Ninety-one dreams collected during the Covid-19 pandemic (the epidemic-situation sample) were compared with ninety-one dreams collected before the start of the epidemic (the non-epidemic-situation sample). The dreams were classified according to their content, using methods based on previous studies. The frequency of themes was compared to predictions that would be anticipated by three contemporary theories of dreaming: 1) threat simulation theory (TST); 2) incorporation continuity hypothesis (ICH); and 3) social simulation theory (SST). The epidemic-situation sample dreamed more of threatening events than the non-epidemic-situation sample (supporting the TST) and more of non-aggression threatening events, possibly due to the hyperassociation during sleep. However, the epidemic-situation sample did not show a greater prevalence of illness events in dreams (not supporting the ICH). Additionally, there was no significant difference in social neutral and positive events in dreams between the two samples as would have been predicted by the SST.

将Covid-19大流行期间收集的91个梦（流行情况样本）与流行开始之前收集的91个梦（非流行情况样本）进行了比较。使用以前的研究方法，根据梦的内容对梦进行分类。将主题的出现频率与三种现代梦想理论进行的预测进行了比较：1）威胁模拟理论（TST）；2）合并连续性假设（ICH）；3）社会模拟理论（SST）。流行病态的样本比非流行病态的样本（支持TST）梦想的威胁事件更多，而非侵略性的威胁事件更多，这可能是由于睡眠过程中的过度联想所致。然而，疫情样本并未显示出梦中疾病事件的患病率更高（不支持ICH）。另外，两个样本之间在社交中立和梦中的积极事件方面没有显着差异，这是由SST预测的。