Article

Imagination, Cognition and

Lucid Dreaming Personality: Consciousness in

Theory, Research, and Clinical
Practice
Frequency and the Big 2017, Vol. 36(3) 240–253
! The Author(s) 2016
Five Personality Factors Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0276236616648653
journals.sagepub.com/home/ica
Gabriela Hess1, Michael Schredl1, and
Anja S. Goritz2

Abstract
Lucid dreaming frequency varies strongly among individuals and, thus, research has
focused on identifying what factors affect this phenomenon. The present study, an
online survey (N ¼ 2,492), focused on the relationship between the Big Five person-
ality dimensions and lucid dreaming frequency. Additionally, the personality correl-
ates of the age of the first lucid dream were investigated. In our sample, a small but
substantial portion of individual differences concerning lucid dreaming frequency was
explained by the Big Five personality factors. Openness to experiences correlated
positively with lucid dreaming frequency, whereas the correlation was negative for
agreeableness. The relationship between neuroticism and lucid dreaming frequency
disappeared when nightmare frequency was controlled. Future researchers should
examine the relationship of the Big Five factors with the attitudes toward and the
contents of lucid dreams. Moreover, longitudinal studies should investigate the lucid
dream socialization of children and the effect of age on the course of interest in lucid
dreaming.

Keywords
lucid dreaming, personality, Big Five factors

1
Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
2
University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Michael Schredl, Central Institute of Mental Health, J 5, Mannheim 68259, Germany.
Email: Michael.Schredl@zi-mannheim.de
Hess et al. 241

Introduction
The term lucid dream is defined as a dream in which the dreamer—while
dreaming—is aware that she or he is dreaming (LaBerge & Rheingold, 1990;
Tholey & Utecht, 1987). The lucid dreamer can then consciously steer and con-
trol some of the events or content of the dream (Snyder & Gackenbach, 1988),
such as flight, transmuting the body, summoning characters, and changing
scenes (Gackenbach & Bosveld, 1989; LaBerge, 1985). In addition to being a
fascinating experience, lucid dreaming can be a useful application for the train-
ing of complex activities (Erlacher & Schredl, 2010; Stumbrys, Erlacher, &
Schredl, 2016) and nightmare treatment (Brylowski, 1990; Zadra & Pihl, 1997).
In a representative German sample (N ¼ 919), 51% of the participants
reported that they had experienced at least one lucid dream in their lives
(Schredl & Erlacher, 2011). About 20% had lucid dreams regularly (once a
month or more frequently; Schredl & Erlacher, 2011) and can, therefore, be
considered as frequent lucid dreamers (Snyder & Gackenbach, 1988).
According to self-reports, spontaneous lucid dreaming could start as early as
3 or 4 years, although it seems to originate most frequently in 12 to 14 year old
adolescents (Stumbrys, Erlacher, Johnson, & Schredl, 2014). After the age of 25,
a spontaneous onset of lucid dreaming appears to be very infrequent (Stumbrys
et al., 2014).
The interindividual differences in lucid dreaming frequency are large (Schredl
& Erlacher, 2011) and, thus, research focused on identifying what factors might
affect the occurrence of lucid dreams would be of value. A variety of factors such
as a need for cognition (Blagrove & Hartnell, 2000), internal locus of control
(Blagrove & Hartnell, 2000), and parameters of the vestibular system
(Gackenbach, Snyder, Rokes, & Sachau, 1986) have been studied. The following
review focuses on the correlations between Big Five personality dimensions and
lucid dreaming frequency (see Table 1).
The two studies (Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Watson, 2001) failed to find a
consistent pattern: In two samples, lucid dreaming frequency was negatively
related to agreeableness and conscientiousness (see Table 1). A significant rela-
tionship between extraversion and openness to experiences and lucid dreaming
was found in one sample, while neuroticism did not correlate with lucid dream-
ing frequency in any sample. Schredl and Erlacher (2004) found that two of the
openness to experience facets (“fantasy,” “ideas”) showed small but significant
correlation coefficients with lucid dream frequency.
Other personality dimensions which can be conceptualized as subdimensions
of the Big Five factor openness to experiences (McCrae, 1994) such as hypnotic
suggestibility (Hoyt, Kihlstrom, & Nadon, 1992), thin boundaries (Galvin, 1990;
Hicks, Bautista, & Hicks, 1999; Schredl & Erlacher, 2004), creativity (Blagrove
& Hartnell, 2000; Zink & Pietrowksy, 2013), and absorption (Schredl &
Erlacher, 2004) were related to lucid dreaming frequency.
242 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

Table 1. Correlations Between Lucid Dreaming Frequency and the Big Five Personality
Dimensions.

