Most people daydream without knowing their dependency on it. We imagine an unrealistic scenario, picture a different life in another city, or get lost in a story. Usually, the mind eventually returns to the task at hand. But for some people, returning is the difficult part.
This term has been examined by a large number of psychologists under the name “maladaptive daydreaming”. Initially described by an Israeli clinical psychologist Eli Somer, it points towards extensive, vivid and often compulsive imagination that can cause disturbance with an individuals daily functioning. Ordinary mind-wandering is usually brief and controllable. It is easier to interrupt meanwhile maladaptive daydreaming can consume a lot of time and it is uncontrollable. Currently, it is not recognized as a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR, The American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual. But the researchers are still investigating its clinical significance.
Psychologists have increasingly examined this experience under the term maladaptivedaydreaming. First described by Israeli clinical psychologist Eli Somer in 2002, it refers to extensive, vivid and often compulsive imagination that causes significant distress or interferes with everyday functioning. Unlike ordinary mind-wandering, which is generally brief and relatively easy to interrupt, maladaptive daydreaming can consume substantial amounts of time and become difficult to control. It is not currently recognised as a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, although researchers continue to investigate its clinical significance.
One of the most interesting questions concerns the psychological function of these fantasies. Why might someone repeatedly retreat into an imaginary world, even when doing so disrupts their daily life, relationships or responsibilities?
One possible explanation is emotional avoidance. For individuals experiencing loneliness, anxiety or psychological distress, immersive fantasy may offer temporary relief from uncomfortable emotions. Imagined relationships, achievements and alternative realities can provide a sense of control or satisfaction that may be difficult to experience in everyday life. However, temporary relief does not necessarily resolve the underlying distress.
Research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic offers an important perspective. A 2020 multicounty study involving 1,565 adults from more than 70 countries examined maladaptive daydreaming during lockdown restrictions. Participants with probable maladaptive daydreaming who were observing lockdown measures reported spending more time in fantasy and experiencing stronger urges to daydream. Those reporting pre-existing anxiety or depression also described greater difficulty controlling the behaviour. The researchers found that suspected maladaptive daydreaming was associated with greater psychological distress rather than consistently serving as a defensive response to it.
These findings raise an important possibility; fantasy may provide immediate emotional relief while becoming part of a pattern that maintains psychological difficulties. Yet the relationship should not be reduced to a simple cause-and-effect explanation. Stress may precede excessive daydreaming, but the consequences of losing time, neglecting responsibilities and struggling to disengage may also contribute to further distress.
Furthermore, sleep is another important, but less understood, part of this discussion. Individuals who indulge in prolonged imaginations may find it difficult to disengage at bedtime, particularly when imagined narratives become fascinating. It is tempting to assume that excessive daydreaming inevitably disrupts sleep. However, the available evidence does not support such a straightforward conclusion.
In a 2019 study, researchers David Marcusson-Clavertz and colleagues followed 126 individuals who identified as experiencing maladaptive daydreaming, collecting up to eight consecutive days of reports on sleep disturbances, mind-wandering and fantasy activity. Contrary to their initial hypothesis, daily increases in maladaptive daydreaming did not significantly predict sleep disturbances the following night. Similarly, sleep disturbances did not significantly predict greater maladaptive daydreaming the next day. Although individuals reporting more maladaptive daydreaming also tended to report more sleep disturbances overall, the day-to-day relationship was not established.
This distinction matters. It suggests that people who experience greater difficulties with daydreaming may also experience poorer sleep, without one necessarily causing the other. Shared factors, including emotional distress or difficulties with self-regulation, may help explain the association. Whether irregular sleep timing, delayed bedtimes or reduced sleep duration contribute to the persistence of maladaptive daydreaming remains an important question for future research.
For Pakistan, this research gap is particularly relevant. Empirical work on maladaptive daydreaming remains limited, although a study published in the Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association in 2025 provides an important starting point. Researchers examined 485 young people recruited from an online maladaptive-daydreaming community. Of these participants, 90.9 per cent screened positive for maladaptive daydreaming. The study also reported significant associations between maladaptive daydreaming, declining academic performance and suicidal ideation.
These findings grab attention, but they require careful interpretation. Because participants were recruited from an online community specifically focused on maladaptive daydreaming, the sample cannot represent the prevalence of the phenomenon among Pakistani young people generally. However, it does interpret the potential seriousness of the difficulties reported by some individuals experiencing this phenomenon. Maladaptive daydreaming remains an evolving area of psychological research. Its relationship with anxiety, depression, emotional avoidance and sleep is not yet fully understood, and findings from relatively small or self-selected samples cannot be generalised to the entire populations. Nevertheless, it becomes a
