Pemon. individ. Dijf Vol. 16. No. 6, pp.

981-984, 1994
Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd

WEYPergamon Printed in &eat Britain. All rights reserved

0191.8869/94 $7.00 + 0.00

Individual differences in locus of control and the reporting of lucid dreaming

MARK BLAGROVE* and MELISSA TUCKER

Department ofPsychology. University College of Swansea. Swansea SA2 SPP, Wales

(Received 7 October 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 AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS

‘fable I. Luc~dlry ~:roup differences in LOC, FID and Creat~wty

E’requent LD Occasional LD Non-LD

(If = 22) (n = 25) 01 = IX)

LOC Il.9 (x9)* 13.7 (5.6) IS 2 (1.6)*

FID 22.0 (7.5) 22.6 (7.1) 21.1 (6.7)
Cwntiwtv ACL 29.2 f 10.31 2x.5 (7.0) 25 x ix.01

*P c 0.00s

been linked to differences in dream content (e.g. Domino, 1976; Schechter. Schmeidler & Staal, 1965; Wood. Sebha Kr
Domino, 19X9-90). and to dream recall frequency (Fitch & Armitage, 1989). this test was included. No differences between
the groups were predicted for this test.

METHOD

Seventy volunteers were recruited by advertisement around the university (male = 3 I, female = 39; age range I X-35).The
advertisements asked for people who either had lucid dreams, or recalled their dreams frequently.

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.