Lucid dreaming frequency

Watson (2001) Schredl and Erlacher (2004)

Sample 1 Sample 2 Controlled

Big Five Factors (N ¼ 482) (N ¼ 466) N ¼ 439 for DRF

Neuroticism .02 .03 .002 –.007

Extraversion .01 .13* .034 .028
Openness to experience .14* .08 .058 .013
Agreeableness –.11** –.09** –.032 .005
Conscientiousness –.10** –.15* .015 .012
Note. DRF ¼ dream recall frequency.
*p < .01. **p < .05.

To summarize, the findings indicate that there might be small but significant
correlations between some of the Big Five personality factors and lucid dream-
ing frequency. From a methodological viewpoint, it has to be mentioned that
most of the studies (Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Watson, 2001) recruited only
students. So, the question arises whether these findings could be generalized to
population-based samples.
Investigating the relationship between lucid dream frequency and personality
has two aims: First, the simple question is whether interindividual differences in
lucid dream frequency are related to waking-life interindividual differences.
Second, this research can help to identify causal mechanisms, comparable
with genetics (Papatheodorou, Oellrich, & Smedley, 2015): If a risk gene, for
example, for schizophrenia, has been identified, research focuses on possible
pathways how this gene affects the phenotype of schizophrenia. Similar, a posi-
tive finding between a personality dimension and lucid dream frequency can
provide hints for possible causal mechanisms how waking-life behavior and
thoughts can affect lucid dreaming frequency. An illustrative example is the
relationship between video gaming and lucid dreaming with high end gamer
report more lucid dreams (Gackenbach, 2006). This finding supports the idea
that practicing controlling a virtual reality in which the gamer is very much
immersed also increases lucid dreaming. The next logical step would be to con-
duct experimental studies, for example, to train unexperienced persons in video
game playing and test whether lucid dreaming frequency is going up.
The aim of the following study is to examine the relationship between the Big
Five personality dimensions and lucid dreaming frequency in a sample with a
large age range and diverse social backgrounds. Additionally, the personality
correlates of the age of the first lucid dream were investigated.
Hess et al. 243

Method
Research Instruments
For eliciting the lucid dream frequency, an 8-point rating scale was presented
(“How often do you experience so-called lucid dreams (see definition)?”
0 ¼ never, 1 ¼ less than once a year, 2 ¼ about once a year, 3 ¼ about two to
four times a year, 4 ¼ about once a month, 5 ¼ two to three times a month,
6 ¼ about once a week, 7 ¼ several times a week). To ensure a clear understanding
of the phenomenon, a short definition was given:

In a lucid dream, one is aware that one is dreaming during the dream. Thus it is
possible to wake up deliberately, or to influence the action of the dream actively, or
to observe the course of the dream passively.

The retest reliability of the lucid dreaming frequency scale was r ¼ .717 (Schredl,
Berres, Klingauf, Schellhaas, & Göritz, 2014), in a sample of students r ¼ .89
(Stumbrys, Erlacher, & Schredl, 2013a). Furthermore, the age of the first lucid
dream was measured (“If you have experienced lucid dreams, how old were you
when they occurred the first time” “__years”). To obtain the dream recall fre-
quency, a 7-point scale (coded as 0 ¼ never, 1 ¼ less than once a month, 2 ¼ about
once a month, 3 ¼ about two to three times a month, 4 ¼ about once a week,
5 ¼ several times a week, 6 ¼ almost every morning) was presented. The retest
reliability of this scale for an average interval of 8 weeks is high: r ¼ .85
(Schredl, 2004a). To assess nightmare frequency, an 8-point rating scale was
presented (“How often do you experience nightmares?” 0 ¼ never, 1 ¼ less than
once a year, 2 ¼ about once a year, 3 ¼ about two to four times a year, 4 ¼ about
once a month, 5 ¼ about two to three times a month, 6 ¼ about once a week,
7 ¼ several times a week). Retest reliability of the nightmare frequency scale is
high: r ¼ .75 (4 weeks retest interval; Stumbrys et al., 2013a).
The Big Five personality factors were measured with the German version of
the NEO-FFI-30, which includes 30 Items (Körner, Drapeau, et al., 2008). Each
personality factor (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness) were computed as the sum score of the six corres-
ponding items. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of the five scales of
the 30 item version were comparable to those of the 60 item version of the NEO-
FFI and ranged from r ¼ .67 (openness to experience) to r ¼ .81 (neuroticism;
Körner, Geyer, et al., 2008).

