- Email: [email protected]
Individual differences in locus of control and the reporting of lucid dreaming
Pemon. individ. Dijf Vol. 16. No. 6, pp. 981-984, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in &eat Britain. All rights reserved 0191.8869/94 $7.00 + 0.00
WEYPergamon
Individual differences in locus of control and the reporting of lucid dreaming MARK
Department
ofPsychology.
BLAGROVE*
University (Received
and MELISSA TUCKER
College of Swansea. 7 October
Swansea
SA2 SPP, Wales
1993)
Summary-Lucid dreaming occurs when a sleeping subject becomes aware of being in a dream, and, without waking up, maintains this awareness. This can then result in the conscious control of events or content of the dream. The present study found that high frequency lucid dreamers were significantly more internal on Rotter’s Locus of Control scale than were subjects who frequently recalled ordinary, but non-lucid, dreams. There were no significant mean group differences in creativity or in performance on an embedded-figures test of field-independence.
Individual differences in cognition have been investigated for various aspects of dreaming (Goodenough, 199 I), for example, nightmare frequency and cognitive style (Belicki, l992), and frequency of dream recall related to creativity (Fitch & Armitage, 1989) and to field-independence (Goodenough, Witkin, Lewis, Koulack & Cohen, 1974). This paper investigates the cognitive correlates of the ability of Ss in REM sleep to become aware that they are dreaming, and to consciously direct the activities and events of the dream. This widely investigated phenomenon (e.g. Fenwick, Schatzman, Worsley, Adams, Stone & Baker, 1984; LaBerge & Dement, 1982; LaBerge, Levitan & Dement, 1986; LaBerge, Nagel, Dement & Zarcone, 1981; Purcell, Mullington, Moffitt, Hoffmann & Pigeau, 1986) is termed lucid dreaming (LD). In a review of the demographic literature, Snyder and Gackenbach (1988, p. 230) conclude that “about 58% of the population have experienced a lucid dream at least once in their lifetime and that some 21% report such dreams more often (one or more per month)“. Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and Karp (1962) found that Ss who reported being active participants in dreams were more likely to be field-independent than were those who were passive observers, and Gackenbach, Heilman, Boyt and LaBerge (1985) suggested that individuals who dream lucidly are more likely to be field-independent than are non-lucid dreamers. This suggestion parallels the finding that frequent lucid dreamers have a greater responsiveness (i.e. spontaneous eye movements and vertigo) to calorific stimulation of the vestibular system (Gackenbach, Snyder, Rokes & Sachau, 1986). the spatial-vestibular aspects of field independenceAependence (FID) being described by Goodenough, Oltman and Cox (1987). Gackenbach et al. (1985) postulated that the link between FID and LD recall is that field-independent, internally oriented, analytic Ss are more able to detach themselves from the dream experience than are field-dependent Ss, who are oriented to the whole field. The detection of incongruities in a dream, or the recognition of its ‘dreamlike’ quality, frequently precede, and may hence trigger, awareness of dreaming. For example, in the work of Purcell et al. (1986) most lucid dreams were reported to be triggered by some aspect of the dream experience, and the most frequent such trigger was “the recognition of a dream oddity”. Field-dependent Ss may lack the detachment from the dream environment needed for such analytic detection, or to continue dreaming lucidly once the awareness of dreaming has occurred. Gackenbach et al. ( 1985) found embedded-figures test differences in performance between lucid and non-lucid dreamers, but only when dream recall was not controlled for. Lucid dream frequency correlates with the frequency of dream recall (e.g. Wolpin, Marston, Randolph & Clothier, 1992) and the latter must therefore be controlled for by comparing the lucid dreamers with a non-lucid dreaming group with a similar rate of dream recall. When dream recall was controlled for Gackenbach et al. (I 985) found lucid dreamers to be more field-independent than non-lucid dreamers, but only for a subgroup of male right-handers, using the Rod and Frame test. In the experiment reported here we wished to clarify these findings, by the use of an embedded-figures test on Ss all reporting high general dream recall (more than one dream per week), and differing only in frequency of lucid dreaming. Internal/External Locus of Control (LOC) has been linked theoretically to field-dependence by Rotter (I 966) and by Lefcourt and Telegdi (I 97 I), the latter stating “the experience of oneself as a distinct source of causative powers, and the tendency to be ‘individual’ or self-reliant rather than acquiescent and conforming would seem to characterize both the internal and the field-independent individuals”. However, Willoughby (1967) distinguished two aspects of Internality/Externality: the construct ‘evaluation’ is “the extent