Content uploaded by Nicolas Zink
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicolas Zink on Nov 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Nicolas Zink
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicolas Zink on Aug 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013)98
D
IJoR
1. Introduction
Lucid dreaming is dened as the fact that a dreamer is
aware that he is dreaming while dreaming (e.g., LaBerge,
1987, Spoormaker & van den Bout, 2006). Tholey and
Utecht (1997) added more criteria to this phenomenon
such as awareness of freedom of decision, memory of the
waking state, and full intellectual abilities. However, only
very few of all lucid dreams seem to fulll all of Tholey and
Utecht´s criteria (Barret, 1992). An Austrian representative
survey by Stepansky, Holzinger, Schmeiser-Rieder, Saletu,
Kunze & Zeitlhofer (1998) showed that 26% of the sample
had experienced the phenomenon of lucid dreaming. In an-
otherstudy, 82% of an unselected student sample reported
having experience with becoming aware that they were in
a dream (Schredl & Erlacher, 2004) and in a representa-
tive German sample 51% of the participants reported that
they had experienced a lucid dream at least once (Schredl
& Erlacher, 2011). Nevertheless, only 0.3% to 0.7% of all
recalled dreams seem to be related to this specic state of
mind (Barret, 1991; Zadra, Donderi & Phil, 1992). Applica-
tions of lucid dreaming are for example training of complex
actions in lucid dreams (Tholey & Utecht, 1997) and its rel-
evance in psychotherapy, especially as an effective night-
mare treatment (Brylowski, 1990, Schriever, 1934, Zarda &
Pihl, 1997). Studies have found that lucid dreamers have a
higher internal locus of control, need for cognition, and they
are more creative than non-lucid dreamers (Blagrove & Hart-
nell, 1998; Blagrove & Tucker, 1994; Gackenbach, Heilman,
Boyt & LaBerge, 1985; Galvin, 1990). We suggest that all
these aspects of cognition could be related to lucid dreams
as they represent cognitive complexity and exibility
Creativity appears to be an important variable associated
with lucid dreaming. In a eld study, Stumbrys and Daniels
(2010) provide some evidence that lucid dreaming may con-
tribute to problem solving when dealing with more creative
rather than logical tasks. Both, frequent and occasional
lucid dreamers reported higher scores of creative person-
ality (Blagrove & Hartnell, 1998). Also, individuals with thin
boundaries were reported to be more creative (Hartmann,
1989; 1991). As to creative dreams, Schredl and Erlacher
(2007) found that the main factors inuencing frequency of
creative dreams were DRF and the thin boundaries person-
ality dimension. Creativity can be described as the ability to
a ‘new combination of information’ (Holm-Hadulla, 2011).
Measuring creativity or creative personality proves to be dif-
cult because of the diversity of existing denitions (Baron
& Harrington, 1981). According to Baron and Harrington
(1981), a differentiation has to be made between creativity
as a socially valuable product in order to call an act or a per-
son creative and creativity as being intrinsically valuable, so
nothing of demonstrable social value needs to be produced,
such as creativity of dreams, thoughts, imaginative expres-
sion or the curiosity of a child. Another differentiation can
be made with regard to the type of creative performance,
such as the difculty of the problem solved, the elegance
or beauty of the product, or the impact of its consequences
(Baron & Harrington, 1981). Furthermore, one must differ-
entiate between creativity as an achievement, creativity as
an ability, and creativity as a disposition or attitude (Baron &
Harrington, 1981). Rhodes (1961) described four basic ele-
Relationship between lucid dreaming, creativity
and dream characteristics
Nicolas Zink & Reinhard Pietrowsky
Department of Clinical Psychology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
Corresponding address:
Reinhard Pietrowsky, Henrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf,
Klinische Psychologie, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Düsseldorf,
Germany.
