↓ Skip to main content

Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00831
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher L. Edwards, Josie E. Malinowski, Shauna L. McGee, Paul D. Bennett, Perrine M. Ruby, Mark T. Blagrove

Abstract

There have been reports and claims in the psychotherapeutic literature that the consideration of recent dreams can result in personal realizations and insight. There is theoretical support for these claims from work on rapid eye movement (REM) sleep having a function of the consolidation of emotional memories and the creative formation of connections between new and older memories. To investigate these claims, 11 participants (10 females, one male) reported and considered a recent home dream in a dream discussion group that following the "Appreciating dreams" method of Montague Ullman. The group ran 11 times, each participant attending and participating once. A further nine participants (seven females, two males) reported and considered a recent home dream in a group that followed the "Listening to the dreamer" method of Michael Schredl. The two studies each had a control condition where the participant also reported a recent event, the consideration of which followed the same technique as was followed for the dream report. Outcomes of the discussions were assessed by the participants on the Gains from Dream Interpretation (GDI) scale, and on its counterpart, the Gains from Event Interpretation scale. High ratings on the GDI experiential-insight subscale were reported for both methods, when applied to dreams, and for the Ullman method Exploration-Insight ratings for the dream condition were significantly higher than for the control event condition. In the Ullman method, self-assessment of personal insight due to consideration of dream content was also significantly higher than for the event consideration condition. The findings support the view that benefits can be obtained from the consideration of dream content, in terms of identifying the waking life sources of dream content, and because personal insight may also occur. To investigate the mechanisms for the findings, the studies should be repeated with REM and non-REM dream reports, hypothesizing greater insight from the former.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 56%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#343,112
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#700
of 34,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,531
of 278,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#10
of 521 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 521 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.