The conceptualisation of dreams by adults with intellectual disabilities: relationship with theory of mind abilities and verbal ability.
Receptive language level decides whether adults with ID see dreams as real, shared events or as inner, imaginary ones.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The researchers asked adults with intellectual disability about dreams. They wanted to know if these adults see dreams as real events that happen outside the mind.
Each person also took tests for receptive language and theory of mind. The team then looked for links between language skill and dream understanding.
What they found
Adults with stronger receptive language were more likely to say dreams are inner, private events. Those with weaker language often treated dreams as shared, real happenings.
Language ability, not IQ score, predicted how well someone grasped that dreams are imaginary.
How this fits with other research
Matson et al. (2004) showed the same pattern in children. When language is weak, false-belief errors may reflect language limits, not poor theory of mind. The adult dream data extend this idea to a new age group and task.
Thirion-Marissiaux et al. (2008) found that intellectually disabled kids matched to younger typical kids on language show the same timetable for theory-of-mind emotion tasks. Again, verbal skill, not diagnosis, drove performance.
Symons et al. (2005) showed that adults with ID can report depressive thoughts only if receptive language is adequate. Together, these studies build a clear rule: check language first before asking clients to talk about inner states.
Why it matters
If you plan to use dream logs, nightmare interventions, or any therapy that asks clients to talk about dreams, test receptive language first. Adults who score low may believe the dream events really happened to them or to you. Shift to visual supports, simpler vocabulary, or skip dream work and target emotion recognition or daily living skills instead.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Give a quick receptive-language screener before starting any dream-based activity; if scores are low, switch to picture-supported emotion work.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Empirical studies suggest that individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) have difficulties in conceptualising dreams as perceptually private, non-physical, individuated and potentially fictional entities. The aim of the current study was to replicate the results found by Stenfert Kroese et al. using a comparative sample size, and to examine putative cognitive correlates of accurate dream conceptualisation [receptive language and 1st order theory of mind (ToM) abilities]. METHOD: Conceptualisation of dreams, real objects and photographs was assessed with a structured closed-question interview schedule, together with receptive language, and ToM abilities. RESULTS: Findings from the current study replicated those of previous research, finding that many adults with ID tend to think that dreams take place around them, can be witnessed by others, can be touched and manipulated, can be shared by others and are about real events. The ability to accurately conceptualise dreams was found to increase along with receptive language ability, and there was a non-significant association between ToM ability and the ability to understand that dreams can be about potentially fictional entities. CONCLUSIONS: Some individuals with ID have a different understanding of mental phenomena such as dreams, which has implications for several aspects of care and support, particularly relating to mental health and therapeutic work.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2008 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.01026.x