (e.g. Domhoff & Schneider, 2008) while

others (e.g. Prasad, 1982) claim that cultural differences are important enough to be

noticeable.

By using several categories based on Hall and Van de Castle’s (1966) content

analysis, Schneider (1969) examined dreams collected from people around the world.

He found both regularities and certain differences among different groups. The

most characteristic finding was that when they have dreams with aggressive

１２

interactions they tended to be victims rather than aggressors (Domhoff & Schneider,

2008).

Another cultural differences is the animal ratio (the ratio of animals within

total characters that appeared in dreams). While in the American society the ratio

is 30 to 40 in children and only 4 to 6 in adults, in the hunter-gatherer societies it is

consistently higher than that of the American results, with some societies as high as

30 (Domhoff, 2001; Domhoff & Schneider, 2008).

In India, Prasad (1982) compared dreams of Indian college students in India

with dreams according to the American norms. Indian students’ dreams were

different in virtually all categories of the dream contents. Indian students dreamed

of more familiar settings as compared to dreams of unfamiliar setting among

Americans. Similarly, Indian students dreamed of more indefinite sex, familiar

characters and family members and relatives in their dreams.

In order to compare different racial groups within the United States and

eliminate possible gender bias in the past research, Tonay (1990-1991) collected

dreams from Californian female college students and examined their content.

Overall, these women in 1990 reported emotions more frequently and experienced

more aggressive interactions and more victimization by other women in their

dreams than their 1950 counterparts. These results seemed to reflect changes in

social position that women experienced since 1950. However, Asian-American

women in 1990s, when compared with 1950 sample and non-Asian-American women

in 1990s, experienced fewer aggressive interactions; they were less likely to act as

aggressors in their dreams. The researcher suggested that social advancement of

women has not been consistent across different ethnic groups. This result may also

１３

reflect Asian values that emphasize interpersonal and group harmony. Also, they

tended to find themselves in unfamiliar settings in their dreams, which the

researcher attributed to social displacement that Asian-American women went

though in the process of immigration.

Another study that compared Caucasians and Asians/Pacific Islanders

within the United States was conducted by Tarts, Baker and Krippner (2006). By

combining the content analysis and the Boundary Questionnaire (BQ) developed by

Hartmann (1998) they discovered that Asians/Pacific Islanders had “thicker”

psychological boundaries. Their descriptions of dreams were also shorter. The BQ

is a measure of personality that has 12 scales of hypothesized psychological

boundaries such as: sleep/dream/waking, unusual experiences, thoughts/feelings/

moods, childhood/adolescence/adult, interpersonal, sensitivity, neat/exact/precise,

edges/lines/clothing, opinions regarding children, organizations,

people/nations/groups, and beauty and truth (Hartmann, Harrison & Zborowski,

2001). People with thin boundaries tend to go across different modes more freely,

while people with thick boundaries tend to assume rigid categories. Tarts, Baker

and Krippner (2006) interpreted the result that the thickness reflected general

cognitive styles (valuing formal expressions, less personal disclosure, etc.) among

Asians/Pacific Islanders and some guardedness toward European American

researchers.

In sum, there are some cultural differences found using the content analysis

as a method. The groups that such differences are found are: between Caucasians

and Native Americans, between Indians in India and Americans, between

Americans and hunter-gatherers, and between Caucasian women and

１４

Asian-American women.

Cross-Cultural Research on Narratives

While dreaming is a psychological phenomenon that is experienced in the

individual unconscious layer of the mind, is basically beyond conscious control, and

can be recorded only upon waking up, personal narratives are records of waking

events that individuals experience. Narrative development concurs language

acquisition processes and does not take place in a vacuum; it is embedded in

relational, social, and cultural contexts.

Cultural differences have been reported on narrative development between

American and Japanese children. Minami and McCabe (1991, 1995) found that

Japanese children’s narratives were succinct compared to their American

counterparts. Minami (1994) also found that Japanese mothers did not encourage

their children to elaborate when a section of narrative naturally came to an end.

American mothers encourage their children to elaborate past experiences by asking

specific questions. According to Nelson (1993) young children do not remember

events or objects if they were not previously talked about; children of 'elaborative'

mothers remember more details of their experiences. Thus early experiences of

collaborative narrative formations may influence cultural styles of narratives.

It is not only general past events but also dreams that American mothers

encourage their children to elaborate. These differences might stem from different

styles that Asian and American mothers encourage (or do not encourage) children to

talk about their past experiences including dreams (Fiske & Pillemer, 2006). As a

result, American children tend to have more detailed narratives about their past

１５

and their onset of memory is earlier than their Asian counterparts.

While personal narratives are accounts of almost any past experiences,

autobiographical memory can be considered a special case of personal narratives; it

is a kind of memory that is inseparably tied to each person’s sense of self and

construct individual life history. Developmentally speaking, autobiographical

knowledge base is formed around age 24 months. This is not to say that toddlers

have a capacity to be verbal, but they already have a self that works toward goals,

akin to the sense that attachment theory posits (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000).

Children around this age also understand others’ intentionality (McAdams, 2001).

One support for this onset comes from a finding that adults tend to recall an event

from age 2 to 4 when asked to recall earliest memory, though it could be from later (8

and up) (Nelson, 1993). While preadolescents children are not able to reach

integrated autobiographical accounts, during adolescence we come to the point

where autobiographical memory is fully formed (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000;

Singer & Bluck, 2001). Construction of autobiographical memory requires a

capacity to take some distance from life experiences and find out meanings (Singer

& Bluck, 2001). Newly developed ability of abstraction in adolescence allows us to

form the history of life. The continuation of these reflective processes can draw

individuals closer to what we call wisdom over years, as they keep finding meanings

in their life experiences (Singer & Bluck, 2001).

Cross-cultural differences have been found in how the caretaker and the

child communicate about the past experiences, co-constructing how the experience is

talked about and thus encoded. American children’s narratives about their past

experiences are more detailed, specific, and have more references to internal states

１６

such as feelings, evaluations, and personal opinions than those of Asians (Han,

Leichtman, & Wang, 1998; Wang, 2004; Minami & McCabe, 1995). On the other

hand, by comparing Australians and mixed Asian college students (Chinese,

Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Indians and a Buthanese), there was no difference in

level of elaborateness but areas of elaborateness were different: Australians had

more elaborated autonomous memories while Asians had more elaborated

relatedness memories (Jobson & O’Kearney, 2008).

Wang (2004) compared European American preschoolers and 2nd graders

and their Chinese counterparts in their autobiographical memory. Her finding was

that European American children talked lengthier and more specifically about their

memories, mentioned their emotions, personal preferences and opinions more often

than Chinese children did. They also mentioned more people in their narratives.

On the other hand, Chinese children’s narratives included more social interactions

and social references than those of European American children.

Furthermore, in a task where participants were asked to recall 10 specified

situations, European Americans recalled their memories more often from the first

person perspective (as a participant), whereas Eastern and Southern Asians recalled

them more often from the third person perspective (as an observer), when they were

specifically instructed to indicate whether it was the first person or the third person

perspective (Cohen & Gunz, 2002). Cohen and Gunz (2002) also suggested that

American sense of self operated by externalizing what they felt individually, while

Asians formed the sense of self by internalizing what others would see or expect.

This result is consistent to the findings of a comparative study on American and

Japanese elementary school textbooks (Imai, 2012). Whereas American stories

１７

were told by the first person, the proportion of stories told by the third person was

much higher in Japanese stories. McAdams (2001) posits that identity itself

consists of a life story, rather than other forms of cognitive entities. Similarly,

Singer and Black (2001) consider that narrative formation helps in the process of

personality and identity formation. Thus, narratives, life history, and sense of self

are interrelated in their development and functioning within cultural contexts.

