77 replies to this topic

[elle]

pusti ti to - ti si proshla, a shta je  sa onima shto ne prodju? vidi kadijevica na primer...

eto




ma znam i ja neke hetero ... , cak se i druzim



al nije to - to, c

[elle]

Heteroseksualnost

Sta je heteroseksualnost?

Heteroseksualnost je jedna od mogucih seksualnih orjentacija. Osoba je heteroseksualna kada je privlace
ili kada ima seksualne odnose sa osobom suprotnog pola. Heteroseksualnost je najcesca seksualnost u
nasem drustvu - najverovatnije je oko 80% zapadnih drustava predominantno heteroseksualno. Mnogi ljudi,
medjutim, koji su heteroseksualni imali su jedno ili vise homoseksualnih iskustava, ali njihovo
predominantno
ponasanje ili odabir istog je heteroseksualno, njihov identitet je heteroseksualan.

Biti heteroseksualan

Heteroseksualnost se ne odnosi samo na seksualni stimulus koji moze dovesti do prokreacije (radjanja);
ljudi
imaju heteroseksualni seks iz razlicitih razloga, zato sto su seksualno privuceni ili zaljubljeni u
nekoga -
straight seks (naziv koji je i u BHS jezik usao za heteroseksualce) ne podrazumeva samo pravljenje
beba.
Drustvo je prilagodjeno heteroseksualnosti zato sto je mnogo cesca nego druge seksualnosti - vecina
reklama namenjena je heteroseksualcima, vecina heroja ili modela (dobrih i losih) u knjizevnosti i
filmu, na
televiziji su heteroseksualni, na taj nacin stvara se ocekivanje da je svako heteroseksualan.
Cesto se pretpostavlja da heteroseksualci zele da se vencaju i stvore porodice. Medjutim, to cesto nije
slucaj.
Mnogi heteroseksualci jesu monogamni, imaju brakove i podizu porodice; mnogi se ne vencavaju, ali ipak
imaju decu a mnogi vise vole da ostanu sami, ali ipak uzivaju u seksu sa jednim ili vise partnera
suprotnog
pola. Drustva imaju tendenciju da budu heteroseksisticka, jer heteroseksualnost, zato sto je najcesca,
dominira svakim aspektom drustva - narocito zakonom, koji je ponekad opresivan za druge seksualnosti.
Mnogi heteroseksualci, narocito zene i homoseksualci ustali su protiv heteroseksistickog i porodicno
orjentisanog drustva. Do pre samo trideset godina, heteroseksualne veze bile su mnogo strozije
definisane,
a uloge za muskarce i zene tradicionalnije, ali postepeno se promenilo.
Mnoge teme i trendovi uticali su na danasnji nacin razmisljanja - zenski pokreti, efektivnija kontrola
radjanja,
pojavljivanje i ekspanzija AIDS(HIV) i potreba i zelja ljudi u vezama da imaju sopstvenu karijeru ili
makar zivot i
izvan veze.
Tradicionalne uloge se polako menjaju, i variraju od osobe do osobe, od para do para. One mogu
nametnuti
stege i podici tenzije u vezi dvoje ljudi - aneksioznosti, neslaganja i konflikte (koji cesto vode do
nerazumevanja) trebalo bi resavati cim se pojave. Ljudi ne mogu znati sta njihov partner ocekuje od
njih osim
ako im nije receno. Zapadanje u tradicionalne uloge i obrasce ne resava seksualne, emocionalne i opste
probleme u vezi - razgovor je glavni put ka razumevanju.
Treba stalno imati na umu da heteroseksualni seks nije sam snosaj - nije uvek o tome kako penis ulazi u
vaginu, niti o dozivljavanju orgazma istovremeno, ili nedozivljavanju uopste - dobar seks moze izrasti
iz
obostranog istrazivanja.

Kako se postaje heteroseksualan?

Ne zna se tacno kako osoba postaje heteroseksualna, razlicite teorije ukazuju da poreklo seksualne
orjentacije moze biti geneticko, psiholosko, sociolosko ili inerakcija svih ovih faktora. Ono sto se
zna da ljudi
postaju izrazito svesni svoje seksualnosti za vreme adolescencije. Mnoga deca eksperimentisu, sa
vrsnjacima
istog ili suprotnog pola. Postepeno njihova seksuala orjentacija ce ih odvesti onoj osobi koja ih bude
privlacila. Obicno, ali ne uvek, ta osoba ce biti suprotnog pola. Trenutak kada osoba "pocinje da bude
heteroseksualna" varira od osobe do osobe, neki pocinju ranije, drugi mnogo kasnije - ljudi obicno
pronadju
pravo vreme i pravu osobu, iako prvo seksualno iskustvo u brojnim slucajevima moze biti i pogresno,
neprijatno, cak i traumaticno.

Da li se heteroseksualne osobe razlikuju od homoseksualnih osoba?

Da. Strejt muskarci se razlikuju od gej muskaraca. Strejt zene od lezbejki. Strejt muskarci se
razlikuju od strejt
zena, gej muskarci se razlikuju od gej zena, muskarci se razlikuju od zena, muskarci se razlikuju medju
sobom, kao i zene bez obzira na seksualnu orjentaciju - kao sto je svaka osoba drugacija od druge. To
su
razlike koje cini svet interesantim, razlike kojih se ne treba plasiti, vec se treba radovati njihovom
postojanju

http://www.geocities...seksualnost.htm





da li i vama ovo sumnjivo zvuci?

[elle]

Dream Interpretation With Heterosexual Dating Couples



Misty R. Kolchakian1,2 and Clara E. Hill1





We examined the effectiveness of the Hill cognitive-experiential model of dream interpretation
for working with male and female partners in heterosexual dating couples. Results showed that
female partners who received dream interpretation (N = 20) had greater improvements in
relationship well-being, insight, and gains from dream interpretation than female partners in
the wait-list control group (N = 20). However, male partners who received dream interpretation
(N = 20) did not make significant improvements as compared to male partners who did not receive
dream interpretation (N = 20). Hence, couples dream interpretation may be more helpful for
women than men. Greater effort may be needed to involve men in couples dream sessions in hopes
that they will show more gains in relationship well-being and insight.