to which a person relies upon others for self-assessment”, this he found to be related to field-independence. The second construct is ‘control’: unlike evaluation this “is not directly concerned with the individual’s frame of reference but rather the degree to which he perceives himself as determining his own destiny”, and this was found not to be related to field-dependence. The Rotter scale only measures the Control aspect of Internality/Externality, internal LOC having been shown in various studies to correlate with real-life attempts to control the environment (Lefcoun, 1992; Rotter, 1966, pp. 19-21). We hypothesized that it is this construct of internal LOC, rather than the perceptual construct of field-independence, which should be related to the ability to have lucid dreams, and thus predicted that frequent lucid dreamers would be more internal on the LOC test than non-lucid dreamers. This hypothesis also follows from Snyder and Gackenbach’s (1988) reports that frequency of lucid dreaming is associated with individual differences in the trait of private self-consciousness, as measured by the Self-Consciousness Inventory of Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss (1975). The latter authors state that private self-consciousness is “concerned with attending to one’s inner-thoughts and feelings” (p. 523) and “deals with a cognitive, private mulling over the self’ (p. 525). This self-focussed attention loads on such items as “I’m always trying to figure myself out”, “I’m constantly examining my motives”, and “I’m aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem” (p. 524). Ss also completed Domino’s (1970) Creativity adjective checklist (ACL). There is little theoretical reason to link waking creativity and dream lucidity, but as very few studies on creativity and lucidity have been done, and because creativity has
*To whom correspondence
should be addressed. 981
982
NOTES
‘fable
I. Luc~dlry
AND SHORTER
~:roup differences
E’requent LD (If = 22) LOC FID Cwntiwtv *P
c
ACL
COMMUNICATIONS
in LOC, FID and Creat~wty
Occasional LD
Il.9 (x9)* 22.0 (7.5) 29.2 f 10.31
(n = 25)
Non-LD 01 = IX)
13.7 (5.6) 22.6 (7.1) 2x.5 (7.0)
IS 2 (1.6)* 21.1 (6.7) 25 x ix.01
0.00s
been linked to differences in dream content (e.g. Domino, 1976; Schechter. Schmeidler & Staal, 1965; Wood. Domino, 19X9-90). and to dream recall frequency (Fitch & Armitage, 1989). this test was included. No differences the groups were predicted for this test.
Sebha Kr between
METHOD
Seventy volunteers were recruited by advertisement around the university (male = 3 I, female = 39; age range advertisements asked for people who either had lucid dreams, or recalled their dreams frequently.
I X-35).The
Ss tirst tilled out a questionnaire to ascertain their frequency of recalling dreams in general. and their frequency of having lucid dreams, if any. Lucid dreams were defined as dreams in which one becomes aware that one is dreaming. and can then consciously control some events in the dream. Those having had lucid dreams had to give an example of one of theirs. to ensure 5s were correctly applying the definition of lucidity. Ss also answered questions on whether they could continue a dream after realising they are dreaming, whether during dreams they could exercise control over events, and whether they ever used control over dreams to experiment within them. Secondly, 5s filled out Domino’s (1970) Creativity ACL. This consists of 59 adjectives. the S indicates which are appltcable to him/herself. The total number of adjectives ticked is the S’s creativity score. After this, they tilled out Rotter’s questionnaire of LOC. This has 24 forced-choice pairs of statements, one indicating internal, the other external orientation. The number of external items chosen are counted, LOC score thus ranges from 0 to 24, higher scores indicating greater externality. The test of field-independence used was the Finding Embedded Figures Test (FEFT; Thompson & Melancon, 1987). performance on which correlates significantly with Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test (Melancon & Thompson, 1989). This has 35 pages: on each page a small shape is shown which is also hidden in one of five larger complicated patterns, which are on the same page. 5s respond to each page in multiple-choice fashion, by indicating the pattern containing the hidden shape. Test duration is 1.5 min. after an introduction and practice session, and is scored as number of items answered correctly. The ACL, FEFf and LOC were administered by the second author. On the basis of their answers to the first questionnaire two independent judges, one of them the tirst author. the other SR. divided the Ss into 3 groups: frequent lucid dreamers (one or more lucid dream per month, in accordance with the definition of frequent in Gackenbach et N[., 1985); occasional lucid dreamers (lucid dreaming from several times per year. dovvn to on several occasions in life). and non-lucid dreamers, defined as frequent dream recallers who had never, or. in a few cases. almost never, had lucid dreams.