Cultural Variation of the Sense of Self

Perception and conception of the self may be more or less related to how an

individual is construed in the given culture. For example, in order to explain

individual behaviors, Westerners tend to employ dispositional reasoning while

Asians link the individual situation to broader social contexts. For example,

English and Chinese newspaper articles that dealt with similar crimes that took

place within the same year were analyzed (Morris & Peng, 1994). The text

analyses showed a tendency in the American article to use dispositional reasoning

where they attributed the causes of the crime to internal factors such as personality

traits, attitudes, and psychological disturbances. However, the Chinese newspaper

emphasized social situations than those individual factors. This difference may be

related to differential senses of self between the East and the West. Markus and

Kitayama (1991) elaborated these differential senses of self. Asians persistently

incorporate relatedness to others into their personhood. On the other hand, in

Westerners’ mind the person asserts independence from others and pursues unique

personhood. The researchers called the former “interdependent” and the latter

“independent,” suggesting different ways of connectedness of the self to others.

１８

Because the Asian sense of self is essentially inseparable from others in their life,

Asians explain behaviors in terms of these interwoven relations with others. In the

similar vein, as the self is independent from others in Western social life, Westerners

explain various social behaviors in terms of internal qualities and dispositions.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) believe that these differential senses of self are formed

in the respective society through social interactions.

To facilitate differential relations between the self and social contexts,

Triandis (1989) developed a model of the self that has three components: the private

self, the public self, and the collective self. Essentially, in a more complex and

individualistic culture, the private self can develop more complexity, while in a

collectivistic culture, the collectivistic self can be more elaborated. It is possible

that in individualistic cultures more private experiences are accumulated and

encoded while in collectivistic cultures collectivistic experiences are relatively

stressed. The collectivistic culture can be tighter (i.e. allows less deviations from

the norms), although tightness-looseness is an independent factor from

individualism/collectivism.

To examine possible different senses of self across different cultures,

Cousins (1989) administered the Twenty Statements Test (TST) to American and

Japanese college students. TST is a semi-structured questionnaire that consisted

of 20 sentences starting with “I am…” that elicit differential statements about the

self. One of his findings was that the Japanese sense of “I” was more socially

embedded. The Japanese students mentioned more psychological attributes when

they refer to their sense of self in some sort of social contexts. Without social

contexts Japanese students tended to be either abstract (i.e. “I am a human being,”

１９

etc.) or concrete (i.e. mentioning one’s social belongings, activities, etc.). On the

other hand, even when referring to the sense of “I” across different social situations,

American students described psychological attitudes and often mentioned

dispositions. That is to say, Japanese sense of self is not completely separate from

others; it is defined in relation to larger societal contexts such as group belongings

and important interpersonal relations.

Emotions in Cultural Contexts

Emotions are experienced by all human beings regardless of their culture,

but what aspects of emotions are similar or different across cultures? According to

Russel (1991), at first anthropologists assumed that emotions were universal;

however, with closer examination of each culture, it was often found that emotional

categorization is different from culture to culture. Also, one emotion word (e.g.

anger, fear, etc.) rarely translates directly into a word in the target language. Even

in the same language (e.g. English), emotional words have not been consistent over

different times.

There are also attempts to infer cultural specificity from more generic

theories on cultures such as individualism versus collectivistic cultures. In

comparing individualistic and collectivistic cultures, Triandis (1994) asserted that

individualistic cultures value pleasure and self-expression/assertion. As a result,

people in individualistic cultures may identify both happiness and various negative

emotions more than those in collectivistic cultures. In collectivistic cultures,

identification and expression of these emotions may be less encouraged because of

stronger emphasis on and need for maintenance of interpersonal harmony

２０

(Matsumoto, 1992). The empirical support for these hypotheses came from

Zahn-Waxler’s research (Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta & Hiruma, 1996)

where they compared American and Japanese preschoolers and found that

American mothers encouraged their children to express and assert themselves more

while Japanese mothers employed more psychological discipline. American

children expressed more negative emotions (i.e. anger and aggression) but also

displayed more prosocial behaviors.

Despite this linguistic complexity of emotional lexicon and dichotomous

views of differential cultures, some findings in cross-cultural studies on emotions

found evidences in universality of emotions and confirmed the evolutionally origin of

emotions. Photographs of facial expressions of 7 basic emotions (anger, sadness,

fear, disgust, joy, contempt, and surprise), called “Ekman faces,” have been used to

examine universality and locality of emotions. By collecting data from both

Western and non-Western cultures, Ekman and colleagues (Ekman, Sorenson, &

Friesen, 1969; Ekman, Friesen, O’Sullivan, Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, Krause, Pitcairn,

Scherer, Chan, Heider, LeCompte, Ricci-Bitti, Tomita & Tzavaras, 1987) found that

recognition of facial expression of emotions is universal Most people in these

cultures could identify 7 basic emotions correctly, while antecedents, display rules,

and behavioral consequences of emotions might vary from culture to culture.

In relation to Ekman’s research, some cultural differences have been

reported in the areas of intensity and accuracy of identification of emotion

(Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer & Wallbott, 1988; Matsumoto, 1989; Matsumoto, 1992).

In a mini meta- analytic study, Matsumoto (1989) analyzed 4 preceding studies that

included 15 countries from North, Middle and South America, Europe, and Near and

２１

Far East. Rather than relying on countries as categories of culture, Matsumoto

used Hofstede’s (1980) 3 of the 4 dimensions of culture (power distance,

individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity). The result indicated

partial support of the hypotheses: namely, power distance (i.e. hierarchical culture

such as Japanese culture) was negatively related to judgments of intensity of

negative emotions, and individualism was positively related to judgments of

intensity of some of negative emotions (fear and anger). In another study,

Matsumoto and colleagues (Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer & Wallbott, 1988)

administered a questionnaire that tapped into 4 dimensions of emotions (ecology,

regulation, subjective evaluations, and consequences) to Japanese and American

college students from a large international sample that encompassed 27 countries.

They found significant differences in length and intensity of emotional experiences:

Americans experienced emotions for a longer time and with greater intensity than

Japanese. Americans were also more expressive and dynamic about their emotions,

and their emotional experiences tended to boost their self-esteem, while that was

not the case for Japanese. Furthermore, Americans attributed responsibility of

certain emotions (joy, fear and shame) to others, while Japanese to chance or fate.

Matsumoto (1992) also found that Americans identified anger, fear, disgust and

sadness better than Japanese did.

Unlike conventional categorizing of emotions by valance (i.e. positive or

negative emotions), Markus and Kitayama (1991) identified two kinds of emotions

that were not traditional emotional categories based on the valance (positive or

negative): self-focused emotions (such as pride, ambition, happy, sad, guilt, anger,

etc.) and other-focused emotions (such as shame, compassion, sympathy, shyness,

２２

etc.). Although the latter is also experienced in individualistic culture, it tends to

be more readily experienced in interpersonal situations. As said earlier, expression

of emotions can be different from culture to culture even though recognition of basic

emotions is universal. Using the distinction between independent and

interdependent emotions as proposed by Markus and Kitayama (1991), Stephan and

colleagues (Stephan, Stephan, Saito & Barnett, 1998) found that Japanese felt more

comfortable in expressing interdependent emotions than independent emotions.

Their hypotheses derived from individualistic versus collectivistic cultures; however,

they found that Japanese students were not as evenly “collectivistic” as they first

expected.

It has been reported that Japanese teachers and caretakers try to teach the

value of omoiyari to young children. Omoiyari is a kind of empathy, a stance to

always take others into consideration before taking actions. According to this

interpersonal principle Japanese caretakers provide frequent verbal

acknowledgments to their children to show that they understand what is talked

about (Minami, 1994). Japanese preschool teachers focus on “loneliness” as an

important emotion to promote the importance of social connectedness and

interdependence (Hayashi, Karasawa & Tobin, 2009). Thus it might be possible

that in Japan emotions are expressed in ways that do not harm this important

interpersonal value of omoiyari.

Experiences of emotions may also be influenced by cultural contexts. Oishi

and colleagues (Oishi, Deiner, Scollon, Schimmack, Kim-Prieto & Choi, 2007) found

that Americans identified positive emotions more accurately in an American

scenario than Japanese one while for their Japanese counterparts the opposite was

２３

true. Therefore, familiarity might be playing an important role in experiences of

emotions. Experiences of emotions might also be affected by relational contexts as

in the case of the Korean notion of shimcheong, positive or negative emotional

arousal experienced in intimate relationships (Choi, Han & Kim, 2007).

