Abstract

Lucid dreaming (LD) is awareness that one is dreaming, during the dream state. However, some define and assess LD relying also on controlling dream events, although control is present only in a subset of lucid dreams. LD has been claimed to represent well-being, and has even been used as a therapeutic agent. Conversely, LD is associated with mixed sleep-wake states, which are related to bizarre cognitions, stress, and psychopathology, and have been construed as arousal permeating and disrupting sleep. We propose that previous conflicting findings regarding relations between LD and both psychopathology and well-being, stem from the non-differentiated assessment of frequency and control. The present study aimed to develop an expansive measure of several LD characteristics (the Frequency and Intensity Lucid Dream questionnaire; FILD), and explore their relations with symptomatology. Undergraduate students (N = 187) self-reported trait LD, psychopathology (depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, dissociation, and schizotypy), stress, and sleep problems; 2 months later, a subsample (n = 78) reported psychopathology again, and also completed a dream diary each morning for 14 days. Preliminary evidence supports the reliability and validity of the FILD. Items converged into four domains: frequency, intensity (e.g., control, activity, certainty of dreaming), emotional valence, and the use of induction techniques. We report an optimal frequency cutoff score to identify those likely to experience LD within a 2-week period. Whereas LD frequency was unrelated to psychopathology, LD intensity, and positive LD emotions, were inversely associated with several psychopathological symptoms. Use of deliberate induction techniques was positively associated with psychopathology and sleep problems. Additionally, we demonstrated directionality by employing a prospective-longitudinal design, showing that deliberate LD induction predicted an increase in dissociation and schizotypy symptoms across 2 months. We conclude that lucidity should not be considered as necessarily suggestive of well-being; LD may be positive or negative, depending on lucidity characteristics. Additionally, deliberate LD induction may harbor negative long-term risk.

Highlights

  • Lucid dreaming (LD) is dreaming while being aware that one is in the dream state; La Berge et al (1981) have empirically recorded this phenomenon by demonstrating that lucid dreamers may signal their awareness in the midst of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep

  • We propose that understanding the relationships of LD with well-being versus distress should rely on the examination of different LD aspects

  • Part I: Development and Validation of the FILD Questionnaire (H1) Lucid dreaming: intensity and frequency In this study, we developed the Frequency and Intensity of Lucid Dreams questionnaire (FILD), included in full in

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Lucid dreaming (LD) is dreaming while being aware that one is in the dream state; La Berge et al (1981) have empirically recorded this phenomenon by demonstrating that lucid dreamers may signal their awareness in the midst of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Among children and adolescents, only 37% were regularly able to change or control events in their lucid dreams (Voss et al, 2012). Assessment with a single item may overlook important aspects of LD. A slightly longer scale is the LD factor of the Iowa Sleep Experiences Survey (ISES; Watson, 2001), which includes three items, assessing both awareness and control, summed up to a single LD frequency score. Superior to 1-item assessments, merging the 3 items to a single score may overlook complexity in LD phenomenology. Others have addressed issues such as whether one continued to dream after achieving lucidity (Blagrove and Tucker, 1994), experienced lucidity spontaneously or by deliberate induction (Taitz, 2011), or adopted an active or passive attitude toward the dream scenario after achieving lucidity (Stumbrys et al, 2014). Voss et al (2013) combined several such characteristics into a comprehensive LD measure, presenting an appropriate alternative to previous shorter measures

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call