RESULTS The initial inter-judge reliability was 78%. On only two questionnaires could agreement not be reached, a third tndependent judge (PM) rated these, his decision was tinal. Comparisons on the three tests between frequent lucid dreamers (n = 22), occasional lucid dreamers Or = 2.5). and non-lucid frequent dreamers (n = IX) are shown in Table I Five Ss were excluded from this analysis due to infrequent dream recall (one per week or less). There were no significant sex differences in frequency of lucid dreaming, LOC. FlD or Creativity ACL. The planned comparison between frequent lucid dreamers and non-lucid dreamers was highly signiticant [t (38) = 2.74. P < O.OOS], in the direction predicted. Between the three groups there was also a significant difference between LOC means [F (2.62) = 2.6, P < 0.0.5], the occasional lucid-dreamers having a mean score between that of the two extreme groups. Group mean differences for field-independence [F (2.62) = 0.221 and Creativity [F (2,62) = 0.891 were insigniticant. Using all 70 Ss, LOC correlations with FID (r = 0. IO, P = 0.06) and with Creativity ACL (r = ~ 0.17. P r 0.0X) both missed significance; Creativity had no relationship with FID (r = ~ 0.0.5, NS).
DISCUSSION
The lack of stgnificant relationships between FID, Creativity and LOC accorded with the general conclusions from previous work (e.g. Bloomberg, 1971; Gundlach & Gesell, 1979; Lefcourt & Telegdi, 1971; Leitgeb. Bolocofsky & Ohnut, 19X6: Massari, 1975; McNary, Michael, Richards & Lovell, 1975: Rotter. 1966). In common with the few previous studies on lucidity and creativity (Snyder & Gackenbach, 19X8. p. 245), no differences in creativity between the groups was found. As with Gackenbach rr al. (1985). once general dream recall frequency was controlled for, no differences in embedded-figures score were found. As predicted, there was a signiticant difference in LOC between frequent lucid dreamers and non-lucid dreamers. Individuals who believe in more internal control of waking life events are more likely to report having conscious control of dream events.
NOTES
AND SHORTER
COMMUNICATIONS
983
The LOC results can be interpreted in line with ideas that there are individual differences in styles of information-processing during sleep (Gackenbach. 1991). Individual differences in LOC may thus also be present in cognition during sleep, and can pre-dispose individuals to episodes of lucidity. However, although sleep laboratory studies have validated the accuracy of individual self-rating of lucidity frequency by diary and sleep laboratory multiple-awakenings (Snyder & Gackenbach, 1988) the results presented here can also be interpreted as showing individual differences in the post-sleep ascription of awareness, control and intentionality to oneself during dreams. Obviously this possibility of post-sleep ascription of control in no way counts against the existence of lucid dreaming ability in some people, well-attested for in the sleep-laboratory (e.g. Fenwick er ul., 1984; Purcell et al., 1986) but such individual differences in LOC ascription should be taken account of in demographic and personality correlate research. Work has been done on pre-sleep cognitions affecting dream content, for example, the effects of instructions to dream of the death of 3. F. Kennedy (Barber, Walker & Hahn, 1973), differences in dreams of depressed and non-depressed divorcees (Cartwright, 1986). and implicit expectation to dream of a rural or urban setting (Stem, Saayman & Touyz, 1983). Such work is usually interpreted as the dream itself being directly affected, and then reported on, whereas Cartwright and Kasniak (1991) report much work on post-sleep factors affecting the actual reporting of a dream. The LOC results reported in this paper can be interpreted in either of these ways, as there being individual differences in actual dream content or abilities, or as showing individual differences in the way dreams are reported. Ackr2oMled,qement-The
second and third independent
judges
were S. Roach and Dr P. Mitchell.
