This document summarizes research on the relationship between video game playing and dreams. It describes two studies that compared high and low gamers - one with military personnel and one with university students. The studies examined threat levels and central images in recent dreams versus trauma/military dreams. For students, self-reported nightmares supported the hypothesis that gaming reduces nightmares, but threat ratings did not. Central image intensity did but emotion did not. Reactions to trauma dreams also supported the hypothesis for students. Comparing students to soldiers found similar responses in dreams depending on gaming level and dream context. More information is available in two books published in 2012.

1. Threat and Central Image in Dreams:
Student and Soldier Gamers
Jayne Gackenbach, Mycah
Darlington, and Mary-Lynn Ferguson
MacEwan University
Paper presented at the 2012 meeting of the International
Association for the Study of Dreams, Berkeley, CA
Gackenbach, J.I., Darlington, M., & Ferguson, M. (2012, June). Threat
and Central Image in Dreams: Student and Soldier Gamers. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for
the Study of Dreams, Berkeley, CA.

2. Conceptual Basis for Nightmare
Protection Hypothesis
• Nightmare Protection Hypothesis: playing video
games may protect some from nightmares
• Related conceptual justification:
– defensive rehearsal in video game play against
threatening situations, if done repeatedly over a long
period of time, would result in well learned responses
which would generalize to other states of consciousness,
in this case dreams
– numbing towards violence associated with serious
combat centric game play would also result in a lessened
nightmarish experience in the dream
– AND to the extent that nightmares come from trauma…

3. Visuospatial Tetris versus Verbal Quiz
1. Human memory differentiates visual and verbal components
2. Pathological trauma flashbacks consist of sensory, visual images
3. Cognitive science shows that visuospatial cognitive tasks
compete for resources with visual images
4. The biology of memory consolidation suggests a 6 hour time
frame post-trauma within which memories are malleable
5. Thus, visuospatial cognitive tasks given within 6 hours
posttrauma will interfere with visual flashback memory
consolidation, and reduce later flashbacks
6. In contrast, verbal tasks post-trauma will not reduce flashbacks
as verbal tasks compete with verbal, conceptual processing of the
event but not the visual images that make up flashbacks

4. Visuospatial Tetris versus Verbal Quiz
Study 2 was after 4 hours with same results
Holmes EA, James EL, Kilford EJ, Deeprose C
(2010) Key Steps in Developing a Cognitive
Vaccine against Traumatic Flashbacks:
Visuospatial Tetris versus Verbal Pub Quiz.
PLoS ONE 5(11).

5. Nature of Threat
(1= no harm, 2= nonagg harm, 3= agg harm)
Military Dream
Recent Dream
High Low
Same interaction
for Severity of
Threat
(1=none, 2=trivial,
3=social/psychological,
4=life threatening)
Last year at IASD presented military gamers
study – published in Dec. 2011 Dreaming

6. Conclusions from Military Study
• Gaming may act as an inoculation against some of
the negative experiences of nightmares
• Nightmares can re-traumatize the dreamer thus
minimizing their effect is important.
• While nightmares may be the psyche’s invitation
(Jung), PTSD nightmares are another breed.

7. Replication and Extension:
Undergraduate Students
• Totals: 658 entered the study, 469 got through
the prescreening, of these 17 said no to informed
consent
• At each prescreening question if they did not
answer it correctly their participation ended.
Thus by the end of the prescreening 27.4% were
deleted. This was fairly evenly distributed
between the various prescreening questions.
• Thus 452 potential participants
– 170 males and 282 females
– 92.9% were 18 to 25 years old with 48% 18 and 19
year olds
– 96% were never married

8. Gamer Groups
Stayed with this definition of game groups (1=day/wk;2=mo/yr/rare) as
that was definition used in military study and wanted to compare groups
video game group
Totals
High Low
Sex
Male 103 67 170
Female 36 234 270
Totals 139 301 440

9. Role of Genre Favorites
• Current favorite genre:
• Hard core (combat centric games): FPS, MMO,
role play, real time strategy, strategy,
adventure, fighting
• Sport: driving, sport
• Casual: simulation, puzzle, card, board

10. Interactions for current favorite genre
hardcore
hardcore
sport
sport
casual
casual
Males Females
High Gamer Low Gamer
sex x genre video game group x genre

11. Three way interaction
NOT SIGNIFICANT but it helps to illuminate
the sex/gamer difference
hardcore
hardcore
sport
sport
casual
casual
Males Females
High Gamer Low GamerHigh Gamer Low Gamer
CONCLUDE: It may be that playing casual games does not prepare women for nightmares like
playing combat games prepares men. Reflects childhood play patterns outside of video game
play (M=large group, competitive; F=small group, care giving role rehearsal)

12. Peak Play time ranking
Age range (all S’s
except in 20’s)
Sex Video game
group freq
interaction
In 20’s ns Hi > Lo ns
2 years after high
school
ns Hi > Lo ns
Grade 10-12 M > F ns ns
Grade 7 to 9 F > M ns ns
Grade 4 to 6 F > M Lo > Hi ns
Kindergarten to
grade 3
F > M ns ns
Before kindergarten ns ns ns
In childhood males play more than females overall continuing into adulthood in all
genre’s but casual games which are predominently female players.