Procedure and Participants

Overall, 2,492 persons (1,437 woman, 1,055 men) completed the online survey
between March 23, 2015 and April 8, 2015. The mean age of the sample was
47.75  14.41 years (range: 17–93 years). The link of the study was posted on the
244 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

online panel www.wisopanel.net. Within this panel, persons with an interest in

online studies and with heterogenic demographic backgrounds are registered.
The participation was voluntary and unpaid.
Statistical procedures were carried out with the SAS 9.4 software package for
Windows. An ordinal regression was used for analyzing the effect of different
predictors (the Big Five personality dimensions) on lucid dream recall frequency
controlled for age, sex, and the dream recall frequency. To analyze the influence
of the Big Five personality dimensions on the age of the first lucid dream, a
linear regression was conducted using age, gender, and the lucid dream recall
frequency as control variables. For both analyses, the variables were entered
simultaneously.

Results
The distribution of the lucid dream recall frequency scale is depicted in Table 2.
Among the participants, 58.8% reported that they had experienced a lucid
dream at least once in their lives. According to the terminology (Snyder &
Gackenbach, 1988), 24.7% of the participants are considered to be frequent
lucid dreamers (having a lucid dream once a month or more frequently). The
correlation coefficient between lucid dreaming frequency and dream recall fre-
quency was r ¼ .420 (p < .0001). In Table 3, the means and standard deviations
of the Big Five factors of our present study and the representative population
sample of the NEO-FFI-30 (Körner, Geyer, et al., 2008) are depicted.
In Table 4, the ordinal regression for lucid dream recall frequency using the
Big Five personality factors as predictors is depicted (adj. R2 ¼ .2129; N ¼ 2,491).
The Big Five personality dimension with the largest regression coefficient was
openness to experience. Small but significant relationships were found for the
agreeableness and neuroticism factors. Dream recall frequency showed a strong

Table 2. Lucid dreaming frequency.

Category f %

Several times a week 66 2.65

About once a week 111 4.46
Two or three times a month 194 7.79
About once a month 245 9.84
About two or four times a year 359 14.41
About once a year 193 7.75
Less than once a year 297 11.92
Never 1026 41.19
Note. f ¼ frequency; N ¼ 2,491.
Hess et al. 245

Table 3. The Big Five Factors of the NEO-FFI Representative Population Sample (Körner,
Geyer, et al., 2008) and Our Present Sample.

Körner, Geyer, et al. (2008) Present sample N ¼ 2,491

Scale M SD M SD

Neuroticism 1.52 0.77 1.48 0.91

Extraversion 2.28 0.62 2.10 0.65
Openness to experience 2.04 0.64 2.44 0.74
Agreeableness 2.79 0.65 2.86 0.66
Conscientiousness 2.96 0.62 2.95 0.62

Table 4. Ordinal Regression for Lucid Dreaming Frequency.

Lucid dreaming frequency

Variable SS 2 p

Age –.0570 6.9 <.01

Gender .0107 0.2 .6257
Dream recall frequency .4555 370.9 <.0001
Neuroticism .0608 5.8 <.05
Extraversion .0167 0.5 .4664
Openness to experience .1244 32.2 <.0001
Agreeableness –.0833 13.5 .0002
Conscientiousness –.0234 1.0 .3128
Note. Analysis includes age, gender, dream recall frequency, and all five personality factors entered simul-
taneously, N ¼ 2,480, R2 ¼ .2129.
SS ¼ standardized estimates.

correlation to lucid dream frequency. Nightmare frequency also correlated with

lucid dreaming frequency (r ¼ .365, p < .0001), but if controlled for dream recall
frequency this correlation decreases (r ¼ .202, p < .0001). The relationship
between neuroticism and dream recall frequency vanishes when adding night-
mare frequency to the regression analysis. Further, there was a significant
decline of lucid dream frequency with age, but no significant gender effect.
In the sample, 1,082 participants filled out the relevant item on lucid dream
onset and revealed an average age of their first lucid dream 18.85  12.27 (range:
1–89). The results of the linear regression (adj. R2 ¼ .1814) for the age of the first
lucid dream are shown in Table 5. The largest effect was found for age, showing
that older participants reported an older age of their first lucid dream than
younger participants. Gender was also a significant predictor, that is, women
246 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

Table 5. Linear Regression for the Age of the First Lucid Dream.