KEY WORDS: dream interpretation; couples; gender; relationship well-being; insight.



The vast literature on couples focuses more on marital rather than dating relationships. However, it seems important to
focus on unmarried couples involved in committed relationships because they may be more responsive to change-oriented
programs than married couples (Jacobson & Addis, 1993). It may be more difficult to treat relationship problems once they
are established than to prevent the problems from occurring in the first place. Thus, treatment aimed at helping dating
couples learn to express and understand themselves and their partners more effectively may help prevent future
relationship struggles and reduce the divorce rate.

Dream interpretation may be one effective therapeutic intervention aimed at assisting dating couples in communicating
difficult and important feelings and cognitions. Bynum (1993) suggested that working with dreams in therapy may help
couples become closer and reach deeper levels of understanding, satisfaction, and communication within the relationship.
Couples who learn the dream interpretation process can then use this skill outside of therapy to work on their dreams and
their relationship (Delaney, 1993).

One model of dream interpretation that has been successfully used is the Hill (1996) model. The Hill model of dream
interpretation has been tested empirically and has been shown to yield positive gains in satisfaction and insight for
individual clients (Cogar & Hill, 1992; Diemer, Lobell, Vivino, & Hill, 1996; Heaton, Hill, Hess, Hoffman, & Leotta, 1998;
Heaton, Hill, Petersen, Rochlen, & Zack, 1998; Hill, Diemer, Hess, Hillyer, & Seeman, 1993; Hill, Diemer, & Heaton, 1997;
Hill et al., 2000, Hill et al., 2001; Wonnell & Hill, 2000) and for group clients (Falk & Hill, 1995). To our knowledge,
however no method of dream interpretation has been empirically tested with couples. In the same way that individual dream
interpretation has been found to lead to an individual's central conflicts even when the individual can not or is hesitant
to articulate them, it may also facilitate couples in expressing concerns in their relationships that they may be hesitant
to broach.

The Hill model, which was adapted for use with couples for the current study, involves the same three stages of
exploration, insight, and action. The basic assumption of the Hill model is that exploration, insight, and action are
necessary components of effective dream interpretation as clients reimmerse themselves into the dream in order to gain
greater self-understanding and insight. The modification of this approach for working with dating couples is that in
addition to the regular procedures of working with the dream for the dreamer (see Hill, 1996), the dreamer's partner is
asked to project onto the dreamer's dream "as if it were his or her own,"and both are asked to think about the dream for
their relationship (see Kolchakian & Hill, 2000 for more detail). This process helps to ensure that the dreamer's partner
does not interpret the dream for the dreamer, but rather listens empathically and thinks about the dream for him or
herself and the relationship throughout the three stages of exploration, insight, and action.

Hence, in the modified exploration stage, the therapist works with the dreamer to describe and associate to each of the
images in his or her dream. Next, the dreamer's partner is asked to give associations (but not descriptions) to each of
the major images of the dream "as if it were his or her own dream". For example, a male partner might bring in a dream
that he is being chased down the street by a police officer. First, he would be asked to describe the image thoroughly and
then associate to being chased by a police officer. Then, the female partner would be asked to associate to what it would
be like to be chased if it were her dream. After both partners associate to this first image, the male partner would be
asked to describe and associate to the next image, the image of the street. After he has given his description and
association to the street, the female partner would give her association to the street "as if the street were in her
dream."

During the modified insight stage, the therapist and dreamer first attempt to achieve some understanding of the dream and
its meaning for the dreamer. The therapist then attempts to help the dreamer's partner understand what the dream might
mean for his or her own life. An additional focus of the insight stage involves asking couples about how the dream and
some of its images relate to the relationship. Using the previous example of being chased down the street by the police
officer, the male partner might suggest that he often feels as though he is running from the demands of his partner on him
in their relationship together. The female partner might say that she feels like she is being chased by the societal
pressure to find the right partner and get married.

Once insight into the dreamer's feelings is obtained, the therapist works with the dreamer in the modified action stage to
explore how he or she would like to change or whether change is even desirable. The change could involve changing the
dream or actual changes in the dreamer's life. Next, the therapist asks the dreamer's partner what changes he or she would
like to make in his or her own life given the insights gained from interpreting the dream as if it were his or her own
dream. The therapist then works with both partners to determine how they could improve or maintain the relationship given
what they discovered in the insight stage. At the end of the session, both members of the couple are asked to summarize
what they have learned through the dream interpretation process about themselves as individuals, about their partner, and
about their relationship.

The first purpose of the present study was to examine the outcome of dream interpretation. We hypothesized that couples
who received dream interpretation would increase more in open communication, empathy, relationship satisfaction, and
insight into dream (in terms of themselves, their partner, and the relationship) than would couples who did not receive
dream interpretation.

Furthermore, we were interested in whether the effects of dream interpretation would differ by gender. No gender
differences were found in a reanalysis of the data for individual dream interpretation (Hill et al., 2001), but we
speculated that the presence of one’s partner might influence one’s ability to profit from dream interpretation. Durana
(1996) found gender differences associated with changes in marital satisfaction, with women reporting more relationship
changes in therapy than men. Given this finding, it seems plausible that women would report more relationship changes in
dream interpretation than would men. Durana suggested that the gender differences may have been due to the fact that men
are not socialized to report relational changes whereas women often have a greater understanding of relationship
difficulties. Sacher and Fine (1996) also found gender differences in relationship satisfaction in dating couples and
suggested that women may be more invested in their relationships than men. In addition, men and women may view intimate
experiences differently. More specifically, Engel and Saracino (1986) found that in romantic relationships, women were
more likely to favor verbal intimacy while men were more likely to favor sexual intimacy. Given that a previous study
(i.e., Hill et al., 2001) did not find gender differences, but previous research suggests that gender differences are
likely to exist, we chose to examine differences in results for men and women between treatment and control conditions as
a research question.

A final purpose was to find out whether men and women gained more from dream interpretation that focused on their own
dream as opposed to dream interpretation focused on their partner's dream. Previous research in individual dream
interpretation (Hill et al., 1993) found that clients gained more from working with their own dreams rather than someone
else's dream. But members of a couple might feel differently than unrelated individuals working on dreams because the
other person is important in their lives.