REFERENCES
Barber, T. X., Walker, P. C. & Hahn, K. W. (1973). Effects of hypnotic induction and suggestions on nocturnal dreaming and thinking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 414-427. Belicki, K. (1992). Nightmare frequency versus nightmare distress: relations to psychopathology and cognitive style. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 101, 592-597. Bloomberg, M. (197 I). Creativity as related to field independence and mobility. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 3-12. Cartwright, R. D. (1986).Affect and dream work from an information processing point of view. Journal ofMindandBehavior, 7.411428. Cartwright, R. D. & Kasniak, A. (1991). The social psychology of dream reporting. In Ellman, S. J. & Antrobus, J. S. (Eds), The mind in sleep: psychology and psychophysiology (2nd Edn, pp. 251-264). New York: John Wiley. Domino, G. (1970). Identtfication of potentially creative persons from the adjective check list. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 699-703. Domino, G. (1976). Primary process thinking in dream reports as related to creative achievement. Journal of Cortsulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 929-932. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975).Public and private self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Con.sulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527. Fenwick. P. B. C., Schatzman, M.1 Worsiey, A., Adams, J., Stone, S. & Baker, A. (1984). Lucid dreaming: Correspondence between dreamed and actual events in one subiect during REM sleep. Biological Psychology, 18, 243-252. Fitch. T. & Armitage, R. (1989). Variations in cognitive styi among high and low frequency &earn recallers. Petsonality and Individual Differences, IO, 869-875. Gackenbach, J. (1991). Frameworks for understanding lucid dreaming: a review. Dreaming, I, 1099128. Gackenbach, J. I., Heilman, N., Boyt, S. & LaBerge, S. (1985). The relationship between field independence and lucid dreaming ability. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 9-20. Gackenbach, J. I., Snyder, T. J., Rokes, L. M. & Sachau, D. (1986). Lucid dreaming frequency in relation to vestibular sensitivity as measured by caloric stimulation. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 7, 277-298. Goodenough, D. R. (1991). Dream recall: history and current status of the field. In Ellman, S. J. & Antrobus, J. S. (Eds) The mind in sleep: psychology andpsychophysiology(2nd edn, pp. 143-171). New York: John Wiley. Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K. & Cox, P. W. (1987). The nature of individual differences in field dependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 81-99. Goodenough, D. R., Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Koulack, D. & Cohen, H. (1974). Repression, interference, and field dependence as factors in dream forgetting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 32-44. Gundlach, R. H. & Gessell, G. P. (1979). Extent of psychological differentiation and creativity. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 48,319-333. LaBerge, S. & Dement, W. C. (1982). Lateralization of alpha activity for dreamed singing and counting during REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 19, 33 l-332. LaBerge, S., Levitan, L. & Dement, W. C. (1986). Lucid dreaming: physiological correlates of consciousness during REM sleep. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 7, 25 l-258. LaBerge, S., Nagel, L. E., Dement, W. C. & Zarcone, V. P. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727-732. Lefcourt, H. M. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 41 l-414. Lefcourt, H. M. & Telegdi, M. S. (1971). Perceived locus of control and field dependence as predictors of cognitive activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 53-56. Leitgeb, J. L., Bolocofsky, D. N. & Obrzut, J. E. (1986). The relationship of cognitive tempo to psychological differentiation and locus of control. Journal of Psychology, /20,353-361. Massari, D. J. (1975). The relation of reflection-impulsivity to field dependence-independence and internal-external control in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126, 6167. McNary, S., Michael, W. B., Richards, L. & Lovell, C. (1975). Interrelationships among psychological measures of cognitive style and fantasy predisposition in a sample of 100 children in the fifth and sixth grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 477-485. Melancon, J. & Thompson, B. (1989). Measurement characteristics of the Finding Embedded Figures Test. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 69-78.
984
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS
Purcell, S., Mullington, J., Mofhtt, A., Hoffmann, R. & Pigeau, R. (1986). Dream self-reflectiveness as a learned cognitive skill. Sleep, 9, 423437. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. fsychologicul Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Schechter, N., Schmeidler, G. & Staal, M. (1965). Dream reports and creative tendencies in students of the arts, sciences, and engineering Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29. 4 15-42 1. Snyder, T. J. & Gackenbach, J. (1988). Individual differences associated with lucid dreaming. In Gackenbach, J. & IaBerge, S. (Eds), Conscious mind, sleeping bruin (pp. 221-259). New York: Plenum Press. Stem, D., Saayman, G. S. & Touyz, S. W. (1983). The effect of an experimentally induced demand on nocturnal dream content. Journal of Mental Imagery, 7, 15-32. Thompson, B. & Melancon, J. G. (1987).Finding Embedded Figures Test. New Orleans: Psychometrics Group. Willoughby, R. H. (1967).Field-dependence and locus of control. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 67 l-672. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R. & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: studies in development. New York: Wiley. Wolpin, M., Marston, A., Randolph, C. & Clothier, A. (1992). Individual difference correlates of reported lucid dreaming frequency and control. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16, 231-236. Wood, J., Sebba, D. &Domino, G. (1989-90). Docreative people have more bizarre dreams? A reconsideration. Imagination. Cognition und Personality. 9. 3-16.
