Dream characteristics in a Brazilian sample: an online survey focusing on lucid dreaming

Abstract

During sleep, humans experience the offline images and sensations that we call dreams, which are typically emotional and lacking in rational judgment of their bizarreness. However, during lucid dreaming (LD), subjects know that they are dreaming, and may control oneiric content. Dreaming and LD features have been studied in North Americans, Europeans and Asians, but not among Brazilians, the largest population in Latin America. Here we investigated dreams and LD characteristics in a Brazilian sample (n = 3,427; median age = 25 years) through an online survey. The subjects reported recalling dreams at least once a week (76%), and that dreams typically depicted actions (93%), known people (92%), sounds/voices (78%), and colored images (76%). The oneiric content was associated with plans for the upcoming days (37%), memories of the previous day (13%), or unrelated to the dreamer (30%). Nightmares usually depicted anxiety/fear (65%), being stalked (48%), or other unpleasant sensations (47%). These data corroborate Freudian notion of day residue in dreams, and suggest that dreams and nightmares are simulations of life situations that are related to our psychobiological integrity. Regarding LD, we observed that 77% of the subjects experienced LD at least once in life (44% up to 10 episodes ever), and for 48% LD subjectively lasted less than 1 min. LD frequency correlated weakly with dream recall frequency (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), and LD control was rare (29%). LD occurrence was facilitated when subjects did not need to wake up early (38%), a situation that increases rapid eye movement sleep (REMS) duration, or when subjects were under stress (30%), which increases REMS transitions into waking. These results indicate that LD is relatively ubiquitous but rare, unstable, difficult to control, and facilitated by increases in REMS duration and transitions to wake state. Together with LD incidence in USA, Europe and Asia, our data from Latin America strengthen the notion that LD is a general phenomenon of the human species.

A Survey Focusing on Lucid Dreaming, Metacognition, and Dream Anxiety in Medical Students

“…Mota Rolim et al (8) found that 77% of their subjects had LD at least once in their life, while 44% had up to ten episodes of LD. We calculated that the mean LuCiD score in the validity and reliability study in which the sample group is a normal population was 33.04 points.…”

“…Thinking and imagining about dreams during the day and meditation practice that allows greater mental control are contributing causes of LD. Also age, gender, some drugs and foods, stress, insomnia, too much study and work, and sexual intercourse are associated factors (8). In addition, Stumbrys et al (9) have reported that lucid dream phenomenology might be different between sexes.…”

Lucid dreaming incidence: A quality effects meta-analysis of 50 years of research

“…Although not unique to them, three of these studies investigated lucid dreaming alongside other sleep experiences and this broader focus may explain why no additional steps were taken to ensure participant understanding of what constitutes a lucid dream by these studies. Mota-Rolim et al (2013) is the only study for which this does not apply, it is also the only study conducted on a Brazilian sample. With a large sample size, their findings may reflect a cultural difference for the prevalence of lucid dreaming, however as the sample was self-selected it is possible that many participants were motivated to complete the study due to their own lucid dream experiences, making the prevalence rates of lucid dreaming over represented within the sample.…”

“…By measuring the frequency of lucidity from less than once a year up to once a week or more it clearly determines the frequency of lucid dream experiences, unlike some other scales which have been used (e.g. Blackmore, 1983Blackmore, , 1985Mota-Rolim et al, 2013) Furthermore Erlacher and Schredl's scale has been shown by Stumbrys, Erlacher and Schredl (2013) to have good test-retest reliability r = .89 (p < .001) Therefore it is recommended here over other previously adopted self-report scales of lucid dreaming frequency for utilisation in future research in this area. Finally, a consideration of potential confounding variables is recommended as in the procedure presented by Voss et al (2012) in order to control for issues of suggestibility and social desirability in self report studies.…”

“…However this asymmetry is not substantial and may be attributable to the high levels of heterogeneity among effects (for detailed rationale for the LFK index and Doi plot, see Barendregt & Doi, .n.d. ) Due to heterogeneity a sensitivity analysis was conducted, which identified four studies as large contributors (Alvarado & Zingrone, 2007;Mota-Rolim et al, 2013;Stepansky et al, 1998;Yu, 2008). Although not unique to them, three of these studies investigated lucid dreaming alongside other sleep experiences and this broader focus may explain why no additional steps were taken to ensure participant understanding of what constitutes a lucid dream by these studies.…”