METHOD

Design



In this study, we first compared the effects of couples dream interpretation to no treatment for male and female
participants. Hence, 20 couples were randomly assigned to treatment and 20 couples were randomly assigned to a wait-list
condition. Couples in the treatment condition completed pre-session measures, participated in two dream sessions separated
by one week, and then completed post-session measures. Couples in the control condition completed pre-session measures,
waited two weeks, and then completed the same measures again. Once they had completed the second round of measures,
couples in the control condition participated in two dream sessions separated by a week, and then took the post-session
measures. To examine the effects of treatment, male participants in the treatment condition were compared to male
participants in the control condition, and female participants in the treatment condition were compared to female
participants in the control condition for changes across time in relationship well-being and insight. To examine reactions
to dream interpretation sessions, data for gains from dream interpretation were combined for males in the treatment and
control conditions and females in the treatment and control conditions.



Participants



Clients

80 heterosexual individuals in dating relationships (40 men, 40 women; 35 White, 16 Asian American, 9 Hispanic American, 8
African American, 1 Native American, and 11 Other), ranging in age from 18 to 28 (M = 19.67, SD = 1.84) served as
clients. Most participants (i.e., 73 of 80 individuals) were undergraduate students at a large mid-Atlantic U.S.
university, and typically (i.e., 36 of 40 couples) at least one member of the couple was a student in an introductory
psychology course and received research credit for participation. All participants had been dating exclusively for at
least three months and were not married. Only one participant had been married previously. Individuals had known their
partners from 3 to 108 months (M = 30.00 months, SD = 22. 11) and had been romantically involved from 3 to 54 months (M
= 20.21, SD = 13.89), with 75 (94%) of the participants having considered the possibility of marrying their partners. The
number of previous romantic relationships the participants had been involved in ranged from 0 to 5 (mode = 0).
Participants were unaware of the hypotheses of this study and whether they were in the treatment or wait-list control
condition.

Therapists

Seventeen therapists (12 women, 5 men; 12 European American, 2 Hispanic American, 2 African American, 1 Asian American),
including the first author, participated in this study. All therapists were doctoral students in counseling or clinical
psychology who had taken at least one practicum course and who had been trained in Hill's (1996) model for working with
dreams for individuals and for couples. Their ages ranged from 22 to 38 years (M = 27.53, SD = 4.58), and the amount of
therapy experience ranged from 10 to 108 months (M = 26.92, SD = 25.66). The total number of dream interpretation
sessions therapists had previously conducted ranged from 2 to 28 (M = 8.54, SD = 7.61). The number of couples previously
seen in any type of psychotherapy ranged from 0 to 5 (M = 1.46, SD = 1.51). Using 5 point scales (1=low, 5=high),
therapists rated their belief in and adherence to the following theoretical orientations: 3.23 (SD = .97) on
humanistic/experiential, 3.15 (SD = .80) on cognitive-behavioral, and 3.08 (SD = 1.12) on psychodynamic orientations.



Interviewers and Judges



Six undergraduates and the first author (all women; 6 European American, 1 African American; age M = 23.00, SD = 4.90)
conducted follow-up telephone interviews with clients. Two of the undergraduates and the first author rated insight and
coded the follow-up telephone interviews. Interviewers and judges were unaware of the experimental condition when doing
interviews or making judgments.

Measures



Demographic Form

The demographic form for both clients and therapists asked for age, year in college, gender, and ethnicity. In addition,
therapists were asked about their level of clinical experience, their level of experience with the Hill model of dream
interpretation, and their theoretical orientation. The client demographic form also included information pertaining to the
length of the romantic relationship, how long they had known their partner, whether they had considered/discussed marriage
with one another, whether they had ever been married, and previous involvement in committed relationships

The Primary Communication Inventory (PCI; Locke, Sabaght, & Thomes in Navran, 1967) is a 25-item instrument designed to
measure marital communication. The overall scale indicates the soundness of communication between two partners including
their avoidance of unpleasant topics and their openness in expressing themselves to one another. Although the measure has
been used mostly with married couples, the content of the items seemed applicable to dating couples. Respondents use a
5-point Likert scale (1=Never, 5=Very frequently) to answer items such as "How often do you and your partner talk with
each other about personal problems?" An individual score is obtained by summing each item (after reverse scoring some
items and transposing some items from the partner's questionnaire). Higher scores refer to more positively-viewed
communication. Locke et al. reported that the PCI was correlated highly with the Locke-Wallace Marriage Relationship
Inventory and was sensitive to changes due to therapeutic interventions. In the current study, the internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha) of the measure was .83.

The Self and Other Dyadic Perspective-Taking Scales (SDPT and ODPT; Long, 1987) Self perspective-taking has been defined
as "the ability to understand what the other individual is thinking, to put oneself in another's place, and intellectually
to understand without vicariously experiencing the other's emotions" (Hogan, 1969). Dyadic perspective-taking was defined
by Long (1987) as an attempt to understand the point of view of the other person in the dyad. The SDPT scale consists of
13 items using a 5-point Likert scale (0= "does not describe me very well", 4= "does describe me very well"). Individuals
respond to how well the statement describes their behavior with their partners (e.g. "Before criticizing my partner I try
to imagine how I would feel in his/her place"). Scores are summed across items (some items are reverse scored) with higher
scores representing greater perspective-taking tendencies. The ODPT scale measures the individual's perception of the
perspective-taking of one's partner in the context of a relationship. The scale consists of 20 items using the same
5-point Likert-type scale. Individuals are asked to respond to how well the statement describes their partner's behavior
(e.g. "My partner is able to accurately compare his/her point of view with mine"). Separate factor analyses indicated two
similar factors for the SDPT and ODPT scales: Strategies (i.e. perspective-taking attempts made) and cognizance (i.e.,
global understanding and awareness of partner). The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the SDPT scale was .86 for
husbands and .88 for wives, and for the ODPT scale was .93 for husbands and .95 for wives. Wives' and husbands'
perspective-taking scores were correlated positively with their own dyadic perspective-taking scores, indicating
concurrent validity. In the current study, the internal consistency reliability estimate was .87 for the SDPT scale and
.93 for the ODPT scale.