WEYPergamon
Individual differences in locus of control and the reporting of lucid dreaming MARK
Department
ofPsychology.
BLAGROVE*
University (Received
and MELISSA TUCKER
College of Swansea. 7 October
Swansea
SA2 SPP, Wales
1993)
Summary-Lucid dreaming occurs when a sleeping subject becomes aware of being in a dream, and, without waking up, maintains this awareness. This can then result in the conscious control of events or content of the dream. The present study found that high frequency lucid dreamers were significantly more internal on Rotter’s Locus of Control scale than were subjects who frequently recalled ordinary, but non-lucid, dreams. There were no significant mean group differences in creativity or in performance on an embedded-figures test of field-independence.
Individual differences in cognition have been investigated for various aspects of dreaming (Goodenough, 199 I), for example, nightmare frequency and cognitive style (Belicki, l992), and frequency of dream recall related to creativity (Fitch & Armitage, 1989) and to field-independence (Goodenough, Witkin, Lewis, Koulack & Cohen, 1974). This paper investigates the cognitive correlates of the ability of Ss in REM sleep to become aware that they are dreaming, and to consciously direct the activities and events of the dream. This widely investigated phenomenon (e.g. Fenwick, Schatzman, Worsley, Adams, Stone & Baker, 1984; LaBerge & Dement, 1982; LaBerge, Levitan & Dement, 1986; LaBerge, Nagel, Dement & Zarcone, 1981; Purcell, Mullington, Moffitt, Hoffmann & Pigeau, 1986) is termed lucid dreaming (LD). In a review of the demographic literature, Snyder and Gackenbach (1988, p. 230) conclude that “about 58% of the population have experienced a lucid dream at least once in their lifetime and that some 21% report such dreams more often (one or more per month)“. Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and Karp (1962) found that Ss who reported being active participants in dreams were more likely to be field-independent than were those who were passive observers, and Gackenbach, Heilman, Boyt and LaBerge (1985) suggested that individuals who dream lucidly are more likely to be field-independent than are non-lucid dreamers. This suggestion parallels the finding that frequent lucid dreamers have a greater responsiveness (i.e. spontaneous eye movements and vertigo) to calorific stimulation of the vestibular system (Gackenbach, Snyder, Rokes & Sachau, 1986). the spatial-vestibular aspects of field independenceAependence (FID) being described by Goodenough, Oltman and Cox (1987). Gackenbach et al. (1985) postulated that the link between FID and LD recall is that field-independent, internally oriented, analytic Ss are more able to detach themselves from the dream experience than are field-dependent Ss, who are oriented to the whole field. The detection of incongruities in a dream, or the recognition of its ‘dreamlike’ quality, frequently precede, and may hence trigger, awareness of dreaming. For example, in the work of Purcell et al. (1986) most lucid dreams were reported to be triggered by some aspect of the dream experience, and the most frequent such trigger was “the recognition of a dream oddity”. Field-dependent Ss may lack the detachment from the dream environment needed for such analytic detection, or to continue dreaming lucidly once the awareness of dreaming has occurred. Gackenbach et al. ( 1985) found embedded-figures test differences in performance between lucid and non-lucid dreamers, but only when dream recall was not controlled for. Lucid dream frequency correlates with the frequency of dream recall (e.g. Wolpin, Marston, Randolph & Clothier, 1992) and the latter must therefore be controlled for by comparing the lucid dreamers with a non-lucid dreaming group with a similar rate of dream recall. When dream recall was controlled for Gackenbach et al. (I 985) found lucid dreamers to be more field-independent than non-lucid dreamers, but only for a subgroup of male right-handers, using the Rod and Frame test. In the experiment reported here we wished to clarify these findings, by the use of an embedded-figures test on Ss all reporting high general dream recall (more than one dream per week), and differing only in frequency of lucid dreaming. Internal/External Locus of Control (LOC) has been linked theoretically to field-dependence by Rotter (I 966) and by Lefcourt and Telegdi (I 97 I), the latter stating “the experience of oneself as a distinct source of causative powers, and the tendency to be ‘individual’ or self-reliant rather than acquiescent and conforming would seem to characterize both the internal and the field-independent individuals”. However, Willoughby (1967) distinguished two aspects of Internality/Externality: the construct ‘evaluation’ is “the extent to which a person relies upon others for self-assessment”, this he found to be related to field-independence. The second construct is ‘control’: unlike evaluation this “is not directly concerned with the individual’s frame of reference but rather the degree to which he perceives himself as determining his own destiny”, and this was found not to be related to field-dependence. The Rotter scale only measures the Control aspect of Internality/Externality, internal LOC having been shown in various studies to correlate with real-life attempts to control the environment (Lefcoun, 1992; Rotter, 1966, pp. 19-21). We hypothesized that it is this construct of internal LOC, rather than the perceptual construct of field-independence, which should be related to the ability to have lucid dreams, and thus predicted that frequent lucid dreamers would be more internal on the LOC test than non-lucid dreamers. This hypothesis also follows from Snyder and Gackenbach’s (1988) reports that frequency of lucid dreaming is associated with individual differences in the trait of private self-consciousness, as measured by the Self-Consciousness Inventory of Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss (1975). The latter authors state that private self-consciousness is “concerned with attending to one’s inner-thoughts and feelings” (p. 523) and “deals with a cognitive, private mulling over the self’ (p. 525). This self-focussed attention loads on such items as “I’m always trying to figure myself out”, “I’m constantly examining my motives”, and “I’m aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem” (p. 524). Ss also completed Domino’s (1970) Creativity adjective checklist (ACL). There is little theoretical reason to link waking creativity and dream lucidity, but as very few studies on creativity and lucidity have been done, and because creativity has
*To whom correspondence
should be addressed. 981
982
NOTES
‘fable
I. Luc~dlry
AND SHORTER
~:roup differences
E’requent LD (If = 22) LOC FID Cwntiwtv *P
c
ACL
COMMUNICATIONS
in LOC, FID and Creat~wty
Occasional LD
Il.9 (x9)* 22.0 (7.5) 29.2 f 10.31
(n = 25)
Non-LD 01 = IX)
13.7 (5.6) 22.6 (7.1) 2x.5 (7.0)
IS 2 (1.6)* 21.1 (6.7) 25 x ix.01
0.00s
been linked to differences in dream content (e.g. Domino, 1976; Schechter. Schmeidler & Staal, 1965; Wood. Domino, 19X9-90). and to dream recall frequency (Fitch & Armitage, 1989). this test was included. No differences the groups were predicted for this test.
Sebha Kr between
METHOD
Seventy volunteers were recruited by advertisement around the university (male = 3 I, female = 39; age range advertisements asked for people who either had lucid dreams, or recalled their dreams frequently.
I X-35).The
Ss tirst tilled out a questionnaire to ascertain their frequency of recalling dreams in general. and their frequency of having lucid dreams, if any. Lucid dreams were defined as dreams in which one becomes aware that one is dreaming. and can then consciously control some events in the dream. Those having had lucid dreams had to give an example of one of theirs. to ensure 5s were correctly applying the definition of lucidity. Ss also answered questions on whether they could continue a dream after realising they are dreaming, whether during dreams they could exercise control over events, and whether they ever used control over dreams to experiment within them. Secondly, 5s filled out Domino’s (1970) Creativity ACL. This consists of 59 adjectives. the S indicates which are appltcable to him/herself. The total number of adjectives ticked is the S’s creativity score. After this, they tilled out Rotter’s questionnaire of LOC. This has 24 forced-choice pairs of statements, one indicating internal, the other external orientation. The number of external items chosen are counted, LOC score thus ranges from 0 to 24, higher scores indicating greater externality. The test of field-independence used was the Finding Embedded Figures Test (FEFT; Thompson & Melancon, 1987). performance on which correlates significantly with Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test (Melancon & Thompson, 1989). This has 35 pages: on each page a small shape is shown which is also hidden in one of five larger complicated patterns, which are on the same page. 5s respond to each page in multiple-choice fashion, by indicating the pattern containing the hidden shape. Test duration is 1.5 min. after an introduction and practice session, and is scored as number of items answered correctly. The ACL, FEFf and LOC were administered by the second author. On the basis of their answers to the first questionnaire two independent judges, one of them the tirst author. the other SR. divided the Ss into 3 groups: frequent lucid dreamers (one or more lucid dream per month, in accordance with the definition of frequent in Gackenbach et N[., 1985); occasional lucid dreamers (lucid dreaming from several times per year. dovvn to on several occasions in life). and non-lucid dreamers, defined as frequent dream recallers who had never, or. in a few cases. almost never, had lucid dreams.