Having reviewed all the above areas, our hypotheses on the effect of

cultures on dreams and personal narratives are as follows. a) Americans regards

dreams as having more internal sources than external sources; b) Americans have

more frequent lucid dreams than Japanese do; c) American descriptions of dreams

and personal narratives are lengthier than Japanese ones; d) Japanese mention

others and groups more frequently in their dreams and in their personal narratives;

e) Americans mention both positive and negative emotions more often in their

dreams and in their personal narratives than do Japanese. Overall, our general

prediction is that differences between cultures and tendencies within each culture

are consistent across two levels of measurement, dreams and personal narratives.

Method

Participants

The data collection process started with recruiting undergraduate and

graduate students at universities in the United States and in Japan. Potential

participants were mainly contacted in psychology classrooms, or by emails about the

opportunity for study participation from the instructors or the TAs of the courses

that they were attending. Fliers were put up in different places at the institutions;

２４

as a result, a small number of participants contacted us after seeing a flier. Also, a

small number of participants were recruited through “word of mouth,” by referral

from the previous participants and our acquaintances.

To enhance the accuracy of comparison between the two cultures, potential

participants with significant foreign experiences (i.e. he or she was born and raised

up in a country outside the United States or Japan, accordingly) were excluded from

the participation. Also, in the United States participants of Asian origin were

excluded from participation because the purpose of the present study was to

compare Japanese and American cultural groups.

Seventy-nine American students and 47 Japanese students participated in

the study. Out of these participants, 49 American students and 17 Japanese

students did not complete their 2-week dream journal. Subsequently, the data from

30 American students and 30 Japanese students were used for the analyses. The

mean age of these participants was 23.0 (range 18 to 42 years) in the US whereas it

was 20.48 (range 18 to 37 years) in Japan. The majority of the participants were

females both in the US (24 out of 30, 80%) and in Japan (26 out of 31, 83.87%). Out

of 30 American participants, 4 individuals were enrolled in a graduate program,

while all Japanese participants were enrolled in an undergraduate program.

Procedure

First, the purpose and the outline of the present study were explained to

participants and the consent was obtained from each participant. Participant then

either filled in the questionnaires printed on paper or visited the link to the identical

２５

questionnaires on Survey Monkey individually. Those questionnaires were the

Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix A, p. 63), the Dream Style Questionnaire

(see Appendix B, p. 64), and the Recent Event Form (see Appendix C, p.66).

After they finished all the questionnaires, participants were requested to

move on to keeping a dream journal on their own for 14 consecutive days at home.

A semi-structured Dream Record Form (see Appendix D, p. 67) was provided for

their convenience. They were instructed to record dreams every morning upon

waking. Any days during the designated period when they did not recall dreams

were also counted as part of those 14 days. If they had multiple dreams per night

the dreams were counted separately. The dream journals from a total of 60

individuals (30 Americans and 30 Japanese) yielded 442 dreams altogether (245

dreams from Americans and 197 dreams from Japanese, respectively). Any

individuals who did not recall any dreams during the 2 weeks were eliminated at

this moment. Participants who completed the full procedure including the dream

journal received a course credit and a compensation of $20.

At this moment, any handwritten data (i.e. dreams and recent events) were

transcribed so that they could later be managed on the computer. Also, any

Japanese narratives (i.e. dreams and recent events) were translated into English by

an English-Japanese bilingual individual. Then the narratives were

back-translated (Brislin, 1970) into Japanese by another English-Japanese bilingual

individual to see if there were any notable discrepancies between the original

Japanese texts and the translated English texts. The number of words in each

dream description and recent event description was counted to obtain the word

count of dreams and the word count of personal narratives, respectively. If the

２６

word count of a dream was less than 50 words, the dream was excluded from the

subsequent coding. Since the obtained dream data were highly variable from

individual to individual (i.e. different number of dreams recalled in 2 weeks; each

dream had a different number of words), the first dream of each participant was

used for the subsequent statistical analyses.

Two coders were employed to code the data (i.e. dreams and recent events)

according to the following coding criteria. A brief training session was provided to

the coders. Dreams were coded the frequency of the self and others and positive,

negative, and total emotions. Recent events were coded for the frequency of the self

and others and positive, negative, and total emotions.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 23 for Windows.

Qualitative coding

The Self and Others in dreams and personal narratives. The self as the

subject or the object (“I,” “me,” “myself”) was counted as indicative of the self. For

others, not only human beings but also animals and imaginary people were included.

When others were mentioned as a group of people or in a plural form, one

appearance was counted as indicative of others. “We” and “us” were counted both

as the self and others.

Groups in dreams and personal narratives. Any group of people (animals,

etc.) that consisted of more than 3 persons were counted as indicative of group.

Any dyads such as a couple, parent and child, etc. were not counted as group.

２７

Individuals in a group were anonymous unless they were separately mentioned in

the same narrative.

Emotions in dreams and personal narratives. Any words/expressions that

denoted the participant’s emotions (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) were

counted with valence (Positive Emotions or Negative Emotions). When the same

word or a similar emotion was repeated, each mention was counted separately.

Emotions that were implied by expressions other than emotional terms were not

counted as emotions. Total Emotions was the sum of Positive Emotions and

Negative Emotions.

Two coders coded most of the data. One of the coders was an

English-Japanese bilingual American, and the other was an English-Japanese

bilingual Japanese. The interrater reliabilities for each factor in dreams were: 1.00

for self, and .98 for other, .72 for positive emotions, .93 for negative emotions, .83 for

total emotions, The interrater reliabilities for each factor in personal narratives

were:.96 for self, .99 for other, .64 for positive emotions, .77 for negative emotions,

and .76 for total emotions..

Materials

Demographic Questionnaire. On the Demographic Questionnaire, the

participant answered the questions on their age, sex, education, occupation, ethnic

background, and the experiences outside their native country (i.e. the US or Japan).

２８

Dream Style Questionnaire. The Dream Style Questionnaire entailed

several questions on dreaming, such as dream recall frequency, dream sharing

frequency, with whom the participant shares dreams if they share, the frequency of

color dreams, agreement with sources of dreams as internal, agreement with sources

of dreams as external, any other reasoning about where dreams come from,

nightmare frequency, and lucid dream frequency. For two questions, with whom

they share dreams and other reasoning about the source of dreams, a blank was

provided for participants to write down freely. The rest of the questions consisted

of 5-point Likert scales. The scale of dream recall frequency was labeled “Rarely

(0),” “Once a month or less (1),” “A few times a month (2),” “A few times a week (3),”

and “Almost everyday (4).” The scales of dream sharing frequency, frequency of

color dreams, nightmare frequency, and lucid dream frequency were labeled from

“Never (0)” to “Always (4).” The scales of internal and external sources of dreams

were labeled from “Strongly disagree (-2)” to “Strongly agree (2).”

Recent Event Form. In the Recent Event Form, participants were

requested to write down a recent impressive, unforgettable experience they had in

as much detail as possible. If they could not remember any recent events, they

were allowed to write down an event from the remote past instead.

Dream Record Form. A semi-structured Dream Record Form was provided

to each participant upon completion of the preceding procedure. On the Form the

participant was able to record their ID number, the dates of dreams, the titles of

２９

dreams (optional), and the contents of dreams.

Results

Dream-Related Phenomena and Behaviors. On the Dream Style

Questionnaire, participants responded to a series of questions on dream-related

phenomena and behaviors. Some of these factors might be culturally universal

while others might be rather local. Our prediction was that dream recall frequency

and dream sharing frequency may not differ significantly across the two cultures.

A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship between

culture and dream recall frequency was non-significant (F (1, 58) = .738, p = .394).

The means of dream recall frequency were 2.60 (SD = .89) for Americans and 2.37

(SD = 1.19) for Japanese. On average both groups recalled dreams somewhere

between a few times a month and a few times a week. A one-way analysis of

variance on dream sharing frequency was non-significant (F (1, 58) = .266, p = .608).

The means of dream sharing frequency were 2.10 (SD = .88) for Americans and 2.00

for Japanese (SD = .58). In both groups, most participants “sometimes” shared

their dreams.