The Dyadic Satisfaction Scale (DSS; Spanier, 1976). is a 10-item subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and measures the
quality of the romantic relationship as perceived by the members of the couple. Respondents use a 6-point Likert scale
(0=All the time, 5=Never) for 8 of the items (e.g. "How often do you and your partner quarrel?"). The remaining two items
use 6- and 7-point Likert scales to measure degree of happiness in the relationship and feelings about the future of the
relationship. Spanier (1976) reported an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of .94. Numerous studies have found
correlations in the expected direction with other measures of marital satisfaction (e.g., the Locke-Wallace Marital
Adjustment Scale). In the current study, Cronbach's alpha was .79.

Gains from Dream Interpretation (Heaton et al., 1998) measures client perceptions of gains from the dream interpretation.
Fourteen items using a 9-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 9=strongly agree) were developed based on responses to
open-ended questions about what clients felt they gained from a dream interpretation session using the Hill (1996) model
(e.g. "I learned a new way of thinking about myself and my problems"). A factor analysis revealed three scales:
Exploration/Insight (7 items, alpha = .83), Action (5 items, alpha = .82), and Experiential (2 items, alpha = .79). The
overall GDI correlated moderately with more general session outcome measures such as the Depth Scale from the Session
Evaluation Questionnaire (Stiles & Snow, 1984) and Session Impact Scale-Understanding Scale (Elliot & Wexler, 1994). In
the present study, the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .79 for the total scale.



Client Insight into Dream

After writing the dream, clients responded to the following questions about the dream: "What do you think this dream means
to you? How would this interpretation help explain recent events in your life?" Trained judges assessed the level of
insight into the client's written dream interpretation using a 9-point Likert scale (1=no insight, 9=high insight). Judges
used the definition of insight from Hill et al. (1992), "the client expresses an understanding about himself or herself
and can articulate patterns or reasons for behaviors, thought, or feelings. Insight typically involves an 'aha' experience
whereby the client perceives himself or herself or the world in a new way. The client takes appropriate responsibility
rather than blaming others, using 'shoulds' imposed from the outside world, or rationalizing" (pp. 548-549). A moderate
correlation (r = .43) was reported between this measure of dream insight and therapist-rated client insight (Diemer et
al., 1996) and between this measure and the Exploration/Insight subscale of the Gains from Dream Interpretation measure
(r = .47; Hill, Nakayama, & Wonnell, 1998). Interrater reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas) of .93 (Falk & Hill, 1993), .91
(Diemer et al., 1996), .97 (Hill, Nakayama, & Wonnell, 1998), and .88 and .90 (Hill et al., in press) have been reported.
In the current study, the interrater reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .90.

Client Insight into Partner's Dream

In addition to writing an interpretation of one's own dream (as mentioned above), clients also wrote an interpretation of
their partner's dream. Clients were asked to respond to the following questions about their partner's dream: "What do you
think this dream means for your partner? How would this interpretation help explain recent events in your partner's life?"
Trained judges assessed the client's level of insight into his or her partner's dream using the same 9-point Likert scale
(1=no insight, 9=high insight) and the definition of insight. In the current study, the interrater reliability (Cronbach's
alpha) was .89.

Client Insight Into the Relationship

Clients were also asked to respond to the following questions about their relationship: "What do you think this dream
means for your relationship? How would this interpretation help explain recent events in your relationship?" Trained
judges assessed the client's level of insight into the relationship using the same 9-point Likert scale (1 = no insight, 9
= high insight) and definition of insight. The interrater reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .95.

Therapist Adherence

Therapists responded to the following three items using a 9-point scale (1=low, 9=high): "How completely did you do the
exploration stage?" "How completely did you do the insight stage?" "How completely did you do the action stage?" and "How
competent did you feel doing the dream interpretation with this couple?"

Procedures

Pilot Cases

Two couples each volunteered to participate in one session to test the adaptation of the Hill model to working with
couples. Overall, the couples suggested that the sessions helped them understand their partners and their relationship
better. One participant stated that "The dream session helped to put something hazy and almost unrecognizable into
perspective so that now he and I can go over hurdles together. I learned a lot about myself too."

Therapist Training

Therapists first read literature on working with couples (e.g. Jacobson & Addis, 1993; Perlmutter & Babineau, 1983) and
re-read the Hill (1996) book about dream interpretation. The therapist training was divided into three parts. First, a
didactic presentation refamiliarized therapists with the basic concepts of the dream interpretation model and applied the
principles to working with couples. Second, trainees practiced the mechanics of conducting a dream interpretation session
with each other. Third, each therapist conducted a dream interpretation session with a volunteer couple and received
feedback from a supervisor.

Participant Recruitment

Participants were recruited through flyers posted throughout campus, announcements in undergraduate and graduate classes,
electronic mail announcements, sign up sheets for introductory to psychology course credit, and referral from
participating couples. In the announcement, potential clients were offered the opportunity to have dream interpretation
sessions with their partner if they were in a committed heterosexual relationship and were between the ages of 18 and 30
years. Interested couples were asked to call the principal investigator to learn more about the study or sign up on the
introductory psychology sign up sheet. Approximately 50 couples expressed initial interest in participating, but 8
declined because of the time requirements for the study and/or because they had already fulfilled their credit
requirements. The remaining two couples did not show up for their sessions.

Initial Contact

Potential clients were informed that they would complete measures and then have their first session as soon as possible
(treatment condition) or would be scheduled for their first dream session in approximately two weeks when a therapist
became available (wait list condition). Each participant was asked to bring a written copy of a recent dream to the first
session.



Pre-Session Testing

After arriving for the session, each member of the couple signed a consent form and completed the demographic form,
Primary Communication Inventory, Differentiation of Self Inventory, Other Dyadic Perspective-Taking Scale, Self Dyadic
Perspective-Taking Scale, Spanier's Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale, interpretations of their own dream, their partner's
dream, and how their dreams related to their relationship. The clients in the treatment condition began their session
immediately after filling out the forms. Clients in the wait-list condition were reminded that they would return two weeks
later (at which time they would complete the measures again before the first dream session).