Email: R.Pietrowsky@hhu.de
Submitted for publication: June 2013
Accepted for publication: October 2013
Summary. Lucid dreaming is the ability of a dreamer to become aware that he is dreaming and to possibly change some
aspects of his current dream. This ability is associated with higher creativity and a proclivity for divergent thinking. Be-
tween subjects, dreams have different structural characteristics, such as the incorporation of daytime events, aversive
dream content, or dream recall frequency (DRF). This study aimed to investigate the relationship between lucid dream-
ing, creativity and dream characteristics like aversive dream content, personal signicance, dream recall, incorporation
of daytime events and great dreams. A total of 334 participants took part in an online study. The results show that lucid
dreamers scored higher on the creative personality scale of the Adjective Checklist and reported a higher DRF than
non-lucid dreamers. As to the dream structure, lucid dreamers were more likely to incorporate daytime events into their
dreams, and their dreams had a higher personal signicance than those of non-lucid dreamers. Furthermore, substantial
gender differences were found in DRF and other dream characteristics. The results conrm the relationship between
lucid dreaming and creativity and indicate that lucid dreamers differ from non-lucid dreamers in their general dream
structure.
Keywords: Lucid dreaming, dreams, creativity, dream recall frequency, dream characteristics, gender effects
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013) 99
D
IJoR
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
ments of creativity: The creative person, the creative pro-
cess, the creative product and the creative environment. As
a measure of the creative personality the Adjective Checklist
(ACL, Gough, 1983), which was used in this study, focuses
on Rhode’s rst basic element, the creative person.
Just as dream contents can be described and classied
(e.g. Hall & van de Castle, 1966), other dream characteristics
like dream recall frequency (DRF), personal signicance of
dreams, incorporation of daytime evens, the sensory quality
of the dream, aversive dreams, and great dreams can be
classied as well. These dream characteristics, which are
assessed in part with different dream inventories, consti-
tute what is termed as dream structure in the following. An
outstanding dream characteristic is the DRF. Several fac-
tors are associated with DRF. In a comparison of four repre-
sentative German samples, a substantial gender difference
in DRF could be demonstrated, with higher DRF in women
than men (Schredl & Piel, 2002). Likewise, individuals with
thin boundaries (Hartmann, 1989; 1991) have a higher DRF
(Aumann, Lahl & Pietrowsky, 2012; Pietrowsky & Köthe,
2003; Schredl & Piel, 2002). A higher DRF was also associ-
ated with a greater impact of dreams on waking behavior
the next day.
There are also gender differences for different variables of
dream structure. Studies have shown that females exhibit a
higher DRF and a stronger impact of dreams on the waking
state on the next day (Brand, Beck, Kalak, Gerber, Kirov,
Pühse, Hatzinger & Holsboer-Trachsler, 2011). A multiple re-
gression analysis in that study indicated that female gender,
sleep quality and creativity are predictors of a higher DRF.
Hartmann (1991) found that females have thinner boundar-
ies than males, which may account for more frequent incor-
poration of daily events into their dreams.
Several instruments have been developed to measure the
structure and characteristics of dreams. These question-
naires assess variables such as dream importance, DRF
(Schredl, 2002a, 2002b, 2004), dream vividness (Kallmeyer
& Chang, 1997), attitude towards dreams (Schredl, Nürn-
berg, & Weiler, 1996), the emotional and narrative content
of signicant dreams (Kuiken, Lee, Eng & Singh, 2006) or
dream intensity (Yu, 2008). Data obtained with the above-
mentioned questionnaires revealed that dreams of individu-
als can be differentiated by those variables, such as DRF
and attitude towards dreams (Schredl, Ciric, Götz & Witt-
mann, 2003), emotional and narrative content of impactful
dreams (Eng, Kuiken, Temme & Sharma, 2005), or dream
intensity (Yu, 2008, 2010).
The Düsseldorf Dream Inventory (DDI), which was devel-
oped by the authors based on an item and factor analy-
sis procedure (Aumann et al., 2012; Pietrowsky, Zink &
Schmitz, unpublished) is another questionnaire for assess-
ing dream structure. It includes a sleep quality scale (sleep
duration, time to sleep onset, nocturnal awakenings, intake
of tranquilizer or sleeping pills, alcohol consumption, sub-
jective sleep restfulness and light sleep) and the ve dream
structure scales “aversive dream contents”, “personal sig-
nicance” (of the dream), “dream recall”, “incorporation” (of
daytime events into the dream) and “great dreams” (dreams
with elements of wishful thinking, fullling desires and
gaining happiness). Using a preceding version of the DDI,
Aumann et al. (2012) found that DRF is associated with a
higher dream intensity and greater personal signicance of
dreams.