Another factor on which commonality was assumed was the frequency of

color dreams. A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the

relationship between culture and frequency of color dreams was non-significant (F (1,

58) = .449, p = .505). The means of frequency of color dreams were 3.20 for

Americans (SD = .96) and 3.37 for Japanese (SD = .96). In both cultures, most

participants “sometimes” or “often” had color dreams.

３０

As we discussed in the review of literature, in some cultures people have a

tendency to believe that dreams originate from external sources such as gods, spirits,

or other higher beings. However, it is likely in industrialized cultures in which the

population is more highly educated that people believe that dreams are closely tied

to internal, psychological sources such as wishes, thoughts and feelings. A one-way

analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and

agreement with the sources of dreams as being internal was significant (F (1, 58) =

5.208, p = .026,η2 = .082). The means of agreement with sources of dreams as

being internal were 1.00 for Americans (SD = 1.07) and .57 for Japanese (SD = .86).

However, the ANOVA on the relationship between culture and agreement with the

sources of dreams as being external was non-significant (F (1, 58) = .283, p = .597).

The means of agreement with sources of dreams as being external were -.47 for

Americans (SD = 1.07) and -.60 for Japanese (SD = .86). To summarize, both

Americans and Japanese believed that dreams came from internal sources, but the

degree of such belief/reasoning was much stronger in Americans. On the other

hand, in neither cultural group did individuals believe that dreams come from

external sources such as gods or higher beings.

Other factors that may or may not have cultural variability are nightmare

frequency and lucid dream frequency. While having nightmares might be a

universal experience, the experiences of lucid dreaming might be more culturally

variable. A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship

between culture and nightmare frequency was non-significant (F (1, 58) = 2.03, p

= .16). The means of nightmare frequency were 1.83 for Americans (SD = .63) and

1.60 for Japanese (SD = .63). However, the ANOVA on culture and lucid dream

３１

frequency was significant (F (1, 58) = 4.280, p = .043,η2 = .069). The means of lucid

dream frequency were 1.70 for Americans (SD = .75) and 1.27 for Japanese (SD

= .87). Both groups had similar frequencies of nightmares but the occurrence of

lucid dreams was higher in Americans than in Japanese. Whereas American

indicated their lucid dream frequency was close to “often,” Japanese responded that

it was closer to “sometimes.”

-----------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-----------------------------------

The results of these analyses on dream-related phenomena and behaviors

inform us that dreams are data that have considerable comparability. Many

common factors of dreaming, such as dream recall frequency, dream sharing

frequency, frequency of color dreams, the belief of dreams as arising from external

sources, and occurrence of nightmares did not show any cultural differences.

However, two factors, namely the belief in dreams as having internal sources and

the frequency of lucid dreams, differed across the two cultures; Americans believed

more strongly than did Japanese that dream come from internal sources and

Americans more frequently reported lucid dreams.

Analyses of the Dream Journal. Statistical analyses were conducted to

examine whether there were cultural differences in dream variables based on the

data from the dream journals that participants kept for 2 weeks. A one-way

３２

analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and

the number of dreams recalled in 2 weeks was non-significant (F (1, 58) = 1.06, p

= .307). The mean numbers of dreams recalled in the period of 2 weeks were 7.63

dreams for Americans (SD = 4.77) and 6.57 dreams for Japanese (SD = 3.06) (range:

1 to 18). Both groups recalled similar number of dreams in the period of 2 weeks.

Thus, this result was consistent with the earlier result of dream recall frequency

indicated by a Likert scale. While the number of dreams recalled in 2 weeks was a

measure of how well individuals recalled their dreams, the word count of the first

dream in the dream journal was also taken into account in the analyses. As is

mentioned before, the first dream of each individual was used for the analyses but

not all the dreams because there was high variability among dreams (i.e. number of

dreams recalled, word count of dreams). Based on the literature our prediction was

that Americans might have longer dream descriptions than do Japanese. A

one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship between

culture and the word count of the first dream was significant (F (1,58) = 4.96, p

= .030, η2 = .079). The means of the word count of the first dream were 170.73

words for Americans (SD = 141.90) and 107.50 words for Japanese (SD = 63.03).

Americans used more words to describe their first dreams than did Japanese.

For the rest of the analyses the first dream in the dream journal of each

participant was used for the aforementioned reasons. Also, because there was a

significant difference in the word count between the two groups, the rest of the

analyses were conducted using the word count as a covariate. One of our

predictions was that Japanese might mention others more frequently in their dream

descriptions. A one-way analysis of covariance undertaken to determine the

３３

relationship between culture and the mention of the self was non-significant (F (1,

56) = .197, p = .659). The means of the mention of the self were 13.59 for Americans

(SD = 13.67) and 8.43 for Japanese (SD = 5.89). A one-way analysis of covariance

undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and the mention of others

was non-significant (F (1, 56) = .626, p = .432). The means of the mention of others

were 13.81 for Americans (SD = 12.09) and 7.84 for Japanese (SD = 5.97).

Americans and Japanese did not differ in the mention of the self and others in

dreams. In relation to the mention of the self and others, our prediction was that

Japanese would mention groups more frequently in their dreams. A one-way

analysis of covariance undertaken to determine the relationship between culture

and the mention of groups in dreams was marginally significant (F (1, 57) = 3.67, p

= .061, η2 =.061). The means were 1.28 for Americans (SD = 1.75) and 2.13 for

Japanese (SD = 2.79). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of

mention of the self and others in dreams. However, Japanese mentioned groups

more frequently in their dreams than did Americans.

-----------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

-----------------------------------

In terms of emotional experiences in dreams, our prediction was that

Americans would mention their emotions more frequently than Japanese would,

whether emotions are positive or negative. A one-way analysis of covariance

undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and the mention of

３４

positive emotions in dreams was non-significant (F (1, 58) = .506, p = .480). The

means of the mention of positive emotions in dreams were .40 for Americans (SD

= .62) and .50 for Japanese (SD = .73). A one-way analysis of covariance

undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and the mention of

negative emotions in dreams was non-significant (F (1, 58) = 1.35, p = .251). The

means of the mention of negative emotions were 2.12 for Americans (SD = 2.90)

and .97 for Japanese (SD = 1.59). A one-way analysis of covariance undertaken to

determine the relationship between culture and the mention of total emotions in

dreams was non-significant (F (1, 58) = .696, p = .408). The means of the mention of

total emotions in dreams were 2.50 for Americans (SD =3.08) and 1.47 for Japanese

(SD =1.94). Contrary to our prediction, the two groups did not differ in the

frequency of the mention of positive, negative, and total emotions in dreams.

Analyses of Personal Narratives. As in the dream data, our prediction was

that American would use more words to describe their recent events than Japanese

would. However, a one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the

relationship between culture and the word count of personal narratives was

non-significant (F (1, 58) = 2.27, p = .14). The mean word counts of personal

narratives were 164.66 words for Americans (SD = 137.73) and 120.57 words for

Japanese (SD = 81.73). The two groups used similar numbers of words to describe

their recent events.

As in the analyses of dreams our prediction was that Japanese would

mention others more frequently in their personal narratives than would Americans.

Because there was no significant difference in the word count between the two

３５

groups, we did not use a covariate in the analyses of the factors related to personal

narratives. A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the

relationship between culture and the mention of the self was non-significant (F (1,

56) = 1.35, p = .251). The means of the mention of the self were 11.79 for Americans

(SD = 9.10) and 9.43 for Japanese (SD = 6.44). A one-way analysis of variance

undertaken to determine the relationship between culture and the mention of others

was non-significant (F (1, 56) = .548, p = .462). The means of the mention of others

were 10.13 for Americans (SD = 9.69) and 8.18 for Japanese (SD = 10.70). A

one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the relationship between

culture and the mention of groups was non-significant (F (1, 55) = .319, p = .574).

The means of the mention of groups were 1.28 for Americans (SD = 2.23) and 1.68 for

Japanese (SD = 3.09). In personal narratives, the two groups did not differ in

terms of the mention of the self, others, and groups.