Dream Interpretation Sessions

At the beginning of the session, the therapist reviewed the written dream the clients brought to the session to determine
whether the length was appropriate. If the dream seemed too lengthy, the client was asked to select a portion of the dream
to work with in the session. The first session focused on one partner's dream and the second session focused on the other
partner's dream, with each couple choosing at the beginning of the first session whose dream would be focused on first.
The second dream session was conducted one week after the first dream session was conducted. Each couple had two 90 to 120
minute dream interpretation sessions conducted by the same therapist, using the couples dream interpretation guidelines
set forth in the therapist training.

Post-Session Testing

Immediately following each session, the therapist completed the Therapist Adherence measure, and each member of the couple
completed the Gains from Dream Interpretation scale. Approximately one week after the second dream session, each member of
the couple completed the Primary Communication Inventory, the Self Dyadic Perspective-Taking scale, the Other Dyadic
Perspective-Taking scale, the Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale, and the interpretations of own dream, partner's dream, and the
relationship.



Rater Training

Two raters were trained to rate insight for this study using data from previous studies until an interrater reliability
(Cronbach's alpha) of .90 was attained. They then rated the actual written interpretations from the current study for the
dreamer's dream, the partner's dream, and the relationship. All interpretations from each client were presented at the
same time, but in random order, so that raters could compare across interpretations but were unaware of which
interpretation they were rating (pre- vs. post-session). Also, the first author did not rate insight on the sessions she
conducted.

RESULTS

For the purpose of significance testing, an alpha level of .05 was used. The data for men and women were analyzed
separately due to the dependence of the data (i.e., partners within couples would be expected to have related outcome
scores). Table I shows the means and standard deviations for all variables used in the analyses for men and women.





Preliminary Analyses



Therapist Adherence

To determine whether therapists adhered to the Hill model, it was decided a priori that each therapist must rate himself
or herself at least 5 or above on at least two of the three scales and at least 5 on the overall competence. All cases met
this criterion, and thus no cases were dropped. In addition, the overall adherence scores were within one standard
deviation of those reported in previous studies for individual dream interpretation (e.g. Heaton et al., 1998; Hill et
al., 1997; Hill et al., in press).

All sessions met the requirements for therapist adherence in both sessions (i.e. scores of at least 5 for each item).
Furthermore, none of the scores for session outcome variables were outliers. Hence, none of the cases were dropped.

Comparisons With Norms

Mean scores for all participants for the Primary Communication Inventory, Differentiation of Self Inventory, Dyadic
Adjustment Scale, Self- and Other-Dyadic Perspective Taking Scales, change scores for judge-rated client insight, and
Gains from Dream Interpretation were within one standard deviation of previously published scores for those measures
(Navran, 1967; Spanier, 1976; Long, 1990; Hill et al., in press; Falk & Hill, 1995). Thus, it can be concluded that this
sample was similar to previous samples on all measures.

Correlations Among Pre-Session Measures

Correlations were computed among all pre-session measures to determine whether the measures could be combined. Two
clusters of measures emerged (See Table II): relationship well-being (empathy, communication, and relationship
satisfaction) and insight (insight into own dream, insight into partner's dream, and insight into relationship). For
relationship well-being, a principal components analysis of the scores on the Primary Communication Inventory, Dyadic
Adjustment Scale, Self Dyadic Perspective Taking Scale, and Other Dyadic Perspective Taking Scale revealed a single
component for men (eigenvalue = 2.49) and women (eigenvalue = 2.42). This factor accounted for 62% of the total scale
variance for both men and women. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the four scores was .75 for men and .73
for women. Thus, the four outcome measures were combined into one factor labeled "relationship well-being." A principal
components analysis of insight into own dream, insight into partner's dream, and insight into the relationship revealed a
single component for both men (eigenvalue = 1.71) and women (eigenvalue = 1.81). This factor accounted for 57% for men and
60% for women of the total scale variance. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the three scores was .60 for
men and .61 for women. Thus, the three insight measures were combined into one factor.







Comparison of Conditions on Demographic Variables

Independent samples t-tests revealed no differences between the treatment and wait list conditions for client age, race,
or any relationship variables (e.g. length of relationship, number of previous relationships, etc) for men or for women.
Hence, random assignment resulted in two comparable groups on the measured client demographic variables.

Therapist Effects

To examine the therapist effects, all but one therapist were entered into simultaneous linear regression equations as
dummy variables with change in relationship well-being, change in insight, and GDI as dependent variables. Because the
regression was significant for change in relationship well-being, F(15, 64) = 2.13, p < .05, the data for this variable
were centered (i.e. the therapists' mean for each variable was subtracted from the individual's scores for that variable).
The centered data for relationship well-being were used for the remaining analyses. The regression analyses for change in
insight and GDI were not significant, indicating no therapist effects; hence, raw data were used for these variables.

To further ensure that results were not biased by the first author's participation as a therapist in this study,
regression analyses were examined to determine whether the first author's clients had different scores on the dependent
variables of relationship well-being, insight, and GDI, as compared to clients of the other therapists. No significant
differences were found, so all the first author's cases were included in the remaining analyses.

Finally, to examine whether therapist experience level was related to gains from dream interpretation, change scores on
the relationship well-being outcome measure, and change in insight, correlations were computed. Therapist experience was
not significantly correlated with any of the outcome measures, and thus was not considered in remaining analyses.

Therapist Adherence

The means and standard deviations on therapist adherence for the 80 sessions (Exploration, M = 8.01, SD = .92, Insight,
M = 7.51, SD = .85, and Action, M = 6.83. SD = .97) were within one standard deviation of adherence scores reported for
dream interpretation sessions by Wonnell and Hill (2000) for Exploration (M = 7.65, SD = 1.14), Insight (M = 7.30, SD =
1.08), and Action (M = 7.30, SD = 1.13), for sessions by Heaton et al. (1998) for Exploration (M = 7.41, SD = 1.50),
Insight (M = 6.90, SD = 1.57), and Action (M = 6.17, SD = 1.42), and for sessions by Hill, Diemer, and Heaton (1997) for
Exploration (M = 7.25, SD = .97), Insight, (M = 6.47, SD = 1.19), and Action (M = 6.08, SD = 1.33). Hence, therapists'
adherence was similar to that of therapists in previous studies of individual dream interpretation.