The aim of the present study was to examine the relation-
ship between lucid dreaming and creativity and their asso-
ciation with structural aspects of dreaming. As discussed
earlier, lucid dreamers were expected to report more cre-
ativity than non-lucid dreamers. With regard to the high as-
sociation between lucid dreaming and DRF (e.g., Schredl
& Erlacher, 2004, 2011), it was proposed that lucid dream-
ers have a higher personal signicance of dreams, because
their dream characteristics and dream recognition may lead
to an intensive occupation with dreams. Since some lucid
dreamers can change elements in their dreams, fewer aver-
sive dreams and more great dreams were expected in lucid
dreamers compared to non-lucid dreamers. Gender differ-
ences were expected in a higher DRF and a higher personal
signicance of dreams with more impact on the next day.
Considering the possibility that not only the ability to have
lucid dreams but also their frequency has an impact on the
results, a differentiation between frequent and occasional
lucid dreaming was made, because differences between
frequent and non-lucid dreamers are assumed to be more
signicant than between occasional lucid dreamers and
non-lucid dreamers.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
All 334 participants were recruited for the pseudonymous
online study via social networks and the mailing list of the
University of Düsseldorf E-mail system. Participants who re-
ported depression, other mental disorders or the intake of
benzodiazepines in the online questionnaire were excluded
since they may have alterations in their sleep quantity and
quality which may affect dreaming and dream structure.
Thus, 36 participants were excluded. Data from the remain-
ing 298 participants (240 female, 58 male; mean age 23.66
years, SD ±5.71 years), who were mostly students, were in-
cluded in the analysis. Psychology students received credit
for participating in the study and three randomly chosen
participants received book tokens as gratication.
2.2. Instruments
Several demographic items (gender, age, education, occu-
pation, mental disorders) and sleep quality (by the respec-
tive DDI scales) were assessed for the description of the
sample and the exclusion of participants not fullling the
inclusion criteria (mental disorders, intake of tranquillizers or
sleeping pills) by self-report. In order to assess lucid dream-
ing, we rst formulated a denition of lucid dreams: ‘Lucid
dreams are dreams, in which the dreaming person becomes
aware of being in a dream and intentionally changes certain
elements.’ This denition comprises the common criteria for
lucid dreaming, as well as two of Tholey and Utecht’s (1997)
criteria. This denition is more strict than in most other stud-
ies. An additional item was used to measure the frequency
of lucid dreams. The answer options were ‘at least once a
month’ (frequent), ‘once in a lifetime, but less than once in a
month’ (occasional), and ‘never’.
DRF in general was assessed by the item ‘How many
dreams do you remember over the last four weeks?’ A cut-
off was set at 30 dreams to prevent outliers from biasing
DRF mean scores.
Creativity was measured using the creativity scale (Smith
& Schaefer, 1969) of the Adjective Checklist (ACL; Gough &
Heilbrun, 1965). The ACL is a list of 300 adjectives contain-
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013)100
D
IJoR
ing 37 scales for a systematic, comprehensive and sum-
marizing method to measure self-description by adjectives.
The creativity scale does not assess creativity per se but is
an implicit self-description of a creative personality by ad-
jectives. The creativity scale of the ACL was empirically de-
veloped and cross-validated to gain adjectives that indicate
different aspects of creative thinking and behavior (Domino,
1970). It contains 30 items with 18 positive and 12 nega-
tive items (Gough, 1979). As no German translation of the
ACL was available, the adjectives were translated into Ger-
man by the rst author (N.Z.). After retranslation by a native
English speaker, synonyms were checked and corrected.
Participants were instructed to read all 300 adjectives and
check the ones that describe their personality (not how they
wish to be); they were also advised not to spend too much
time checking individual ACL items.