----------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

----------------------------------

Similarly to dreams, our prediction about the emotions in personal

narratives was that Americans would mention both positive and negative emotions

more frequently than would Japanese. A one-way analysis of variance undertaken

to determine the relationship between culture and the mention of positive emotions

was non-significant (F (1, 56) = .567, p = .455). The means of the mention of

positive emotions in personal narratives were 1.05 for Americans (SD = 1.15) and .85

３６

for Japanese (SD = .91). A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine

the relationship between culture and the mention of negative emotions was

marginally significant (F (1, 56) = 3.76, p = .057, η2 = .061). The means of the

mention of negative emotions were 3.25 for Americans (SD = 4.17) and 1.63 for

Japanese (SD = 1.86). A one-way analysis of variance undertaken to determine the

relationship between culture and the mention of total emotions was marginally

significant (F (1, 56) = 3.74, p = .058, η2 = .061). The means of the mention of

total emotions were 4.29 for Americans (SD = 4.68) and 2.48 for Japanese (SD =

2.08). While there were no difference in positive emotions in the two groups,

Americans mentioned both negative emotions and total emotions more frequently in

their personal narratives than did Japanese.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine cultural differences and

similarities between Americans and Japanese culture on two different levels of

everyday experiences: dreams and personal narratives. Both are kinds of

narratives based on experiences that people have on a daily basis. While the act of

writing down dreams is a conscious, effortful act, dreams are considered products of

the unconscious layer of the individual mind; on the other hand, the individual’s

event is experienced mostly on the conscious level and recorded on the conscious

level as well.

If we further compare two levels, dreams are predominantly visuo-spatial

experiences while other sensory modalities such as auditory or kinesthetic are

３７

observed at times. On the other hand, perhaps few would agree that personal

narratives derive from one sensory modality such as visual; personal narratives may

not be recalled as sensory but are more likely to be already rehearsed and

constructed when people write down those experiences.

Comparability of dreams as cross-cultural data

First, we compared basic characteristics of dreams in the two cultural

groups. One of our findings was that there are some commonalities between

Japanese and American cultural groups: there was no difference found in dream

recall frequency, dream sharing frequency, frequency of color dreams, agreement

with sources of dreams as external, and nightmare frequency. That is to say,

individuals in both cultures sometimes remember and share dreams, mostly dream

in colors, disagree with sources of dreams as external, and some of their dreams are

nightmares. However, cultural differences were found in two areas. The degree to

which one agrees with sources of dreams as internal was stronger in Americans than

in Japanese. Also, Americans had higher occurrences of lucid dreams than did

Japanese.

Cultural differences in dreams and personal narratives

Secondly, we compared data deriving from dream journals. By comparing

the first dream in the journal, Americans had longer dream descriptions than did

Japanese. While Americans and Japanese did not differ in the mention of the self

and others in dreams, Japanese mentioned more groups in their dreams than did

Americans. Americans and Japanese did not differ in their mention of emotions in

３８

dreams. On the other hand, in personal narratives, Americans and Japanese did

not differ in the mention of the self and others. In terms of emotional experiences

within personal narratives, Americans mentioned their negative and total emotions

more frequently than did Japanese. However, there was no cultural difference

found in the mention of positive emotions.

Continuity between dreams and personal narratives

One of our predictions was that there are similarities, or continuity, between

dreams and personal narratives. However, from the results of the present study, it

is hard to conclude that there is obvious continuity between dreams and personal

narratives. Americans and Japanese did not differ in terms of the mention of the

self, others, and positive emotions in both dreams and personal narratives. These

might point to the areas where continuity between dreams and personal narratives

are assumed. That is, in both dreams and personal narratives, the descriptions of

both Americans and Japanese were populated with the self and others, and positive

emotions were equally expressed.

On the other hand, there were areas where cultural differences as well as

differences between dreams and personal narratives were observed. First,

Americans had longer dream descriptions than did Japanese, partially supporting

our hypothesis. However, in personal narratives, both groups turned out to be

similar. Japanese mentioned groups more frequently in their dreams, but in

personal narratives, the two cultural groups mentioned groups equally often.

Lastly, Americans mentioned negative and total emotions more frequently in their

personal narratives, but Americans and Japanese appeared to express different

３９

kinds of emotions similarly in dreams.

Psychologization and cultural shaping of dreams and personal narratives

What are cultural characteristics that shape dreaming in each culture? In

American culture where self assertion and self expression are more encouraged,

therefore dreams as psychological products can be much more identified and

recognized. In some ways the opportunity of the present study gave American

students as well as their Japanese counterparts an opportunity to write down their

dreams. However, they might not have experienced the task similarly; if we go a

little too extreme, it might be possible that Japanese did so because they were

instructed to do so while Americans shared their dreams more readily. In other

words, even if a dream is a new experience, it might be more likely that Americans

rehearsed similar experiences more frequently before than Japanese did.

According to Fiske and Pillemer (2006), American children are more encouraged by

their mothers to elaborate their dreams, not only their personal narratives.

Likewise, because of their focus on internal and psychological life, Americans had

less doubt that dreams were products of inner, psychological phenomena such as

wishes, feelings, and thoughts. When inquired deeper on the nature of dreams,

Japanese might offer more personalized, idiosyncratic views of dreams than

American tendencies. American tendency to psychologize experiences can be

observed in many segments of their society – popularized psychology, more common

use of psychotherapy, dispositional interpretations of social behaviors, and so on.

The phenomenon of lucid dreaming is also much more popularized in the US;

knowing that it is possible to be aware of dreaming states while dreaming may

４０

increase the likelihood that individuals actually become aware in their dreams. In

fact, Erlacher’s (Erlacher, Schredl, Watanabe, Yamana & Gantzert, 2008) finding

that the prevalence of lucid dreams among Japanese was lower than that in Western

countries may support these differential attitudes between American and Japanese

culture.

There might also be some cultural differences in how to deal with inner life,

or products of inner life such as dreams. Casual observations of Japanese

behaviors in public (e.g. on train, on street, in a café, etc.) tell us that Japanese

share their dreams between friends, colleagues, etc. but the customary question,

“What do you think this dream means?” is rarely heard. That is to say, their dream

sharing might be casual, entertaining, and impressionistic but not geared toward

dream interpretations. On the other hand, because of the strong emphasis on

psychologization in their culture, Americans might be more interested in

interpreting dreams, at times by getting help from professionals.

Elaboration and attention to details

As expected, Americans spent more words in describing their dreams than

did Japanese. However, this difference in the amount was not found in personal

narratives. There are at least three ways to explain why this difference occurred in

dreams but not in personal narratives: a) Americans had dreams that lasted longer

in terms of minutes. b) Americans remembered their dreams better and they

remembered details as well. c) Americans were more eager to describe details of

dreams and/or put more effort into it. Or combinations of all or some of these three

explanations are also possible. Given the popularity that dreaming holds in

４１

American culture, these explanations may be somewhat truthful in American

culture.

Cross-cultural research on narrative development repeatedly found that

American/European narratives are more elaborated than Japanese/Asian ones.

This is not about “longer is better” per se, but each culture has an ideal of how

stories need to be constructed, talked about, and shared with others. In Japanese

culture, succinctness seems to be considered a good quality of narratives, just as in

their short poetry form haiku (Minami & McCabe, 1991).

The self in relation to groups

Our prediction was that Japanese would mention others more frequently

than Americans. However, the two groups did not differ in the mention of the self

and others; the only factor that was obviously different was that Japanese mentions

groups more frequently in their dreams. In fact, it seems that Japanese may

mention others in terms of “groups” rather than individual, separate others. For

example, in their dreams and personal narratives, Japanese often mentioned their

friends by specifying that they were friends from “elementary school,” “junior high,”

“high school,” “club,” and so on. They were not just friend Taro or Hanako but the

social context (such as school) where they came in contact with those friends

mattered to the Japanese participants to the degree that they dared mention it.

Japanese also seemed to be more aware of the continuity of their relationships with

these friends by mentioning where the friends came from. On the other hand,

when Americans mentioned their friends, they did so more straightforwardly – if it

was in the classroom, obviously the friend was a classmate, roommate was

４２

roommate, romantic partner was romantic partner, and so on. Their friends’ past

social belonging (school, etc.) did not matter for Americans. It can be said that

perhaps Japanese care for roots while for Americans the present situations are of

more importance.