Motivation Check

Because results may have varied based on whether or not the partner signed up for the study, we tested whether results
differed on the basis of who signed up, separately for men and women. Independent sample t-tests comparing the 30 women
who signed up for the study to the 10 women who did not sign up were not significant for any of the dependent variables.
Similarly, independent sample t-tests comparing the 10 men who signed up for the study to the 30 men who did not sign up
were not significant for any of the dependent variables. Hence, there were no differences based on whether or not the
person signed up.

We also wondered whether introductory psychology students would have different outcomes from non-introductory psychology
students, given that the former received course credit for participation but the latter did not. To test differences
between these two groups, separate independent sample t-tests were conducted with course as the independent variable and
change in relationship well-being, change in insight, and GDI as the separate dependent variables. None of these tests
were significant for men or women.

Changes in Relationship Well-Being and Insight

1 x 2 ANOVAs were conducted separately for men and women, with condition as the independent variable and change in
relationship well-being and change in insight as the dependent variables. For women, the main effect for condition (dream
interpretation vs. wait list control) was significant for relationship well-being, F(1, 38) = 4.24, p < .05, and insight,
F(1, 38) = 6.16, p < .05, such that women who received dream interpretation improved more in relationship well-being and
gained more insight than women who did not receive dream interpretation. For men, neither main effect for condition was
significant. Hence, women gained in relationship well-being and insight, whereas men did not.

Gains From Dream Interpretation



For this analysis, the treatment and control groups were combined. An ANOVA with gender as the independent variable and
GDI as the dependent variable was significant, F(1,78) = 4.11, p < .05, with women scoring higher than men. Hence, women
made more gains than did men from dream interpretation sessions.

Working on Own Dream vs. Partner's Dream



For this analysis, the treatment and control groups were combined. A paired samples t-test was conducted to compare scores
on the GDI for working on one's own dream to scores on the GDI for working on the partner's dream. Results showed no
differences between the two scores for men, t(39) = .02, p > .05, or for women, t(39) = -.72, p > .05. Hence, there were
no differences in gains from dream interpretation when participants focused on their own dreams versus their partners'
dreams.

DISCUSSION



This study found that women who received couples dream interpretation improved more in relationship well-being, insight,
and gains from dream interpretation than women on a wait list. In contrast, men who received dream interpretation did not
make significant improvements as compared to men on a wait list. These results are consistent with Durana (1996), Sacher
and Fine (1996), and Engel and Saracino (1986), who found that women were more likely to report relationship changes over
time as compared to men. Furthermore, the verbal sharing that was requested in the couples dream interpretation sessions
may have appealed more to the women than the men, and thus the men may have been less interested in and comfortable with
the sessions.

In addition, it appears that using the adapted Hill model for couples allowed women to learn more about themselves, their
partners, and their relationships. The Hill method of dream interpretation has demonstrated gains in judge-rated insight
(e.g. Hill et al., 2000; Wonnell & Hill, 2000; Hill et al., 2001; Rochlen et al., 1999; Zack & Hill, 1998; Heaton et al.,
1998; Hill, Diemer, & Heaton, 1997; Diemer et al., 1996; Falk & Hill, 1995; Hill et al., 1993) for individuals and for
groups (Falk & Hill, 1995), so it seems logical that the adapted model showed gains in insight for women. Interestingly,
men seemed to respond differently in couples’ dream interpretation than they have in individual dream interpretation
(i.e., a reanalysis of the Hill et al., 2001, data revealed no gender differences). The interpersonal nature of the
couples dream interpretation may be threatening to men. More specifically, men and women may be more likely to adhere to
the social norms/roles they learned growing up (e.g., women talk about feelings, men try to solve problems), especially in
a new territory such as dream interpretation.

Working on Own Dream vs. Partner's Dream



No differences were found in self-reported gains in dream interpretation when interpreting one's own dream as compared to
projecting onto the partner's dream. In other words, both men and women reported gains from interpreting their own dream
as well as from interpreting their partner's dream "as if it were their own." In contrast, Hill, et al. (1993) found that
interpreting one's own dream led to greater depth and insight than interpreting another person's dream. An important
difference between the Hill et al. study and the current study is that in the Hill et al. study participants projected
onto an unknown person's dream, whereas in the current study participants projected onto their partners' dreams. It would
make sense that one might feel a stronger connection to a dream of someone with whom one feels close and connected, as
opposed to the dream of some unknown person. Also, it may be that it is easier for members of a couple to project onto
their partners' dream because they have shared some of the same waking life experiences that day or week. The lack of
differences between the two types of sessions in terms of self-rated gains in dream interpretation suggests that both
sessions were meaningful for participants and that the dreamer's partner gained from being present for their partner's
dream session.

Limitations



One limitation of the current study is that we were not able to assess separate aspects of relationship well-being (i.e.,
communication, relationship satisfaction, empathy) because they were so highly correlated. A second limitation is the
potential bias in examining insight via judge ratings, given that judges read only the dream and the dreamer's
interpretation of that dream. Another limitation is that the dating couples in the current study may have been different
from dating couples who seek counseling. Dating clients who are not distressed in their relationships may not be as
motivated to change their relationships as clients who seek couples counseling. Hence, generalizations to a client
population should be made with caution. In addition, clients participated in only two sessions of dream interpretation.
Clients who were distressed when the study began may have required more than two sessions to notice any improvement. There
may have also been a confound given that couples were allowed to choose which partner would share his or her dream in the
first session. Finally, the use of graduate student therapists is another limitation. Most of the therapists had
experience with dream interpretation, but only a few had experience working with couples.

Implications



The results suggest that dream interpretation can be used to help female clients gain insight and relationship well-being.
Perhaps changes in one member of a couple would promote positive change in the partner, thus improving the relationship.
Future research needs to test whether dream interpretation would be a helpful tool to use in the course of longer-term
couples counseling.

