0200.0390.006Total bizarreness M0.5710.5370.7680.1438.34 **ln SE0.0410.0590.1860.027Number of words M2188481132106.5**dn, nl SE10.543.643.666.48Vividness of imagery M7.785.516.026.7229.82 **dn, nh, hl SE0.170.260.250.24* p * .05, ** p * .01Ten entity transformations were made available: eight in dreams and two in library daydreams as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Although eight of the ten transformations occur in dreams the difference does not achieve statistical significance at the p*0.05 level, possibly because of the small numbers (p =0 .11, 2-tailed binomial test). A total of only 12.5% of participants reported any transformations.Table 3. Transformations in Dreams from 8 Participants.Original EntityTransformed Entityflatmatemothertwo friends & strangerfather & boyfriendtwin sistermotherfriend TomJuliusfatherdogblond hairlong brown hair & eyes to brownpet catmastiff dogtwo fishtwo frogsTable 4. Transformations in Library Daydreams from 2 Participants.Original EntityTransformed Entityman and woman with blonde hairken and barbie (barbie dolls)students face disolvingonly her skull is leftDISCUSSIONThis study failed to support Hobson and McCarley's (1977) activation-synthesis hypothesis that there would be greater bizarreness in dreams than in daydreams or waking narratives. Our results were supported by Reinsel, Antrobus & Wollman when Klinger (1971) stated that "the potential for waking fantasy to be equally as bizarre as dreaming" . Reinsel et al further claimed that while REM sleep dreams are bizarre, they are no more so than reports of either NREM sleep mentation or waking fantasy (Reinsel et al., cited in Williams et al., 1992).Our results differed from both Hobson et al and Williams et al, whose results confirmed the activation-synthesis hypothesis that there would be greater bizarreness in dreams than in daydreams or waking narratives. This certainly was not the case in our study as daydreams showed to have far greater p...