Age of the first lucid dream

Variable SS t p

Age .3811 13.25 <.0001

Gender –.0852 –2.9 <.01
Dream recall frequency .0427 1.5 .1245
Neuroticism .0428 1.3 .2061
Extraversion –.0355 –1.2 .2492
Openness to experience –.0271 –1.0 .3401
Agreeableness .0550 1.7 .0821
Conscientiousness .1364 4.5 <.0001
Note. Analysis includes age, gender, dream recall frequency, and all five personality factors
entered simultaneously. N ¼ 1,076, R2 ¼ .1814.
SS ¼ standardized estimates.

report an earlier age onset of lucid dreaming than men. Furthermore, the Big
Five conscientiousness factor correlated with the age of the first lucid dream
which implies that the later a person experiences their first lucid dream the more
conscientiousness they are.

Discussion
The findings indicate that there are small but significant relationships between
lucid dreaming frequency and several Big Five factors, such as neuroticism,
openness to experiences, and agreeableness. This corroborates and also expands
the previous findings in student samples (Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Watson,
2001). Further, the age of the first lucid dream seems to be related to the Big
Five conscientiousness factor. Possible pathways that might underlie these rela-
tionships are suggested.
From a methodological viewpoint, the means and standard deviations of the
Big Five factors in the present sample were similar to the sample of the test
authors (Körner, Geyer, et al., 2008), indicating that the present sample is com-
parable to a population-based sample. Only the scores of the openness to experi-
ences factor were slightly higher in our sample, possibly due to the higher
interest in participating in online surveys.
Another methodological issue is the lucid dreaming definition, presented to
the participants. We focused on the basic feature of lucid dreaming (being aware
while dreaming) which is widely accepted in the literature. On the basis of pre-
vious experiences of our research group, we added the possible implications of
being lucid, like being able to wake up deliberately, control the action, or just
Hess et al. 247

witness the dream as it unfolds because it was helpful for participants unfamiliar
with the term lucid dreaming. In the present study, the personality correlates to
lucid dreaming in general were studied. As there are also large interindividual
differences what lucid dreamers do while been lucid (trying to control the dream
action, just witnessing the unfolding dream, try to awaking themselves if the
dream is too scary), it would be very interesting in future studies to investigate
whether persons with different approaches to their lucid dreams might also differ
in waking personality. Here, the continuity hypothesis of dreaming (Schredl,
2003) focusing on the thematic similarities between waking life and dream con-
tent might come into play, that is, persons who anxious about organizing their
waking life (high conscientiousness scores) might also be more often try to con-
trol the dream action.
The openness to experiences factor showed a stronger positive relationship to
lucid dreaming frequency than in one of the samples of Watson (2001), probably
due to the higher variance—our sample included a larger age range and more
diverse social backgrounds than Watson’s student sample. Our result is in line
with other studies (Blagrove & Hartnell, 2000; Galvin, 1990; Hicks et al., 1999;
Hoyt et al., 1992; Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Zink & Pietrowksy, 2013) showing
that personality dimensions such as hypnotic suggestibility, thin boundaries,
creativity, and absorption which can be conceptualized as subdimensions of
the Big Five openness to experiences factor (McCrae, 1994) are related to
lucid dreaming. A person with high scores at the openness to experiences
factor is described as being imaginative, artistic, sensitive for their inner life,
curious for new ideas and experiences, as well as adventurous and open-minded
(Ostendorf & Angleitner, 2004) and is, therefore, more likely to find out about
lucid dreaming and would eventually practice becoming lucid. Furthermore,
sensitivity for the inner life and imagination could help trigger lucid dreams.
In addition, openness to experience may also be related to an individual’s more
positive attitude toward lucid dreaming, which again would positively affect the
lucid dreaming frequency. This hypothesis should be tested in future studies.
In our sample, the Big Five agreeableness factor was negatively related to
lucid dreaming frequency, confirming previous results by Watson (2001). The
straightforwardness and altruism facets might illuminate this relationship. Lucid
dreamers are more likely to be focused on fulfilling their own needs (Stumbrys
et al., 2014) and less likely to reflect on the needs of others; they might thus be
less agreeable in waking life. To test this idea, future studies could investigate
whether specific contents of lucid dreams are related to waking-life
agreeableness.
The neuroticism factor correlated with lucid dreaming frequency in the pre-
sent sample. This finding goes along with a study by Taitz (2011) who reported
lucid dreaming frequency to be related to depression, which is a facet of neur-
oticism. As the effect of neuroticism disappears when nightmare frequency is
included in the regression analysis, the relationship of neuroticism and lucid
248 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