Similar to more traditional forms of couples therapy, greater efforts may be needed to involve men in the process of dream
sessions. According to Shay (1996), it is important to respect men's reluctance to share openly. Also, Shay suggested the
importance of communicating with a resistant man in a language that he can understand as opposed to the "emotion-speak" or
"insight-speak" associated with therapy and dream interpretation. These suggestions seem important mainly in couples dream
interpretation, as opposed to individual dream interpretation, in light of findings by Hill et al., (2001) that men and
women gained equally from dream interpretation in individual sessions.

Furthermore, it may be necessary to alter the adapted Hill model for working with couples so that men can show more gains
in relationship well-being and insight. Shay suggested that it may be important for the therapist to model disclosure for
the reluctant man and to narrow the gap between the therapist as expert and male client as needy. Also, Shay suggested
validating client strengths and offering empathy in tolerable doses for male clients. Given these suggestions, it may be
beneficial to train therapists to work with men in the course of couples dream interpretation and to prepare them for the
resistance that may arise. This suggestion would need to be empirically tested, however. Finally, it may also be important
to assess the goals of both members of the couple at the onset of dream exploration to assist both men and women in
becoming invested in the process and to ensure that both partners get their needs met.



In terms of future research, it would be interesting to compare the behavior of male and female clients in individual
dream sessions to the behavior of male and female partners involved in couples' dream sessions to see how they differ.
Also, it would be important to study long-term outcome when working with dreams in couples therapy to see whether dream
interpretation has any lasting effects. Finally, future research should compare dream interpretation to other structured
methods for working with couples (e.g. communication training) to help determine whether the improvements in relationship
well-being and insight into the relationship found in the current study were the result of dream interpretation or of some
other aspect of the dream sessions (e.g. having both partners present and communicating). We believe that dream
interpretation allows partners to access their feelings in the relationship more quickly than other structured methods,
but this assertion needs to be empirically tested.





REFERENCES



Bynum, E.B. (1993). Families and the interpretation of dreams: Awakening the intimate web. New York: Harrington Park
Press.

Cogar, M.C. & Hill, C.E. (1992). Examining the effects of brief individual dream interpretation. Dreaming, 2(4), 239-248.

Delaney, G. (1993). New directions in dream interpretation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Diemer, R.A., Lobell, L.K., Vivino, B.L., & Hill, C.E. (1996). Comparison of dream interpretation, event interpretation,
and unstructured sessions in brief therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 99-112.

Durana, C. (1996). Bonding and emotional reeducation of couples in the Pairs training: Part II. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 24(4), 315-328.

Elliot, R., & Wexler, M.M. (1994). Measuring the impact of sessions in process-experiential therapy of depression: The
Session Impacts Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 166-174.

Engel, J.W., & Saracino, M. (1986). Love preferences and ideals: A comparison of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual
groups. Contemporary Family Therapy, 8, 775-780.

Falk, D.R. & Hill, C.E. (1995). The effectiveness of dream interpretation groups for women undergoing a divorce
transition. Dreaming, 5(1), 29-42.

Hall, C. & Van de Castle, R. (1966). The content analysis of dreams. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.

Heaton, K.J., Hill, C.E., Hess, S.A., Leotta, C., & Hoffman, M. (in press). Assimilation of a dissociative client's
central problematic theme in brief psychotherapy involving recurrent and non-recurrent dreams. Psychotherapy.

Heaton, K.J., Hill, C.E., Petersen, D.A., Rochlen, A.B., & Zack, J.S. (1998). A comparison of therapist-facilitated and
self-guided dream interpretation sessions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 115-122.

Hill, C.E. (1996). Dreams and therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 6(1), 1-15.

Hill, C.E. (1996). Working with dreams in psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hill, C.E., Diemer, R., Hess, S., Hillyer, A., & Seeman, R. (1993). Are the effects of dream interpretation on session
quality, insight, and emotions due to the dream itself, to projection, or to the interpretation process? Dreaming, 3(4),
269-280.

Hill, C.E., Diemer, R.A., & Heaton, K.J. (1997). Dream interpretation sessions: Who volunteers, who benefits, and what
volunteer clients view as most and least helpful. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 53-62.

Hill, C.E., Kelley, F.A., Davis, T.L., Crook, R.A., Maldonado, L.E., Turkson, M., Wonnell, T.L., Veerasamy, S., Zack,
J.S.,. Rochlen, A.B., Kolchakian, M.R., Codrington, J. (2001). Effects of client characteristics, type of dream, and
waking life vs. parts of self interpretation on session outcome and insight into dreams in dream interpretation.
Dreaming.

Hill, C.E., Nakayama, E.Y., & Wonnell, T.L. (1998). The effects of description, association, or combined
description/association in exploring dream images. Dreaming, 8(1), 1-13.

Hill, C.E., Zack, J., Wonnell, T., Hoffman, M.A., Rochlen, A., Goldberg, J., Nakayama, E., Heaton, K.J., Kelley, F.,
Eiche, K., Tomlinson, M., & Hess, S. (2000). Structured brief therapy with a focus on dreams or loss for clients with
troubling dreams and recent losses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 90-101.

Jacobson, N.S. & Addis, M.E. (1993). Research on couples and couple therapy: What do we know? Where are we going? Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 85-93.

Kolchakian, M.R., & Hill, C.E. (2000). A cognitive-experiential model of dream interpretation for couples. In L.
Vandecreek & T.L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, 18, 85-101.

Long, E.C.J. (1987). Perspective-taking as a determinant of marital adjustment and propensity to divorce (Doctoral
dissertation, Oregon State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 8A.

Navran, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 6, 173-184.

Perlmutter, R.A. & Babineau, R. (1983). The use of dreams in couples therapy. Psychiatry, 46, 66-72.

Rochlen, A., Ligiero, D., Hill, C. E., & Heaton, K. Preparation for dreamwork: Training for dream recall and dream
interpretation. (1999). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 27-34.

Sacher, J.A., & Fine, M.A. (1997). Predicting relationship status and satisfaction after six months among dating couples.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 21-32.

Shay J.J. (1996). "Okay, I'm here, but I'm not talking!" Psychotherapy with the reluctant male. Psychotherapy, 33,
503-513.