Dream structure was accessed using a revised 43-item
version of the DDI (Pietrowsky, Zink & Schmitz, unpub-
lished). The actual version of the DDI consists of 36 items
to assess dream structure and seven items to assess sleep
quality. The sleep quality items include sleep duration, time
to sleep onset, nocturnal awakenings, intake of tranquil-
izer or sleeping pills, alcohol consumption, subjective sleep
restfulness and light sleep. The 36 dream structure items
have factor loadings on ve scales (in descending order of
variance explained by the factor: Aversive dream content,
personal signicance, dream recall, incorporation and great
dreams). In addition to the scores on each of the ve fac-
tors a total DDI score can be calculated which indicates a
general strong occupation with the dreams and a high sub-
jective signicance of dreaming. The scale aversive dream
content consists out of 8 items (e.g.‘I have nightmares’,’ I
dream about personal failure’,’ I dream about threats’), the
scale personal signicance consists out of 10 items (e.g.
positive items like ‘my dream are messages from subcon-
sciousness’, ‘my dreams are a gate to a spiritual world’ or
negative items like ‘interpretation of dreams is waste of
time’,’ my dreams have no special signicance for my life.’),
the scale dream recall consists out of 7 items (e.g. positive
items like ‘I can remember my dreams after waking’,’ I can
recall many details of my dreams’ or negative items like ‘I
usually awake from a deep and dreamless sleep’ ‘I usually
quickly forget what I dreamed’), the scale incorporation con-
sists out of 8 items (e.g. ‘I dream about things I experienced
the day before’; ‘stress has an inuence on my dreams’; ‘if
I was anxious in a situation, I dream about it’) and the scale
great dreams consists out of 3 items (e.g. ‘in my dreams
my personal wishes come true; I have dreams that are so
beautiful that I wish they become reality’).
2.3. Data Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare cre-
ativity, DRF and the DDI scores between the three groups
of participants (frequent lucid dreamers, occasional lucid
dreamers, non-lucid dreamers). Subsequent t-Tests served
to identify signicant differences between each two groups
of participants. In addition, the lucid dreamers (frequent an
occasional) were collapsed to the group of lucid dreamers
and contrasted with non-lucid dreamers by t-Tests. Gender
differences for all measures were tested by t-Tests for in-
dependent samples. All analyses were performed with IBM
SPSS Statistics.Version 21.
3. Results
Of the total of 298 participants, 85 (28.5%) reported no lu-
cid dreams, 142 (47.7%) reported occasional lucid dreams,
and 71 (23.8%) had frequent lucid dreams (at least once in
a month).
Creativity did not differ signicantly between the three
groups of participants; F(2,295) = 2.33, p = .099. In the
subsequent comparison, lucid dreamers (frequent and oc-
casional) had signicantly higher creativity sores when con-
trastet to non-lucid dreamers; t(295) = 2.08, p = .038 (see
Table 1).
Comparing the mean frequencies of dream recall during
the last four weeks (Table 1), the three groups of partici-
pants differed in DRF, F(2,290) = 5.08, p = .007. Subsequent
t-Tests between each two groups revealed that both, fre-
quent and occasional lucid dreamers had a higher DRF
compared to non-lucid dreamers; t(150) = 2.70, p = .008;
t(222) = 3.02, p = .003, respectively. The pattern was slightly
different for the DDI scale “dream recall” (Table 1). The ANO-
VA also revealed a signicant group effect, F(2,295) = 3.18,
p = .043. But subsequent contrasts showed that frequent
Table 1. Means ( ± SD) of personal creativity scores, dream recall frequency (DRF) and measures of dream structure in lucid
and non-lucid dreamers
Variable Frequent Lucid
Dreamers (N = 71)
Occasional Lucid
Dreamers (N = 142)
All Lucid Dreamers
(N = 213)
Non-Lucid
Dreamers (N = 85)
Creativity 55.76 ± 9.94 55.02 ± 8.59 55.27 ± 9.05 52.90 ± 8.15
DRF 7.07 ± 6.52 6.88 ± 5.90 6.94 ± 6.09 4.54 ± 5.05
Dream Structure
Aversive Dream Content 20.07 ± 8.05 19.97 ± 7.36 20.00 ± 7.58 20.20 ± 7.15
Personal Signicance 24.59 ± 7.36 23.02 ± 6.40 23.54 ± 6.76 22.66 ± 6.26
Dream Recall 22.07 ± 5.92 20.14 ± 5.97 20.78 ± 6.01 19.73 ± 6.75
Incorporation 24.62 ± 6.26 24.77 ± 6.11 24.72 ± 6.15 23.14 ± 6.34
Great Dreams 8.66 ± 3.20 7.62 ± 2.86 7.96 ± 3.01 7.36 ± 3.15
Total DDI Score 100.01 ± 21.53 95.52 ± 19.82 97.02 ± 20.47 93.09 ± 18.83
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013) 101
D
IJoR
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
lucid dreamers scored signicantly higher than non-lucid
dreamers and occasional lucid dreamers; ; t(154) = 2.28, p
= .024; t(211) = 2.23, p = .027, respectively.