RESULTS The initial inter-judge reliability was 78%. On only two questionnaires could agreement not be reached, a third tndependent judge (PM) rated these, his decision was tinal. Comparisons on the three tests between frequent lucid dreamers (n = 22), occasional lucid dreamers Or = 2.5). and non-lucid frequent dreamers (n = IX) are shown in Table I Five Ss were excluded from this analysis due to infrequent dream recall (one per week or less). There were no significant sex differences in frequency of lucid dreaming, LOC. FlD or Creativity ACL. The planned comparison between frequent lucid dreamers and non-lucid dreamers was highly signiticant [t (38) = 2.74. P < O.OOS], in the direction predicted. Between the three groups there was also a significant difference between LOC means [F (2.62) = 2.6, P < 0.0.5], the occasional lucid-dreamers having a mean score between that of the two extreme groups. Group mean differences for field-independence [F (2.62) = 0.221 and Creativity [F (2,62) = 0.891 were insigniticant. Using all 70 Ss, LOC correlations with FID (r = 0. IO, P = 0.06) and with Creativity ACL (r = ~ 0.17. P r 0.0X) both missed significance; Creativity had no relationship with FID (r = ~ 0.0.5, NS).
DISCUSSION
The lack of stgnificant relationships between FID, Creativity and LOC accorded with the general conclusions from previous work (e.g. Bloomberg, 1971; Gundlach & Gesell, 1979; Lefcourt & Telegdi, 1971; Leitgeb. Bolocofsky & Ohnut, 19X6: Massari, 1975; McNary, Michael, Richards & Lovell, 1975: Rotter. 1966). In common with the few previous studies on lucidity and creativity (Snyder & Gackenbach, 19X8. p. 245), no differences in creativity between the groups was found. As with Gackenbach rr al. (1985). once general dream recall frequency was controlled for, no differences in embedded-figures score were found. As predicted, there was a signiticant difference in LOC between frequent lucid dreamers and non-lucid dreamers. Individuals who believe in more internal control of waking life events are more likely to report having conscious control of dream events.
NOTES
AND SHORTER
COMMUNICATIONS
983
The LOC results can be interpreted in line with ideas that there are individual differences in styles of information-processing during sleep (Gackenbach. 1991). Individual differences in LOC may thus also be present in cognition during sleep, and can pre-dispose individuals to episodes of lucidity. However, although sleep laboratory studies have validated the accuracy of individual self-rating of lucidity frequency by diary and sleep laboratory multiple-awakenings (Snyder & Gackenbach, 1988) the results presented here can also be interpreted as showing individual differences in the post-sleep ascription of awareness, control and intentionality to oneself during dreams. Obviously this possibility of post-sleep ascription of control in no way counts against the existence of lucid dreaming ability in some people, well-attested for in the sleep-laboratory (e.g. Fenwick er ul., 1984; Purcell et al., 1986) but such individual differences in LOC ascription should be taken account of in demographic and personality correlate research. Work has been done on pre-sleep cognitions affecting dream content, for example, the effects of instructions to dream of the death of 3. F. Kennedy (Barber, Walker & Hahn, 1973), differences in dreams of depressed and non-depressed divorcees (Cartwright, 1986). and implicit expectation to dream of a rural or urban setting (Stem, Saayman & Touyz, 1983). Such work is usually interpreted as the dream itself being directly affected, and then reported on, whereas Cartwright and Kasniak (1991) report much work on post-sleep factors affecting the actual reporting of a dream. The LOC results reported in this paper can be interpreted in either of these ways, as there being individual differences in actual dream content or abilities, or as showing individual differences in the way dreams are reported. Ackr2oMled,qement-The
second and third independent
judges
were S. Roach and Dr P. Mitchell.