dreaming frequency is probably mediated by nightmare frequency. The positive

relationship between lucid dreaming frequency and nightmare frequency
(Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Spadafora & Hunt, 1990; Stepansky et al., 1998)
might be explained by nightmares triggering lucidity (Schredl & Erlacher,
2004). It will thus be necessary to control for nightmare frequency in the rela-
tionship between lucid dreaming frequency and neuroticism in future studies.
As has been reported several times (Belicki, Hunt, & Belicki, 1978;
Blackmore, 1982; Hearne, 1978; Schredl & Erlacher, 2004, 2007; Watson,
2001; Wolpin, Marston, Randolph, & Clothies, 1992), dream recall frequency
was also highly correlated with lucid dreaming frequency in the present study.
This makes sense because the chance of recalling a lucid dream could be heigh-
tened by overall higher dream recall (Schredl & Erlacher, 2004) or lucid dreams
could be more likely to be recalled (Zink & Pietrowksy, 2013). Thus, the ability
to recall more dreams can be part of the ability to have lucid dreams or vice
versa (Zink & Pietrowksy, 2013). Since dream recall frequency is related to
openness to experience (Aumann, Lahl, & Pietrowsky, 2012; Hill, Diemer, &
Heaton, 1997; Schredl, 2004b; Watson, 2003), future research concerning lucid
dream frequency and personality should, therefore, control for dream recall
frequency.
In our sample, as well as in previous studies (Schredl et al., 2014; Schredl &
Erlacher, 2011; Schredl & Göritz, 2015), lucid dreaming frequency declined with
age. One possible explanation might be a decline in interest in lucid dreams with
age, but this hypothesis has still to be tested empirically. As personality factors
cannot explain this decline (those factors were statistically controlled for),
another alternative explanation might be age-related changes in prefrontal
cortex activation (Maillet & Rajah, 2013), because the prefrontal cortex plays
an important role in lucid dreaming (Dresler et al., 2012; Stumbrys, Erlacher, &
Schredl, 2013b; Voss, Holzmann, Tuin, & Hobson, 2009). Another possible
explanation might be video gaming and computer gaming which is related to
lucid dream frequency (Gackenbach, 2006), as younger persons are more likely
to be engaged in such activities. As meditation experience is also related to lucid
dream frequency (Hunt & Ogilvie, 1988), this might also serve as an explanation
as younger persons are more likely to meditate (Pollack & Pickel, 2007).
A gender effect on lucid dreaming frequency was not found, confirming per-
vious findings (Gruber, Steffen, & Vonderhaar, 1995; Schredl et al., 2014;
Schredl & Erlacher, 2004; Stepansky et al., 1998; Watson, 2001; Zink &
Pietrowksy, 2013). Since women tend to recall dreams more often than men
(Schredl & Reinhard, 2008) and dream recall frequency correlates highly with
lucid dreaming frequency (Belicki et al., 1978; Blackmore, 1982; Hearne, 1978;
Schredl & Erlacher, 2004, 2007; Watson, 2001; Wolpin et al., 1992), the question
arises as to why the gender effect is not found for lucid dreaming frequency. The
effect of gender on dream recall frequency disappeared when controlled for the
“engagement in dreams” variable (Schredl, 2002–2003), suggesting that the
Hess et al. 249