Scores on the DDI scale “aversive dream contents” (Table
1) were not affected by lucid dreaming), as was the “per-
sonal signicance” scale of the DDI; F(2,295) = 0.25, p = .98;
F(2,295) = 1.89, p = .15, respectively (see Table 1).
No signicant differences were also observed for the DDI
scale “incorporation” between the three groups of partici-
pants, F(2,295) = 1.98, p = .14, However, comparing the
collapsed group of lucid dreamers with non-lucid dream-
ers revealed signicantly higher scores for lucid dreamers;
t(296) = 1.99, p = .048 (see Table 1).
For the DDI scale “great dreams” a signicant group ef-
fect was observed; F(2,295) = 4.03, p = .019. Subsequent
t-Tests revealed that frequent lucid dreamers scored high-
er on this scale than either occasional lucid dreamers or
non-lucid dreamers; t(211) = 2.43, p = .016; t(154) = 2.54,
p = .012 (see Table 1).
The total DDI scores (Table 1) were not affected by lucid
dreaming; F(2,295) = 2.37, p = .095.
Regarding gender differences (Table 2) no signicant dif-
ferences were observed for lucid dream frequency. No gen-
der difference was found for creativity; t(295) = 0.15, n.s.;
while DRF was higher in females compared to males as was
“dream recall” scale; t(291) = 1.70, p < .05; t(296) = 3.02,
p < .01, respectively. A highly signicant gender difference
was observed for the total DDI score, females scoring high-
er than males, t(296) = 4.21, p < .001. Females also scored
higher on the aversive dreams scale; t(296) = 3.28, p < .001;
and incorporation; t(296) = 7.33, p < .001; but there was no
difference on the personal signicance scale; t(296) = 1.08,
n.s.. Finally, males scored higher than females on the great
dream scale.
4. Discussion
The present study showed that lucid dreamers have a high-
er degree of creativity than non-lucid dreamers. In addition,
the number of dreams recalled within the last four weeks
was higher in frequent and occasional lucid dreamers than
non-lucid dreamers. Dream recall frequency assessed by
the DDI, in addition, revealed that frequent lucid dreamers
recalled more dreams that occasional lucid dreamers. Note,
however, the dream recall scale of the DDI covers a wider
range of aspects than just the DRF. Lucid dreamers scored
higher than non-lucid dreamers on the incorporation scale
of the DDI. Moreover, frequent lucid dreamers scored higher
than non-lucid dreamers and occasional lucid dreamers on
the DDI subscale great dreams. . Females have a higher
DRF, more aversive dream content and incorporations in
dreams and fewer great dreams than males. The fact that
females also had a higher total DDI score suggests that their
dreams are experienced more intensely than is the case for
male participants.
Roughly 24% of the participants reported having a lucid
dream at least once a month and about 48% having at least
one lucid dream in their lifetime. These data corroborate the
ndings of Schredl and Erlacher (2004), in which also a stu-
dent sample displayed 82% of lucid dreamers. In a more re-
cent study by Schredl and Erlacher (2011), in a representa-
tive German survey, 51 % of the participants reported lucid
dreams as least once in lifetime, which is close to the 48 %
of participants in the present study, reporting at least one
lucid dream in their life. With regard to creativity, DRF and
incorporation, both frequent and occasional lucid dreamers
differ signicantly from those individuals who reported no
lucid dreams. This leads to the conclusion that the funda-
mental capacity to have lucid dreams (irrespective of the
actual occurrence of lucid dreams) has an impact on dream
structure, dream recall and creativity.
Furthermore, individuals who had frequent lucid dreams
had higher scores in the DDI scales dream recall and great
dreams than occasional lucid dreamers, so it can be sup-
posed that these measures of dream structure are affected
not only by the ability to have lucid dreams, but also by their
frequency. The results thus indicate that creativity, DRF and
incorporation of daily events into dreams are associated
with the ability to have lucid dreams, while their frequency
has less impact, except of the DDI subscales “dream recall
and “great dreams”. There was no signicant gender differ-
ence between lucid and non-lucid dreamers.