REFERENCES
Barber, T. X., Walker, P. C. & Hahn, K. W. (1973). Effects of hypnotic induction and suggestions on nocturnal dreaming and thinking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 414-427. Belicki, K. (1992). Nightmare frequency versus nightmare distress: relations to psychopathology and cognitive style. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 101, 592-597. Bloomberg, M. (197 I). Creativity as related to field independence and mobility. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 3-12. Cartwright, R. D. (1986).Affect and dream work from an information processing point of view. Journal ofMindandBehavior, 7.411428. Cartwright, R. D. & Kasniak, A. (1991). The social psychology of dream reporting. In Ellman, S. J. & Antrobus, J. S. (Eds), The mind in sleep: psychology and psychophysiology (2nd Edn, pp. 251-264). New York: John Wiley. Domino, G. (1970). Identtfication of potentially creative persons from the adjective check list. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 699-703. Domino, G. (1976). Primary process thinking in dream reports as related to creative achievement. Journal of Cortsulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 929-932. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975).Public and private self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Con.sulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527. Fenwick. P. B. C., Schatzman, M.1 Worsiey, A., Adams, J., Stone, S. & Baker, A. (1984). Lucid dreaming: Correspondence between dreamed and actual events in one subiect during REM sleep. Biological Psychology, 18, 243-252. Fitch. T. & Armitage, R. (1989). Variations in cognitive styi among high and low frequency &earn recallers. Petsonality and Individual Differences, IO, 869-875. Gackenbach, J. (1991). Frameworks for understanding lucid dreaming: a review. Dreaming, I, 1099128. Gackenbach, J. I., Heilman, N., Boyt, S. & LaBerge, S. (1985). The relationship between field independence and lucid dreaming ability. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 9-20. Gackenbach, J. I., Snyder, T. J., Rokes, L. M. & Sachau, D. (1986). Lucid dreaming frequency in relation to vestibular sensitivity as measured by caloric stimulation. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 7, 277-298. Goodenough, D. R. (1991). Dream recall: history and current status of the field. In Ellman, S. J. & Antrobus, J. S. (Eds) The mind in sleep: psychology andpsychophysiology(2nd edn, pp. 143-171). New York: John Wiley. Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K. & Cox, P. W. (1987). The nature of individual differences in field dependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 81-99. Goodenough, D. R., Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Koulack, D. & Cohen, H. (1974). Repression, interference, and field dependence as factors in dream forgetting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 32-44. Gundlach, R. H. & Gessell, G. P. (1979). Extent of psychological differentiation and creativity. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 48,319-333. LaBerge, S. & Dement, W. C. (1982). Lateralization of alpha activity for dreamed singing and counting during REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 19, 33 l-332. LaBerge, S., Levitan, L. & Dement, W. C. (1986). Lucid dreaming: physiological correlates of consciousness during REM sleep. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 7, 25 l-258. LaBerge, S., Nagel, L. E., Dement, W. C. & Zarcone, V. P. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727-732. Lefcourt, H. M. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 41 l-414. Lefcourt, H. M. & Telegdi, M. S. (1971). Perceived locus of control and field dependence as predictors of cognitive activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 53-56. Leitgeb, J. L., Bolocofsky, D. N. & Obrzut, J. E. (1986). The relationship of cognitive tempo to psychological differentiation and locus of control. Journal of Psychology, /20,353-361. Massari, D. J. (1975). The relation of reflection-impulsivity to field dependence-independence and internal-external control in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126, 6167. McNary, S., Michael, W. B., Richards, L. & Lovell, C. (1975). Interrelationships among psychological measures of cognitive style and fantasy predisposition in a sample of 100 children in the fifth and sixth grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 477-485. Melancon, J. & Thompson, B. (1989). Measurement characteristics of the Finding Embedded Figures Test. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 69-78.
984
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS
Purcell, S., Mullington, J., Mofhtt, A., Hoffmann, R. & Pigeau, R. (1986). Dream self-reflectiveness as a learned cognitive skill. Sleep, 9, 423437. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. fsychologicul Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Schechter, N., Schmeidler, G. & Staal, M. (1965). Dream reports and creative tendencies in students of the arts, sciences, and engineering Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29. 4 15-42 1. Snyder, T. J. & Gackenbach, J. (1988). Individual differences associated with lucid dreaming. In Gackenbach, J. & IaBerge, S. (Eds), Conscious mind, sleeping bruin (pp. 221-259). New York: Plenum Press. Stem, D., Saayman, G. S. & Touyz, S. W. (1983). The effect of an experimentally induced demand on nocturnal dream content. Journal of Mental Imagery, 7, 15-32. Thompson, B. & Melancon, J. G. (1987).Finding Embedded Figures Test. New Orleans: Psychometrics Group. Willoughby, R. H. (1967).Field-dependence and locus of control. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 67 l-672. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R. & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: studies in development. New York: Wiley. Wolpin, M., Marston, A., Randolph, C. & Clothier, A. (1992). Individual difference correlates of reported lucid dreaming frequency and control. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16, 231-236. Wood, J., Sebba, D. &Domino, G. (1989-90). Docreative people have more bizarre dreams? A reconsideration. Imagination. Cognition und Personality. 9. 3-16.