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Stiles, W.B., & Snow, J.S. (1984). Dimensions of psychotherapy session impact across sessions and across clients. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 59-63.

Stuart, R.B. (1980). Helping couples change: A social learning approach to marital therapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

Van de Castle, R.L. (1994). The dreaming mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Wonnell, T., & Hill, C. E. (in press). The effects of including the action stage in dream interpretation. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47.

Zack, J., & Hill, C. E. (1998). Predicting dream interpretation outcome by attitudes, stress, and emotion. Dreaming, 8,
169-185.





1 Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

2 Correspondence should be directed to Misty R. Kolchakian, Department of Psychology,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.





Copyright ©2003 Association for the Study of Dreams. All Rights Reserved









vrlo je vazno tekst procitati pazljivo i u integralnom obliku, tek onda mozemo diskutovati

[elle]

dokle ste stigli sa citanjem




imam jos 14 odlicnih tekstova na ovu temu, samo su poduzi, pa treba trenirati



polako

[elle]

Matilda, pa hvala bogu da nisi citala


nema, zeno, sta da se procita


retro? pa da! xixixi


sad cu ja da zgotovim jos neki topik, cisto ravnoteze radi sa svim onim maloumno- homoseksualno - teskim dilemama: bla bla

evo predloga, a ti kazi jel dobar: KKK vs zene kao vrsta, s osobitim naglaskom na vecinsku, te duzezivecu populaciju, tj manjinu


well, you tell me?!


znaci da ne postiram onih 14 hip hop tekstova



ok

[m]

kolika teksturina, ukocio mi se prst od skrolanja, a i server stuca.

[matilda01]

evo  predloga,  a  ti  kazi jel  dobar: KKK vs zene  kao  vrsta, s  osobitim  naglaskom na vecinsku,  te  duzezivecu  populaciju, tj manjinu


well,    you  tell  me?!


znaci  da  ne  postiram onih  14    hip hop    tekstova



ok

haha, kako hoces, mislim, ako ima neki zanimljiv, em poucan

znam, trebalo je prvo da predjem ono gradivo od 20 strana postova o homo-necemu, pa da se pravim pametna, ali ne merem, ja sam se danas ionako logovala iskljucivo jerbo sam bolesna usred avgusta, na moru... ali ni kao takva se ne bih bavila ovim potonjim tvojim predlogom

zene kao vrsta su ustvari same po sebi interesantna tema, i sad kad bi nam se prikljucile jos neke zene (ama i muskarci) mogle bi da raspravljamo o top 3 licna iracionalna -homo ili hetero- poteza leta 2003 (evo, ti vec imas jedan )

kao sto vidis, ja sam ti vise za ove letnje teme, a heteroseksualaca kol'ko 'oces, i svi lice jedni na druge, i cini mi se da su oni trenutno mnogo zbunjenija sorta od ovih drugih, bar kada govorimo o situaciji kada dva heteroseksualca dodju u kontakt, pa nesto hoce, pa smo svi tu kao slobodni, pa smo kao svi tu nesto lovci, pa na kraju svi izadjemo praznih saka, pa svi nesto jedni druge potcenjujemo, pa nam nesto niko nije dovoljno dobar, et cetera. Ako mene pitas, kriv je feminizam, to sto su svi bezidejni u vremenu kada vise ne postoji komoditet zadatih uloga. Dakle, jedan relationship, ili sexual policy, kako 'oces.

eto mojih predloga. i to na 38,5 body T, tek da se ima u vidu.

[Hawk]

Heteroseksualci opasni po okolinu...mnogo vise od ovih drugih. Nikad nisam cuo da je neki peder silovao nekog muskarca u sitne sate. A mene je bas potreslo kad mi je devojka pricala kako joj se neki idiot nakacio u autobusu kad se vracala od mene. Polu-prazan bus a on joj se cese o pozadinu i kao stavi ruku preko njene. Pa posle neka neko kaze kako su gay losi...

Edited by Hawk, 03 August 2003 - 22:07.

[MiraB.]

Da li se heteroseksualne osobe razlikuju od homoseksualnih osoba?

Da. Strejt muskarci se razlikuju od gej muskaraca. Strejt zene od lezbejki. Strejt muskarci se
razlikuju od strejt
zena, gej muskarci se razlikuju od gej zena, muskarci se razlikuju od zena, muskarci se razlikuju medju
sobom, kao i zene bez obzira na seksualnu orjentaciju - kao sto je svaka osoba drugacija od druge. To
su
razlike koje cini svet interesantim, razlike kojih se ne treba plasiti, vec se treba radovati njihovom
postojanju.

Ovo je do te mere sumnjivo i retrogradno da ne mogu da se otmem utisku da si ovo nasla negde u "Trecem oku" ili na pamfletu neke sekte Da znas da cu da report ovaj post i intervenisem da te po mogucstvu banuju, ali za stalno

[Rosbacher]

cak se ni za ruke nismo drzale, bas me zanima kako su nas provalili?!  

Sto me podseti na jedan dogadjaj od pre par meseci. Naime, ja i jedan drugar smo uvece trazili neki lokal da odemo na pice i ulazimo u neki klub "Planet". Samo sto smo nas dvojica presli prag ispred nas sa neke stolice stade neki tipcina (ogroman) i rece nam da ne mozemo unutra. Upitao sam ga zasto, na sta mi je on odgovorio: "Unutra je gay party". Pa smo se ja i drugar celo vece pitali kako su nas provalili.

[m]

ahahaha, ne znam, valjda sto ste se okrenuli i otisli, ili baja ima razvijen gay-dar...boless

[elle]

eh


ne znam zasto "homoseksualni topik" ima puno vise ucesnika/ citaj uspeha/ od " mog heteroseksualnog"
brinem.

jed/i/no sto mi pada na pamet je da nas je neko, nas, Srbe, prokleo
i vezo nam crn konchic i sad zaveru sveta, a protiv nas
olaksava tezina samoopredeljenja

nije nama lako

[Vesna]

eh




nije  nama  lako

Sto jest'.... jest'.

[elle]

Pa, kazem ti , zeno.


Mulj. Od zavere.



Kako rece komsija Misha, " dok kucka...

[Vesna]

Gde se seti komshije Mishe...