Americans mention individuals in a group separately while Japanese

mention a group as a unit, without mentioning separate individuals. Whereas

Americans mention a group, then go over to name and describe each individual in

the group in details including their characteristics, appearances, dispositions, etc.,

Japanese may mention a group but may not take moments to describe each

individual that constitutes the group. Perhaps Japanese believe that referring to

the name of the group or social belonging provide enough information about the

background of the individual.

Not only others or groups, it is also possible that Japanese “self” is less

elaborated, along with the tendency not to elaborate experiences as much as

Americans. As Cousins (1989) found, Japanese tend to define the self in relation to

the groups that they belong to. It might be group membership that is of much

importance to Japanese, while for Americans, dispositions, personality traits, etc.

are much more important. For Americans, individual characteristics are

independent of social contexts. Ultimately, it is possible that Japanese self-other

schemes function only within these group-societal contexts, where the self and

others are not fully construed once put out of the social contexts. However, not to

mention, there are also individuals who have stronger sense of independence and

separateness even among Japanese, while the reverse may be true for some

Americans.

４３

Differential emotional experiences

Our prediction was that Americans mention both positive and negative

emotions more often than do Japanese. However, in the present study it were only

negative and total emotions that were mentioned more often by Americans in their

personal narratives. Moreover, these cultural differences were not found in dreams.

In general, emotions are rather underrepresented in dreams (Schredl & Doll, 1998),

perhaps partly because emotions can be symbolized rather than directly mentioned

in dreams. The results of the present study tell us that American are more

outspoken about their emotions, including negative ones. For Americans, emotions

are personal psychological properties and it is sanctioned to express emotions when

they feel emotions are there. This result somewhat supports the hypothesis that

Japanese do not mention their emotions, particularly negative ones, in fear of

upsetting interpersonal harmony. Because of their interpersonal concerns, even if

they experience negative emotions, Japanese may not experience those emotions as

clearly and intensely as their American counterparts do. Or their negative

emotions might be on the preverbal level, remaining more implicit. Part of the

reason for this might be a kind of emotional training that Japanese are exposed to

early on: Japanese children are discouraged from expressing their anger, etc. by

their caretakers and teachers.

In the Japanese language, while it is possible to say “I’m angry,” there are

many other somatized ways to say the same: for example, if literally translated, “(it)

comes to (my) head,” “(my) abdomen stands,” “(my) guts boil,” and so on. These

expressions are more commonly used than the more cognitively focused expression

４４

of being “angry.” This is just a single linguistic example, but the way emotions are

experienced in Japanese may be as variable as this example.

Differential senses of boundaries

Both dreams and personal narratives are internal processes where

censorship works. In terms of sharing those materials, whether it is a dream or a

personal experience, Americans may have more willingness to share their private

materials than Japanese do. While the sense of privacy is rather identical to the

individual mind for Americans, the sense of privacy for Japanese seems somewhat

more extended beyond their individuality; it might include significant others and

personal/familial space as well. Americans may find it easy to share their

private/personal materials and related narratives may be more readily available for

sharing. On the other hand, Japanese may be more aware of “socially appropriate”

materials and hesitant to share materials that are not considered appropriate in

that sense. Compared to Americans, Japanese censorship may work stronger when

sharing the materials may jeopardize the security and integrity of the circle of

family and close friends. Japanese may be more aware of and concerned about the

“faces” of those important people around them. Thus, sharing potentially harming

materials is not favorable for the self as well as for those people around him/her. As

previously discussed by Griffith and colleagues (Griffith, Miyagi & Tago, 1958),

Japanese may be less likely to share socially embarrassing materials.

Limitations of the present study

One of the purposes of the present study was to examine the

４５

continuity-discontinuity of dreaming and waking experiences in the context of

American and Japanese cultures. However, the results obtained in this study were

rather “split,” so to speak. Some cultural differences were found in dreams while

others were found in personal narratives, without clear evidences that the two levels

were similar. In order to be informed more about the continuity-discontinuity of

dreaming and waking experiences, more research need to be done.

As a cross-cultural study that deals with two different languages,

translation processes were involved in data management. Although the translator

and the back-translator made efforts in not changing the number of words where

possible (e.g. try to translate a single word of the original language into a single

word in the target language), the data were affected more or less by translation.

There is also a method to conduct analyses in the original language, if a workable

correspondence between the original language (i.e. Japanese) and the target

language (i.e. English) is found (e.g. Wang, 2004).

In order to obtain personal narratives, participants were asked to write

down a “recent” memory. However, it turned out that this “recent” had a broad

variability among different individuals: while one participant came up with an

experience from the day before, others wrote down a memory from several months

ago or a few years ago. A few individuals could only recall memories from a remote

past. While all dreams were likely to be written down fairly soon after participants

had dreams, the recency of personal narratives was rather uneven.

As in other psychological studies, data were collected from individuals who

understood the purpose of the study and were willing to participate in the study.

Because the study participation entailed 2-week dream journaling, a kind of

４６

self-selection process worked and those who were interested in and recall their

dreams well may have participated in the study. On the other hand, despite

encouragement to participate in the study, individuals who were not particularly

interested in dreams, or those who believed that they did not recall or have dreams

might not have participated. Also, among the participants who responded to the

initial questionnaires, those who did not recall/record any dreams in 14 days were

not included in the analyses. Therefore, the results of the present study are

considered to be based only on the sample of individuals who recall their dreams

relatively often and are interested in their own dreams. It can also be an option to

include those individuals who did not recall dreams at all to the analyses to see if

there are any differences between the recall group and the no-recall group.

In terms of emotional aspects of this study, we chose to use the valence of

emotions as categories. However, the valence may not be the best way to categorize

emotions. As Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggested, using the distinction

between self-focused emotions and other-focused emotions might be more relevant to

and appropriate for the comparison between American and Japanese culture. As

pointed out in research, nuances and boundaries of emotions might be different from

culture to culture, or language to language. For example, “sadness” in Japanese

has tended to be often depicted with some longing and sense of acceptance that may

or may not be different from the connotation in English and other languages. The

present study shed light on various elements in dreams and personal narratives.

However, there are still many aspects of these experiences that are not thoroughly

investigated and understood. In particular, further research is awaited in areas

such as the relationship between elaboration and attention to details and cultural

４７

differences in emotional experiences and functions.

Reference

Aserinsky, E. & Kleitman, K. (1953). Regularly occurring period of eye motility, and

concomitant phenomena during sleep. Science, 118, 273-274.

Beradt, C. (1985). The Third Reich of Dreams. Wellingborough, England: The

Aquarian Press.

Blechner, M. (2000). The Dream Frontier. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, (3), 185-216.

Burkeley, K. (1994). Dreaming in a totalitarian society: A reading of Charlotte

Beradt’s The Third Reich of Dreams. Dreaming, 4, (2), 115-1251994).

Choi, S-C., Han, G. & Kim, C-W. (2007). Analysis of cultural emotion;

Understanding indigenous psychology for universal implications. In

Valsiner, J. & Alberto, R. (2007). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural

psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, D. & Gunz, A. (2002). As seen by the other… : Perspectives on the self in the

memories and emotional perceptions of Easterners and Westerners.

Psychological Science, 13, (1), 55-59.

Conway, M. A. & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical

memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, (2),

261-288.

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, (1), 124-131.

４８

Davis, J. L., Byrd, P., Rhudy, J. L. & Wright, D. C. (2007). Characteristics of chronic

nightmares in a trauma-exposed treatment-seeking sample. Dreaming, 17,

(4), 187-198.

Domhoff, W. G. (2001). Using content analysis to study dreams: Applications and

implications for the humanities. In Bulkeley, K. (Ed.). Dreams: A reader in

religious, cultural and psychological dimensions of dreaming. NY: Palgrave.

Domhoff, G. W. & Schneider, A. (2008). Similarities and differences in dream content

at the cross-cultural, gender, and individual levels. Consciousness and

Cognition, 17, 1257-1265.

Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial

displays of emotion. Science, 164, 86-88.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, E., Krause, R.,

Pitcairn, T., Scherer, K., Chan, A., Heider, K., LeCompte, W. A., Ricci-Bitti, P.