The result that lucid dreamers are more creative than non-
lucid dreamers conrms the earlier ndings of Blagrove &
Hartnell (1998), probably displaying underlying cognitive
processes like cognitive complexity and exibility, which
could lead to more creativity and the capacity for lucid
dreaming. Gruber, Steffen and Vonderhaar (1995) showed
that the global factor “independence” of the 16-PF Ques-
tionnaire (Costa & McCrae, 1985) could reliably distinguish
between frequent, occasional and non-lucid dreamers,
those who score high on this factor exhibit initiative, while
low scores are associated with passiveness and the need
for external support. Gruber et al. (1995) assumed higher
independence scores to be associated with the ability of
self-reection and more intentional control while dreaming,
due to a better regulation of emotions in the wake state (Bla-
grove & Hartnell, 1998).
Table 2. Frequency of lucid dreams (%) and means (±SD) of
personal creativity scores, dream recall frequency
and measures of dream structure in male and
female participants
Variable Males Females
Lucid Dream Frequency
Frequent lucid dreams 29.3% 28.3%
Occasional lucid dreams 41.4% 49.2%
No lucid dreams 29.3% 22.5%
Creativity 54.44 ± 8.13 54.64 ± 9.03
DRF 5.07 ± 5.96 6.55 ± 5.87
Dream Structure
Aversive Dream Content 17.22 ± 6.20 20.75 ± 7.57
Personal Signicance 22.45 ± 7.38 23.50 ± 6.43
Dream Recall 18.29 ± 6.01 21.01 ± 6.19
Incorporation 19.31 ± 5.15 25.47 ± 5.88
Great Dreams 8.95 ± 3.46 7.51 ± 2.89
Total DDI Score 86.22 ± 19.64 98.24 ± 19.46
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013)102
D
IJoR
The higher DRF of lucid dreamers, which was previously
found in another study by Schredl and Erlacher (2007), might
be due to the fact that lucid dreams can more often be re-
called. Furthermore the ability to recall more dreams can be
part of the ability to have lucid dreams or vice versa. In addi-
tion, it may be possible that lucid dreams are regarded with
more signicance than non-lucid dreams. This assumption
supports the nding that lucid dreamers score higher than
non-lucid dreamers on the DDI scale incorporation.
The higher score on DDI scale “incorporation” in lucid
dreamers compared to non-lucid dreamers may imply that
the rst experience more impact of the waking state on
dreams. Together with the DDI scale “personal signicance”
these two subscales reect the boundaries between dream-
ing and waking and how they affect each other. In terms
of validity, the content of those scales corresponds to the
concept of boundary structure (Hartmann, 1989, 1991). In
line with this, Aumann et al. (2012) found that individuals
with thin boundaries have a higher DRF than those with
thick boundaries. They also described their dreams as be-
ing more personally signicant, bizarre and aversive. The
present study shows that incorporation scores were higher
for those who reported lucid dreams regardless of their fre-
quency. The results concerning great dreams correspond to
the dream contents of frequent lucid dreamers, who devel-
oped greater control over dreams, so that aversive dream
content was reduced and great dreams were increased (La-
Berge, 1987).
Gender differences like the higher DRF for females con-
rm earlier ndings (Brand et al., 2001; Schredl & Piel, 2002).
Females also scored higher on the total DDI as well as on
the subscales aversive dream contents, incorporation, and
dream recall. Males only scored higher on the DDI subscale
great dreams. Thus, the same pattern arises between the
genders and between lucid and non-lucid dreamers: fe-
males and frequent lucid dreamer have a higher DRF and
more incorporation in their dreams. Possible associations
between these ndings require further examination. Higher
DRF may lead to more incorporation and vice versa, or else
a third variable leads to higher scores in dream character-
istics and is associated with lucid dreaming such as the
boundary structure (Hartmann, 1989; 1991). In addition, the
similarities between gender differences and differences in
lucid dreaming lend support to the hypothesis of some un-
derlying genetic predisposition. However, gender differenc-
es in cognitive exibility and creativity have not been found
in other gender studies (Baer & Kaufmann, 2008).
