In Susan Krauss Whitbourne’s article, “3 Ways to Have Better Dreams”,published on September 30, 2017 Whitbourne explores how it is possible to not only remember your dreams but also be able to manipulate them with “lucid dreaming”. She establishes that lucid dreaming can be connected with sleeping better and increased creativity. Consequently, she claims that lucid dreaming can be utilized to, “reduce nightmares, improve physical abilities, solve problems more creatively, and understand the changes that occur in consciousness during the sleep cycle” (Whitbourne, 2017). However, unsuccessful lucid dreaming induction means research for these benefits are extremely minimal. Furthermore, the article covers three methods that can be used to achieve
…show more content…
Saunders, Chris A.Roe, Graham Smith, and Helen Clegg’s quantitative meta-analysis on 50 years (1966-2016) of research measuring lucid dreaming it does not mention a portion of the benefits listed by Whitbourne. Saunders, Roe, Smith, and Clegg’s article, “Lucid Dreaming Incidence: A Quality Effects Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research”, main research objective focuses less on a question and more on, as the title states, a systematic breakdown on what research has proven about lucid dreaming in the years between 1966-2016. The only benefit proposed in the meta-analysis is a form of mental imagery classified as motor-imagery. The meta-analysis relates that theoretically through the presentation on motor-imagery in lucid dreaming,“…athletes may receive practical gains from lucid dreaming experiences, an online survey found 21.3% of 301 frequent lucid dreamers report utilising their lucidity to practise waking skills” (Schädlich & Erlacher, 2012). In the research meta-analysis the authors compiled there was a report of test subjects including 3355 students, 7300 representatives, 4162 children, 6252 individuals interested in the topic, 886 research groups, 2235 athletes, and 92 video gamers. Amongst those participants there was a subgroup of varying nationalities which included 6393 British, 3427 Brazilian, 3190 German, 1842 American, 1476 Japanese, 1000 Austrian, 254 Spanish, 348 Chinese, 214 Swiss, and 189 Dutch with a remaining 5949 coming from an online survey that reported no nationality collected (Hess, Schredl, & Göritz, 2016; Schredl, Berres, Klingauf, Schellhaas, & Göritz, 2014; Stumbrys, Erlacher, & Malinowski, 2015). The methodology used within this meta-analysis is more alongs of correlational than any other method. This is due to the nature of the paper and it being a compilation of many different studies testing the correlation between the
Saunders, Chris A.Roe, Graham Smith, and Helen Clegg’s quantitative meta-analysis on 50 years (1966-2016) of research measuring lucid dreaming it does not mention a portion of the benefits listed by Whitbourne. Saunders, Roe, Smith, and Clegg’s article, “Lucid Dreaming Incidence: A Quality Effects Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research”, main research objective focuses less on a question and more on, as the title states, a systematic breakdown on what research has proven about lucid dreaming in the years between 1966-2016. The only benefit proposed in the meta-analysis is a form of mental imagery classified as motor-imagery. The meta-analysis relates that theoretically through the presentation on motor-imagery in lucid dreaming,“…athletes may receive practical gains from lucid dreaming experiences, an online survey found 21.3% of 301 frequent lucid dreamers report utilising their lucidity to practise waking skills” (Schädlich & Erlacher, 2012). In the research meta-analysis the authors compiled there was a report of test subjects including 3355 students, 7300 representatives, 4162 children, 6252 individuals interested in the topic, 886 research groups, 2235 athletes, and 92 video gamers. Amongst those participants there was a subgroup of varying nationalities which included 6393 British, 3427 Brazilian, 3190 German, 1842 American, 1476 Japanese, 1000 Austrian, 254 Spanish, 348 Chinese, 214 Swiss, and 189 Dutch with a remaining 5949 coming from an online survey that reported no nationality collected (Hess, Schredl, & Göritz, 2016; Schredl, Berres, Klingauf, Schellhaas, & Göritz, 2014; Stumbrys, Erlacher, & Malinowski, 2015). The methodology used within this meta-analysis is more alongs of correlational than any other method. This is due to the nature of the paper and it being a compilation of many different studies testing the correlation between the