E., Tomota, M., & Tzavaras, A. (1987). Universals and cultural differences

in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 53, (4), 712-717.

Erlacher, D., Schredl, M., Watanabe, T., Yamana, J. & Gantzert, F. (2008). The

incident of lucid dreams within a Japanese university student sample.

International Journal of Dream Research, 1, (2), 39-43.

Fiske, K. E. & Pillemer, D. B. (2006). Adult recollections of earliest childhood

dreams: A cross-cultural study. Memory, 14, (1), 52-67.

Freud, S. (1900/1955). The Interpretation of Dreams. Oxford, England: Basic Books.

Gilchrist, S., Davidson, J., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2007). Dream emotions, waking

emotions, personality characteristics and well-being – A positive psychology

４９

approach. Dreaming, 17 (3), 172-185.

Griffith, R. M., Miyagi, O. & Tago, A. (1958). The universality of typical dreams:

Japanese vs. Americans. American Anthropologist, 60, 1173-1180.

Hall, C. S. & Van de Castle, R. (1966). The content analysis of dreams. NY: Meredith

Publishing Company.

Han, J. J., Leichtman, M. D., & Wang, Q. (1998). Autobiographical memory in

Korean, Chinese, and American Children. Developmental Psychology, 34,

(4), 701-713.

Harris, M. & Lane, R. C. (2003). The changing place of the dream in psychoanalytic

history, part II: Other perspectives, sociocultural influences and the

challenges of neuroscience. Psychoanalytic Review, 90, 101-123.

Hartmann, E. (1998). Dreams and nightmares: The origin and meaning of dreams.

NY: Perseus Publishing.

Hartmann, E. (2000). We do not dream about the 3 R’s: Implications for the nature of

dream mentation. Dreaming, 10, 103-110.

Hartmann, E., Harrison, R., & Zborowski, M. (2001). Boundaries in the mind: Past

research and future directions. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, (3),

347-368.

Hayashi, A., Karasawa, M. & Tobin, J. (2009). The Japanese preschooler ’s pedagogy

of feeling: Cultural strategies for supporting young children’s emotional

development. American Journal of Psychological Anthropology, 37, (1),

32-49.

Hobson, A. & Kahn, D. (2007). Dream content: Individual and generic aspects.

Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 850-858.

５０

Hobson, A. & Schredl, M. (2011). The continuity and discontinuity between waking

and dreaming: A dialogue between Michael Schredl and Allan Hobson

concerning the adequacy and completeness of these notions. International

Journal of Dream Research, 4, (1), 3-7.

Imada, T. (2012). Cultural narratives of individualism and collectivism: A content

analysis of textbook stories in the United States and Japan. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, (4), 576-591.

Jobson, L. & O’Kearney, R. (2008). Cultural differences in retrieval of self-defining

memories. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, (1), 75-85.

Kawai, H. (1995). Dreams, myths and fairy tales in Japan. Eisiedeln, Switzerland:

Daimon Verlag.

Kramer, M. (2007). The Dream Experience.: A Systematic Exploration. NY:

Routledge.

Lane, M. & Harris, R. C. (2002). The changing place of the dream in psychoanalytic

history, part I: Freud, ego psychology, and the interpersonal school.

Psychoanalytic Review, 89, 829-859.

Levine, J. B. (1991). The role of culture in the representation of conflict in dreams: A

comparison of Bedouin, Irish, and Israeli children. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, (4), 472-490.

Lohmann, R. I. (2001). The role of dreams in religious enculturation among the

Asabano of Papua New Guinea. In Bulkeley (Ed.). Dreams: A reader in

religious, cultural and psychological dimensions of dreaming. NY: Palgrave.

Mageo, J. M. (2002). The intertextual interpretation, fantasy, and Samoan dreams.

Culture and Psychology, 8, (4), 417-448.

５１

Mageo, J. M. (2004). Toward a holographic theory of dreaming. Dreaming, 14, (2-3),

151-169.

Marinelli, L. (2006). Screening wish theories: Dream psychologies and early cinema.

Science in Context, 19, (1), 87-110.

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for

cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 98 (2), 224-253.

Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92-105.

Matsumoto, D. (1992). American-Japanese cultural differences in the recognition of

universal facial expressions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23,

72-84.

Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., Scherer, K., & Wallbott, H. (1988). Antecedents of and

reactions to emotions in the United States and Japan. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, (3), 267-286.

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General

Psychology, 5, (2), 100-122.

Meier, C. A. (2003). Healing dream and ritual: Ancient incubation and modern

psychotherapy. Eisiedeln, Switzerland: Daimon Verlag.

Minami, M. (1994). English and Japanese: A cross-cultural comparison of parental

styles of narrative elicitation. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, (2), 383-407.

Minami, M. & McCabe, A. (1991). Haiku as a discourse regulation device: A stanza

analysis of Japanese children’s personal narratives. Language in Society, 20,

(4), 577-599.

Minami, M. & McCabe, A. (1995). Rice balls and mountain bears: Japanese and

５２

North American family narrative patterns. Journal of Child Language, 222,

423-445.

Morris, M. W. & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese

attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 949-971.

Nelson, K. (1993). The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory.

Psychological Science, 4, (1), 7-14.

Nielsen, T. A., Deslauriers, D. & Baylor, G. W. (1991). Emotions in dreams and

waking event reports. Dreaming, 1 (4), 287-.

Nielsen, T. A. & Zadra, A. (2005). Nightmares and other common dream

disturbances. Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine, 4, 926-935.

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., Schimmack, U., Kim-Prieto, C. & Choi, D.

(2007). The value-congruence model of memory for emotional experiences:

An explanation for cultural differences in emotional self- reports. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 93, (5), 897-905.

Okada, H., Matsuoka, K., Hatakeyama, T.. (2011). Life span differences in color

dreams. Dreamining, 21, (3), 213-220.

Pandya, V. (2004). Forest smells and spider webs: ritualized dream interpretation

among Andaman Islanders. Dreaming, 14, (2-3), 136-150.

Peluso, D. M. (2004). “That which I dream is true”: Dream narratives in an

Amazonian community. Dreaming, 14, (2-3), 107-119.

Prasad, B. (1982). The content analysis of dreams of Indian and American students:

A cultural comparison. Journal of Indian Psychology, 4 (1), 54-64.

Punamaki, R. & Joustie, M. (1998). The role of culture, violence, and personal

５３

factors affecting dream content. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,

(2), 320-342.

Punamaki, R., Karzan, J. A, Kamaran, H. I. & Nuutinen, J. (2005). Trauma,

dreaming, psychological distress among Kurdish children. Dreaming, 15, (3),

178-194.

Renne, E. P. (2004). Dressing in the stuff of dreams: Sacred dress and religious

authority in Southwestern Nigeria. Dreaming, 14, (2-3), 120-135.

Revonsuo, A. (2000). The reinterpretation of dreams: An evoluationary hypothesis of

the function of dreaming. Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 793-1121.

Russel, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological

Bulletin, 110, (3), 426-450.

Schneider, A. & Domhoff, G. W. (2010). The Quantitative Study of Dreams.

Retrieved October 19. 2010, from http://psych.ucsc.edu/dreams/Info/

samples.html

Schredl, M. (2000). Continuity between waking life and dreaming: Are all waking

activities reflected equally often in dreams? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,

884-846.

Schredl, M. & Doll, (1998). Emotions in diary dreams. Consciousness and Cognition,

7, 634-646.

Schredl, M. & Hofmann, F. (2003). Continuity between waking activities and dream

activities. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 298-208.

Schredl, M., Fuchedzieva, A., Hamig, H., & Schindele, V. (2008). Do we think dreams

are black and while due to memory problems? Dreaming, 18, (3), 175-180.

Singer, J. A. & Bluck, S. (2001). New perspectives on autobiographical memory: The

５４

integration of narrative processing and autobiographical reasoning. Review

of General Psychology, 5, (2), 91-99.

Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Saito, I. & Barnett, S. M. (1998). Emotional

expression in Japan and the United States: The nonmonolithic nature of

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, (6),

728-748.

Strauch, I & Meier, B. (1996). In search of dreams. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Szmigielska, B. & Holda, M. (2007). Student’s views on the role of dreams in human

life. Dreaming, 17, 3, 152-158.