gender difference might be neutralized by an increased engagement in dreams in

male lucid dreamers. Still, studies have to be conducted to confirm that male
lucid dreamers exhibit an especially high interest in dreams.
Regarding our exploratory research of the relationship between the Big Five
factors and the age of the first lucid dream, we found a positive relationship
between conscientiousness and lucid dreaming frequency. As Stumbrys et al.
(2014) found that the mean age of the first lucid dream is lower for spontaneous
lucid dreamers compared with trained lucid dreamers, the increase of the onset
age of lucid dreaming with conscientiousness may be explained with conscien-
tious individuals being more likely to use induction techniques (Stumbrys,
Erlacher, Schädlich, & Schredl, 2012) to induce their first lucid dream. Most
of these induction techniques like reality checks require diligent training
(LaBerge & Rheingold, 1990). For future research, it would be interesting to
elicit whether the first lucid dream was spontaneous or the result of using induc-
tion techniques.
The age of the first lucid dream correlated positively with the age of the
individual. As lucid dreams are quite common in childhood and adolescence
(Schredl, Henley-Einion, & Blagrove, 2012; Voss, Frenzel, Koppehele-Gossel,
& Hobson, 2012), one might speculate that lucid dreams that were experienced a
long time previously have been forgotten and, thus, the correlation is a meth-
odological artifact. To avoid this retrospective recall bias, longitudinal studies
are necessary.
In our sample, there was a gender effect on the age of the first lucid dream,
showing the trend of women reporting an earlier age of their first lucid dream
than men. This finding might be explained by the dream socialization:
Compared with boys, girls share their dreams more often with their peers
(Schredl, Buscher, Haaß, Scheuermann, & Uhrig, 2015), suggesting that girls
are more likely to hear about lucid dreaming which could have induced lucidity.
For future studies, it seems interesting to look specifically how boy and girls
learn about lucid dreaming.
In summary, a small but substantial portion of individual differences con-
cerning lucid dreaming frequency in our sample was explained by the Big Five
personality factors and, thus, provided hints about possible pathways between
waking life and lucid dreaming. Future research should elicit the nature of the
first lucid dream (spontaneous or trained) in order to clarify the relationship
between conscientiousness and the age of the first lucid dream. Further, we
suggest exploring the relationship of the Big Five factors with the attitude
toward lucid dreams and the content of lucid dreams. Moreover, longitudinal
studies should be conducted to investigate when children first find out about
lucid dreams, if the interest on lucid dreaming declines with age and if the
reported onset of the first lucid dream underlies a retrospective recall bias.
The speculation that men show more interest in lucid dreams could also be
tested in subsequent studies. Finally, it would be interesting to study whether
250 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

personality traits, for example, conscientiousness are related to the success of

applying induction techniques like carrying out reality checks in waking.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

References
Aumann, C., Lahl, O., & Pietrowsky, R. (2012). Relationship between dream structure,
boundary structure and the Big Five personality dimensions. Dreaming, 22(2), 124–135.
Belicki, D., Hunt, H., & Belicki, K. (1978). An exploratory study comparing self-reported
lucid and non-lucid dreams. Sleep Research, 7, 166.
Blackmore, S. J. (1982). Have you ever had an OBE? The wording of the question.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 292–302.
Blagrove, M., & Hartnell, S. J. (2000). Lucid dreaming: Associations with internal locus
of control, need for cognition and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
41–47.
Brylowski, A. (1990). Nightmares in crisis: Clinical applications of lucid dreaming tech-
niques. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 15, 79–84.
Dresler, M., Wehrle, R., Spoormaker, V. I., Koch, S. P., Holsboer, F., Steiger,
A., . . . Czisch, M. (2012). Neural correlates of dream lucidity obtained from contrast-
ing lucid versus non-lucid REM sleep: A combined EEG/fMRI case study. Sleep, 35,
1017–1020.
Erlacher, D., & Schredl, M. (2010). Practicing a motor task in a lucid dream enhances
subsequent performance: A pilot study. Sport Psychologist, 24, 157–167.
Gackenbach, J. (2006). Video game play and lucid dreams: Implications for the develop-
ment of consciousness. Dreaming, 16, 96–110.
Gackenbach, J., & Bosveld, J. (1989). Control your dreams: How lucid dreaming can help
you. New York, NY: Harper + Row.
Gackenbach, J., Snyder, T. J., Rokes, L. M., & Sachau, D. (1986). Lucid dream frequency
in relation to vestibular sensitivity as measured by caloric simulation. Journal of Mind
and Behavior, 7, 277–298.
Galvin, F. (1990). The boundary characteristics of lucid dreamers. Psychiatric Journal of
the University of Ottawa, 15, 73–78.
Gruber, R. E., Steffen, J. J., & Vonderhaar, S. P. (1995). Lucid dreaming, waking per-
sonality and cognitive development. Dreaming, 5, 1–12.
Hearne, K. M. T. (1978). Lucid dreams: An electrophysiological and psychological study
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Liverpool, England.
Hicks, R. A., Bautista, J., & Hicks, G. J. (1999). Boundaries and the level of experience
with six types of dreams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 760–762.
Hess et al. 251