Although the present study was undertaken in a rather
big sample of participants there are several limitations of
the study which affect its generalizability. First, the study
was undertaken online and thus this sample is self-selected
probably due to interest in lucid dreaming. This bears an
overestimation or bias of the number of lucid dreamers. Ad-
ditionally, no control on the correctness of the data is given
in an online survey. However, a large portion of participants
have been undergraduate psychology students which re-
ceived credits for participation. For those subjects a bias
due to personal interest in lucid dreaming can be negligi-
ble. Second, there are a rather small number of male par-
ticipants which may also weaken the representativeness of
the study. Third, creativity was measured indirectly by self-
description as a personality trait and not as a performance
measure. This may weaken the generalizability of the results
with other studies on creativity, which used the more com-
mon performance measures. Last, our denition of lucidity
is more strict, than in most other studies since we included
the criterion to intentionally take inuence on the dream (in
addition to being aware of dreaming).
In sum, the present study shows that individuals with lu-
cid dreams differ in self-reported creativity and some dream
characteristics from those who report no lucid dreams.
Whether lucid dreaming is the cause or the consequence of
these dream characteristics is not clear and needs further
examination. As lucid dreamers especially differ from non-
lucid dreamers in those dream characteristics associated
with boundaries or the connectivity between dreaming and
waking states, the interaction of these two states appears to
be a trait of lucid dreaming. The results of this study suggest
that – with the exception of experiencing great dreams – it is
more the ability to have lucid dreams that is associated with
creativity, DRF and other dream characteristics than the fre-
quency of such dreams.
References
Aumann, C., Lahl, O., & Pietrowsky, R. (2012). Relationship be-
tween dream structure, boundary structure and the Big
Five personality dimensions. Dreaming, 22, 124-135.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C. (2006). Gender differences in creativ-
ity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75-105
Barrett, D. (1991). Flying dreams and lucidity. Dreaming, 1, 129-
134.
Barrett, D. (1992). Just how lucid are lucid dreams? Dreaming,
2, 221-228.
Blagrove, M. & Hartnell, S. J. (1998). Lucid dreaming: associa-
tions with internal locus of control, need for cognition
and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences,
28, 41-47.
Blagrove, M. & Tucker, M. (1994). Individual differences in locus
of control in the reporting of lucid dreaming. Personality
and Individual Differences, 16, 981-984.
Brand, S., Beck, J., Kalak, N., Gerber, M., Kirov, R., Pühse, U.,
Hatzinger, M., & Holsboer-Trachsler, E. (2011). Dream
recall and its relationship to sleep, perceived stress,
and creativity among adolescents. Journal of Adoles-
cent Health, 49, 525-531.
Brylowski, A. (1990). Nightmares in crisis: Clinical applications
of lucid dreaming techniques. Psychiatric Journal of the
University of Ottawa, 15, 79-84
Charlton, S. & Bakan, P. (1990). Creativity and physiognomic
perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 11,
419-420.
Domino, G. (1970). Identication of potentially creative persons
from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48-51.
Eng, T., Kuiken, D., Temme, K., & Sharma, R. (2005). Navigating
the emotional complexities of two cultures: Bicultural
competence, feeling expression, and feeling change in
dreams. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychol-
ogy, 3, 3-4
Gackenbach, J., Heilman, N., Boyt, S., & LaBerge, S. (1985).
The relationship between eld independence and lucid
dreaming ability. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 9-20.
Galvin, F. (1990). The boundary characteristics of lucid dream-
ers. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 15,
73-78.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjec-
tive Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 37, 1398-1405.
Gough, H. G. & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The Adjective Check List
Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
International Journal of Dream Research Volume 6, No. 2 (2013) 103
D
IJoR
Lucid dreaming, creativity and dream characteristics
Gruber, R. E., Steffen, J. J., &Vonderhaar, S. P. (1995). Lucid
dreaming, waking personality and cognitive develop-
ment. Dreaming, 5, 1-12.
Hall, C. S. & Van De Castle, R. L. (1966). The content analysis of
dreams. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hartmann, E. (1989). Boundaries of dreams, boundaries of
dreamers: thin and thick boundaries as a new personal-
ity dimension. Psychiatric Journal of the University of
Ottawa, 14, 557-560.
Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the Mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2011). Kreativität zwischen Schöpfung
und Zerstörung: Konzepte aus Kulturwissenschaften,
Psychologie, Neurobiologie und ihre praktischen An-
wendungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kallmeyer, R. J., & Chang, E. C. (1997). The Multidimensional
Dream Inventory: Preliminary evidence for validity and
reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 803-808.
Kuiken, D., Lee, M. N., Eng, T., & Singh, T. (2006) The inuence
of impactful dreams on self-perceptual depth and spiri-
tual transformation. Dreaming, 16, 258-279.
LaBerge, S. P. (1987). Hellwach im Traum. Paderborn: Junfer-
mann-Verlag.
Pietrowsky, R. & Köthe, M. (2003). Personal boundaries and
nightmare consequences in frequent nightmare suffer-
ers. Dreaming, 13, 245-254.
Pietrowsky, R., Zink, N. & Schmitz, A. (2013). Development of
the Düsseldorf Dream Inventory. (unpublished manu-
script).
Schredl, M. (2002a). Messung der Traumerinnerung: siebenstu-
ge Skala und Daten gesunder Personen. Somnologie,
6, 34–38.
Schredl, M. (2002b). Questionnaires and diaries as research
instruments in dream research: methodological issues.
Dreaming, 12, 17–15.
Schredl, M. (2004). Reliability and stability of a dream recall fre-
quency scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1422-
1426.
Schredl, M. & Erlacher, D. (2004). Lucid dreaming frequency
and personality, Personality and Individual Differences,
37, 1463-1473.
Schredl, M., & Erlacher, D. (2007). Self-reported effects of
dreams on waking-life creativity: An empirical study.
Journal of Psychology, 141, 35–46.
Schredl, M., & Erlacher, D. (2011). Frequency of lucid dreaming
in a representative German sample. Perceptual and Mo-
tor Skills, 112, 104–108.
Schredl, M., Ciric, P., Götz, S., & Wittmann, L. (2003). Dream re-
call frequency, attitudes towards dreams and openness
to experience. Dreaming, 13, 145-153.
Schredl, M., & Piel, E. (2003). Gender differences in dream re-
call: Data from four representative German samples.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1185-1189.
Schredl, M., Nürnberg, C., & Weiler, S. (1996). Dream recall, at-
titude toward dreams, and personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 20, 613–618.
Schriever, W. (1934). Einige Traumbeobachtungen. Zeitschrift
für Psychologie, 34, 349–371.
Spoormaker, V.I. & van den Bout, J. (2006). Lucid dreaming
treatment for nightmares: A pilot study. Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics, 75, 389-394.
Smith, J. M. & Schaefer, C. E. (1969). Development of a cre-
ativity scale for the Adjective Check List. Psychological
Reports, 25, 87-92.
Stepansky, R. Holzinger, B., Schmeiser-Rieder, A., Saletu, B.,
Kunze, M. & Zeitlhofer, J. (1998). Austrian dream be-
havior: results of a representative population survey.
Dreaming, 8, 23-30
Stumbrys, T., & Daniels, M. (2010). An exploratory study of cre-
ative problem solving in lucid dreams: Preliminary nd-
ings and methodological considerations. International
Journal of Dream Research, 3, 121–129.
Tholey, P. & Utecht, K. (1997). Schöpferisch träumen – Der Klar-
traum als Lebenshilfe. Niedernhausen: Klotz.
Yu, C., K.-C. (2008). Dream intensity Inventory and Chinese
people´s dream experience frequencies. Dreaming, 18,
94-111.
Yu, C., K.-C. (2010a). Dream intensity prole as an indicator
of the hysterical tendencies to dissociation and conver-
sion, Dreaming, 20, 184-198.
Yu, C., K.-C. (2010b). Dream intensity scale: Factors in the phe-
nomenological analysis of dreams. Dreaming, 20, 107-
129
Zadra, A. L. & Pihl, R. O. (1997). Lucid dreaming as a treatment
for recurrent nightmares. Psychotherapy and Psycho-
somatics, 66, 50-55.
Zadra, A. L., Donderi, D. C. & Pihl, R. O. (1992). Efcacy of
lucid dream induction for lucid and non-lucid dreamers.
Dreaming, 2, 85-97.