13. NIGHTMARE SUM
Self report confidence had a
nightmare after each trauma type
Male
Female
High Low
Specific types
where same
interaction:
physical assault,
recurrent physical
assault, and
recurrent
emotional abuse.

14. Covariates?
• Did a series of ANCOVA’s on sex x gamer group (frequency)
– covariates
• emotional reactivity subscales as,
• age of abuse/initial abuse, and
• current genre preference
• did not use sum of traumas as confounded with dependent
variables of trauma type
• Selected only those who had the trauma.
• Cell sizes very small
• still got the physical abuse nightmares interaction and recurrent
physical abuse nightmares interaction as significant in the same
pattern as just shown
– recurrent emotional abuse no significant.

15. Self Report Nightmares Conclusion
• Female high end gamers were the most troubled by
nightmares.
• What is different about them relative to the other
three groups.
– ENRS subscales – all Females > Males
• Another consideration is the type of games they play.
– While women report the same pattern of play of hard core
(combat centric) and sport games as men
– Women’s play of casual games is different.
– While female high end gamers don’t play any more casual
games than female low end gamers
– Female high end gamers play a lot more relative to the
other two genre groupings as per earlier graph

16. Dreams Reported
• Dream reporting (possible to have two
dreams per person; recent and traumatic):
Time Recent Trauma
Number reported 286 172
Last night 36% 6%
Last week 41% 11%
Last 6 months 13% 23%
Over 6 months 10% 60%

17. Threat simulation findings
game group x dream type x sex of subject
with ERNS and trauma sums as covariates
• Only one finding with gamer group
– Nature of Threat recoded (1= no harm, 2= nonagg
harm, 3= agg harm)
– Gamer group: Hi > Lo
• Opposite of military study where an
interaction between gamer group and dream
type as shown earlier

18. Central Image: Students
• Present or absent – no difference
• Intensity of central image:
– Trauma > recent
– Low gamers > high gamers
– M = F
• emotion (negative versus positive)
– Trauma > recent in negative
– No gamer group difference
– Females > Males in negative

19. Self report reactions to Trauma dream
• In a factor analysis of IDQ items and gaming
items two loaded with gaming:
I felt exceptionally vital, energetic, and alive. .442
In my dream I felt like crying—or I actually cried. -.560
hard core sum of any ranking .375
sport sum of any ranking .248
casual sum of any ranking -.415
video game frequency recoded daily is high .677
Sex (Male = 1; Female = 2) -.881

20. Emotions about trauma dream
Item Factor 3 Factor 6
hard core sum of any ranking .849 .012
sport sum of any ranking .677 .001
casual sum of any ranking .511 .643
video game frequency .407 -.440
Sex -.386 .578
Arousal (sexual) .048 -.012
Awe .424 -.082
Ecstacy .257 -.171
Embarrassment .026 .642

21. Military vs Student Males
Sample * Gamer Group Crosstabulation
gamer groups*
TotalHigh Gamers Low Gamers
sample Military 69 14 83
Students 83 60 143
Total 152 74 226
* (1=daily/weekly; 2=monthly/yearly/rarely)

22. Cross Sample Analysis
• Independent Variables
– Students versus soldiers (all males for both
groups)
– Recent versus Military/Trauma dreams
– High versus Low end gamer groups
• Covariates
– Affect Distress
– Affect Load

23. Threat Simulation Findingsnature of threat (1=no harm; 2=nonaggessive harm; 3=aggressive harm)
Recent RecentTrauma Trauma
Military Students
High
Gamers
High
Gamers
Low
Gamers
Low
Gamers

24. Threat Simulation Findings
Severity of Threat (1=none; 2=trival; 3=social/psychological; 4=life threat)
Recent RecentMilitary
Trauma
Military Students
High
Gamers
High
Gamers
Low
Gamers
Low
Gamers

25. Cross Sample Central Image Findings
• Intensity (high score is intense)
– Traumatic/military Dream > Recent Dream
– Low Gamers > High Gamers
• Emotions (high score is negative)
– Traumatic/military Dream > Recent Dream
– Low Gamers > High Gamers
• No Sample Differences for either measure

26. Conclusion for Gaming Protection Thesis
• Students (considered gamer group x sex):
– Self report nightmares supports thesis
– Threat simulation analysis by judges does not
– Central Image: intensity supports thesis not emotions
– Self report emotions re trauma dream supports thesis
• Context (students and military males):
– High gamers respond similarly in dreams as a function
of context (sample/dream type)
– Low gamers respond very different in dreams as a
function of context (sample/dream type/sex)
– Central Image is more intense and negative for low
gamer group supporting thesis

27. More Information
• Available in 2012 in two books:
– Scholarly: Video Game Play and Consciousness, NOVA Science
Publishers (Editor), due out in September, 2012
– Popular: Play Reality (written with my gamer son as narrator who
I was pregnant with at the first IASD meeting), available at
www.playreality.ca and in IASD bookstore