Hill, C. E., Diemer, R. A., & Heaton, K. J. (1997). Dream interpretation sessions: Who
volunteers, who benefits, and what volunteer clients view as most and least helpful.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 53–62.
Hoyt, I. P., Kihlstrom, J. F., & Nadon, R. (1992). Hypnotic, prolucid, lucid and night
dreaming: Individual differences. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16, 147–153.
Hunt, H. T., & Ogilvie, R. D. (1988). Lucid dreams in their natural
series—Phenomenological and psychophysiological findings in relation to meditative
states. In J. Gackenbach & S. LaBerge (Eds.), Conscious mind, sleeping
brain—Perspectives on lucid dreaming (pp. 389–417). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Körner, A., Drapeau, M., Albani, C., Geyer, M., Schmutzer, G., & Brähler, E. (2008).
Deutsche Normierung des NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventars (NEO-FFI) [German
norms of the NEO-Five-Factor-Inventory (NEO-FFI)]. Zeitschrift für Medizinische
Psychologie, 17, 133–144.
Körner, A., Geyer, M., Roth, M., Drapeau, M., Schmutzer, G., Albani, C., . . . Brahler, E.
(2008). Personlichkeitsdiagnostik mit dem NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar: Die 30-
Item-Kurzversion (NEO-FFI-30) [Personality diagnostic using the NEO-Five-
Factor-Inventory: The 30-Item short version (NEO-FFI-30)]. Psychotherapie,
Psychosomatik und Medizinische Psychologie, 58(6), 238–245.
LaBerge, S. P. (1985). Lucid dreaming. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
LaBerge, S. P., & Rheingold, H. (1990). Exploring the world of lucid dreaming. New York,
NY: Ballentine Books.
Maillet, D., & Rajah, M. N. (2013). Association between prefrontal activity and volume
change in prefrontal and medial temporal lobes in aging and dementia: A review.
Ageing Research Reviews, 12(2), 479–489.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V.
European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272.
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-PI-R—NEO Persönlichkeitsinventar nach
Costa und McCrae—Revidierte Fassung [NEO-PI-R—NEO Personality Inventory of
Costa and McCrae—revised edition] (Vol. 44). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Papatheodorou, I., Oellrich, A., & Smedley, D. (2015). Linking gene expression to pheno-
types via pathway information. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 6, 17.
Pollack, D., & Pickel, G. (2007). Religious individualization or secularization? Testing
hypotheses of religious change – The case of Eastern and Western Germany. The
British Journal of Sociology, 58(4), 603–632.
Schredl, M. (2002–2003). Factors influencing the gender difference in dream recall fre-
quency. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 22, 33–39.
Schredl, M. (2003). Continuity between waking and dreaming: A proposal for a math-
ematical model. Sleep and Hypnosis, 5, 38–52.
Schredl, M. (2004a). Reliability and stability of a dream recall frequency scale. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 98, 1422–1426.
Schredl, M. (2004b). Traumerinnerung: Modelle und empirische Untersuchungen [Dream
recall: Models and empirical studies]. Marburg, Germany: Tectum.
Schredl, M., Berres, S., Klingauf, A., Schellhaas, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2014). The
Mannheim Dream questionnaire (MADRE): Retest reliability, age and gender effects.
International Journal of Dream Research, 7, 141–147.
252 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 36(3)