Tartz, R. S., Baker, R. C. & Krippner, S. (2006). Cognitive differences in dream

content and boundary structure between Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans and European Americans using quantitative content analysis.

Dreaming, 16, (2). 111-128.

Tatara, M. (1976). Yume-bunseki nyumon. [Introduction to dream analysis.] Tokyo:

Sogensha.

Tedlock, B. (2007). Bicultural dreaming as an intersubjective communicative process.

Dreaming, 17 (2), 57-72.

Titchener, E. B. (1895). Minor studies from the psychological laboratory of Cornell

University: Taste dreams. The American Journal of Psychology, 6, (4),

505-509.

Tonay, V. K. (1990-1991). California women and their dreams: A historical and

subcultural comparison of dream content. Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, 10, (1), 85-99.

５５

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Major cultural syndromes and emotion. In Kitayama, S. &

Markus, H. R. (Eds.). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual

influence. (pp. 285-308). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.

Psychological Review, 96, (3), 506-520.

Valli, K., Revonsuo, A., Paklas, O., & Punamaki, R. (2006). The effect of trauma on

dream content – A field study of Palestinian children. Dreaming, 16 (2),

63-87.

Wang, Q. (2004). The emergence of cultural self-constucts: Autobiographical memory

and self-description in European American and Chinese children.

Developmental Psychology, 40, (1), 3-15.

Watkins, M. (1992). Perestroika of the self: Dreaming in the U.S.S.R. Dreaming, 2,

(2), 111-122.

Yu, C. K. (2007). Emotions before, during, and after dreaming sleep. Dreaming, 17,

2, 73-86.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., & Hiruma, N. (1996).

Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and

distress. Child Development, 67, (5), 2462-2477.

５６

Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire

Please tell me about yourself by either checking the appropriate box or fill in the

blank provided below.

a) Are you male or female?

□Male □Female

b) How old are you?

( ) year old

c) What is your occupation?

( )

d) How do you describe your educational background?

□High School □Some College □Completed College

□Graduate School

e) Were you born outside the US?

□Yes □No

f) Have you ever lived outside the US?

□Yes □No

If yes, please provide detailed information.

When was your stay? ( )

How long? ( )

Where? ( )

g) How do you describe your ethnic/racial background?

□Caucasian □African American □Latino

□Asian/Pacific Islander □Other ( )

５７

Appendix B: Dream Style Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions by checking the appropriate box below each

question.

a) How often do you recall your dreams?

□Rarely □Once a month or less □A few times a month

□A few times a week □Almost everyday

b) If you remember your dreams, do you share them with others?

□Never □Rarely □Sometimes □Often □Always

c) If yes, with whom do you share your dreams?

( )

d) Do you dream in color?

□Never □Rarely □Sometimes □Often □Always

e) Do you think that dreams come from some kind of internal sources, such as

wishes, desires, and memories?

□Strongly disagree □Disagree □Neutral □Agree

□Strongly agree

f) Do you think that dreams come from some kind of external sources, such as God or

other spiritual sources?

□Strongly disagree □Disagree □Neutral □Agree

５８

□Strongly agree

g) Do you have any other theories to explain why you have dreams?

( )

h) Do you have nightmares?

□Never □Rarely □Sometimes □Often □Always

i) Do you have lucid dreams (dreams in which you are aware that you are

dreaming)?

□Never □Rarely □Sometimes □Often □Always

５９

Appendix C:

Recent Event Form

In the space provided below, please write down one recent experience that took place

in your life. The event should be an impressive, unforgettable one that

accompanied strong emotions. If you cannot recall any from the recent past, any

unforgettable event from the remote past can substitute a recent one. Please

describe it as detailed as possible. If the space below is not enough, please also use

the reverse side of this sheet and/or an additional piece of paper.

６０

Appendix D:

Dream Record Form

Name:

ID#:

(For the researcher use only)

In the space given below, please describe your dreams as exactly and as fully as you

can remember.

The Date of the Dream:

The Time of Day of the Record:

Dream title:

６１

Appendix E: Instructions To The Judges

Thank you for getting involved in this judging process. We are going to

provide you with two kinds of forms that participants in the study wrote down either

their recent experience or dream: the Recent Event Form and the Dream Record

Form. For each of them please follow instructions provided below accordingly.

Please record the code either on the forms or on the sheets provided. At the end of

each dream/event please go over the script once again to make sure that you are not

missing any necessary judgments and codes.

For Recent Event Forms

a) Count the number of other people that appear in the description. Record it on

the sheet provided.

b) Count the frequency that the writer mentions himself/herself. Record it on the

sheet provided.

c) Count the frequency that the writer mentions a group (i.e. a group of people, club,

classroom, etc.). Record it on the sheet provided.

d) Indicate any instances where emotions are mentioned in any forms (nouns,

adjectives, or verbs). Underline it and mark “E.” Also distinguish between

positive emotions and negative emotions.

６２

For Dream Record Forms

a) Count the number of others that appear in the dream and write it down in the

Recording Form.

b) Count the frequency that the writer mentions himself/herself. Record it on the

sheet provided.

c) Count the frequency that the writer mentions a group (i.e. a group of people, club,

classroom, etc.). Record it on the sheet provided.

d) Code any emotions mentioned in the dream. These include any emotions

expressed in nouns (such as sorrow, joy), adjectives (happy, angry, sad, etc.), or

verbs (rejoice, surprised, etc.). For each emotion present underline the

word/expression and code “E”. Distinguish between positive emotions and

negative emotions.

６３

Table 1

Summary of Dream Qualities and Behaviors

F p M SD

Dream recall .738 .394

(Americans) 2.60 .89

(Japanese) 2.37 1.19

Dream sharing .266 .608

(Americans) 2.10 .89

(Japanese) 2.00 .59

Color dreams .449 .505

(Americans) 3.20 .96

(Japanese) 3.37 .96

Internal sources 5.21 .026**

(Americans) 1.00 .59

(Japanese) .57 .86

External sources .283 .597

(Americans) -.47 .86

(Japanese) -.60 .86

Nightmares .203 .16

(Americans) 1.83 .65

(Japanese) 1.60 .62

Lucid dreams 4.28 .043**

(Americans) 1.70 .75

(Japanese) 1.27 .97

Table 1: Summary of Dream Style Questionnaire (** indicates significance, p < .05, *

indicates marginal significance)

６４

Table 2

Summary of Dream-Related Factors

F p M SD

Number of Dreams Recalled 1.06 .307

(Americans) 7.63 4.77

(Japanese) 6.57 3.06

Word Count 4.96 .030**

(Americans) 170.73 141.90

(Japanese) 107.50 63.06

Self .197 .659

(Americans) 13.59 13.67

(Japanese) 8.43 5.89

Other .626 .432

(Americans) 13.81 12.09

(Japanese) 7.84 5.97

Groups 3.67 .061*

(Americans) 1.28 1.75

(Japanese) 2.13 2.79

Positive Emotions .506 .480

(Americans) .40 .73

(Japanese) .50 .62

Negative Emotions 1.38 .251

(Americans) 2.12 2.90

(Japanese) .97 1.59

Total Emotions .696 .408

(Americans) 2.50 3.08

(Japanese) 1.47 1.94

** indicates significance, p < .05, * indicates marginal significance.

６５

Table 3

Summary of Personal Narrative-Related Factors

F p M SD

Word Count 2.27 .14

(Americans) 164.66 137.73

(Japanese) 120.57 81.73

Self 1.35 .251

(Americans) 11.79 9.10

(Japanese) 9.43 6.44

Other .548 .462

(Americans) 10.13 9.69

(Japanese) 8.18 10.70

Groups .319 .574

(Americans) 1.28 2.23

(Japanese) 1.68 3.09

Positive Emotions .567 .455

(Americans) 1.05 1.15

(Japanese) .85 .91

Negative Emotions 3.76 .057*

(Americans) 3.25 4.17

(Japanese) 1.63 1.86

Total Emotions 3.74 .058*

(Americans) 4.29 4.68

(Japanese) 2.48 2.08

** indicates significance, p < .05; * indicates marginal significance.