Schredl, M., Buscher, A., Haaß, C., Scheuermann, M., & Uhrig, K. (2015). Gender
differences in dream socialisation in children and adolescents. International Journal
of Adolescence and Youth, 20, 61–68.
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 cre-
ativity: 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 Motor Skills, 111, 60–64.
Schredl, M., & Göritz, A. S. (2015). Changes in dream recall frequency, nightmare fre-
quency, and lucid dream frequency over a 3-year period. Dreaming, 25(2), 81–87.
Schredl, M., Henley-Einion, J., & Blagrove, M. (2012). Lucid dreaming in children: The
UK library study. International Journal of Dream Research, 5, 94–98.
Schredl, M., & Reinhard, I. (2008). Gender differences in dream recall: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Sleep Research, 17, 125–131.
Snyder, T. J., & Gackenbach, J. (1988). Individual differences associated with lucid
dreaming. In J. Gackenbach & S. LaBerge (Eds.), Conscious mind, sleeping
brain—Perspectives on lucid dreaming (pp. 221–259). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Spadafora, A., & Hunt, H. T. (1990). The multiplicity of dreams: Cognitive-affective
correlates of lucid, archetypal and nightmare dreaming. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 71, 627–644.
Stepansky, R., Holzinger, B., Schmeiser-Rieder, A., Saletu, B., Kunze, M., & Zeitlhofer,
J. (1998). Austrian dream behavior: Results of a representative population survey.
Dreaming, 8, 23–30.
Stumbrys, T., Erlacher, D., Johnson, M., & Schredl, M. (2014). The phenomenology of lucid
dreaming: An online survey. The American Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 191–204.
Stumbrys, T., Erlacher, D., Schädlich, M., & Schredl, M. (2012). Induction of lucid
dreams: A systematic review of evidence. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3),
1456–1475.
Stumbrys, T., Erlacher, D., & Schredl, M. (2013a). Reliability and stability of lucid dream
and nightmare frequency scales. International Journal of Dream Research, 6, 123–126.
Stumbrys, T., Erlacher, D., & Schredl, M. (2013b). Testing the involvement of the pre-
frontal cortex in lucid dreaming: A tDCS study. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4),
1214–1222.
Stumbrys, T., Erlacher, D., & Schredl, M. (2016). Effectiveness of motor practice in lucid
dreams: A comparison with physical and mental practice. Journal of Sports Sciences,
34(1), 27–34. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1030342
Taitz, I. Y. (2011). Learning lucid dreaming and its effect on depression in undergradu-
ates. International Journal of Dream Research, 4, 117–126.
Tholey, P., & Utecht, K. (1987). Schöpferisch träumen—Der Klartraum als Lebenshilfe
[Creative dreaming—Lucid dreams as counselling ressource]. Niedernhausen,
Germany: Falken.
Voss, U., Frenzel, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., & Hobson, A. (2012). Lucid dreaming: An
age-dependent brain dissociation. Journal of Sleep Research, 21, 634–642.
Hess et al. 253

Voss, U., Holzmann, R., Tuin, I., & Hobson, J. A. (2009). Lucid dreaming: A state of
consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming. Sleep, 32,
1191–1200.
Watson, D. (2001). Dissociations of the night: Individual differences in sleep-related
experiences and their relation to dissociation and schizotypy. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 110, 526–535.
Watson, D. (2003). To dream, perchance to remember: Individual differences in dream
recall. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1271–1286.
Wolpin, M., Marston, A., Randolph, C., & Clothies, A. (1992). Individual differences
correlates of reported lucid dreaming frequency and control. Journal of Mental
Imagery, 16, 231–236.
Zadra, A. L., & Pihl, R. O. (1997). Lucid dreaming as a treatment for recurrent night-
mares. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 66, 50–55.
Zink, N., & Pietrowksy, R. (2013). Relationship between lucid dreaming, creativity and
dream characteristics. International Journal of Dream Research, 6, 98–103.

Author Biographies
Gabriela Hess is a bachelor student of psychology at the University of Salzburg,
Autria and worked as in intern of the sleep lab on the project “Lucid dreaming
and personality”.

Michael Schredl has been a dream researcher since 1990 and head of research of
the sleep laboratory of the Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim,
Germany. He teaches at the University of Mannheim and is also the editor of
the online journal International Journal of Dream Research.

Anja S. Goritz is a full professor of Occupational and Consumer Psychology at

the University of Freiburg in Germany.