David Saunders
University of Northampton
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David Saunders.
Consciousness and Cognition | 2016
David Saunders; Chris A Roe; Graham Smith; Helen Clegg
We report a quality effects meta-analysis on studies from the period 1966-2016 measuring either (a) lucid dreaming prevalence (one or more lucid dreams in a lifetime); (b) frequent lucid dreaming (one or more lucid dreams in a month) or both. A quality effects meta-analysis allows for the minimisation of the influence of study methodological quality on overall model estimates. Following sensitivity analysis, a heterogeneous lucid dreaming prevalence data set of 34 studies yielded a mean estimate of 55%, 95% C. I. [49%, 62%] for which moderator analysis showed no systematic bias for suspected sources of variability. A heterogeneous lucid dreaming frequency data set of 25 studies yielded a mean estimate of 23%, 95% C. I. [20%, 25%], moderator analysis revealed no suspected sources of variability. These findings are consistent with earlier estimates of lucid dreaming prevalence and frequent lucid dreaming in the population but are based on more robust evidence.
Dreaming | 2017
David Saunders; Helen Clegg; Chris A Roe; Graham Smith
This article reports an investigation of 2 proposed theories, the predispositional and experiential, regarding the association of personality variables to lucid dreaming incidence during a 12-week lucid dreaming induction program. The study found no differences between those who did and did not report lucid dreams during the program on baseline measures of field independence, locus of control or need for cognition. There was an observed significant change toward a field independent orientation between baseline and posttests for those successful at inducing a lucid dream; with no statistically significant differences for either Locus of Control or Need for Cognition. Results suggest that field independence may not be a predispositional characteristic for the successful induction of lucid dreaming, but an experiential result of having lucid dream experiences. The authors conclude that experiences within a dream state may have appreciable effects on waking cognition.
Explore-the Journal of Science and Healing | 2018
Stanley Krippner; David Saunders; Angel Morgan; Alan Quan
Context: The belief that performing a nonlocal task in darkness plays a facilitating role in remote viewing and other psi‐related phenomena is well established in esoteric and traditional beliefs (Grim, 1983; Hallowell, 1942; Lyon, 2012). However, the role of darkness in RV success is unclear beyond these esoteric explanations. Objective: This study explored the differential effect of darkness/light on remote viewing ability alongside the effect of time and their potential interaction. Design: From an initial sample of twenty, seven remote viewers contributed a total of nineteen sessions each (nine light/ten dark) which utilised randomized target selection, free‐response descriptions, and ratings by both participants and an independent judge. Results: The usable data gave the edge to dark condition performance; the difference was not statistically significant. A statistically significant difference between remote viewer and independent judge raw scores attributed to the target image was identified (t (132) = 4.56, p <.001 (two‐tailed) Mdiff = 14.21 [8.05, 20.4]) with a medium effect size (d = 0.40 [0.21, 0.57]). Exploratory post‐hoc analyses concerning the numinosity of target images were conducted, to determine if this characteristic was associated with success. For numinosity ratings of target images, a mean difference of 11.24, 95% CI [0.12, 22.3] was shown as significant, with the target images of participant ‘hit’ sessions containing higher numinosity ratings than unsuccessful ‘miss’ sessions (t (11.47) = 2.22, p (two‐tailed) = .048) with a large effect size (d = 1.02, [0.01, 1.99]). Conclusion: The findings may have implications for the use of participant judgments in future remote viewing research. Furthermore, because there are several advantages to what parapsychologists refer to as “free response” targets as opposed to “forced choice” targets (Honorton, 1975), the findings for target numinosity may have implications for the future selection of target material.
Archive | 2017
Callum E Cooper; David Saunders
Archive | 2017
Callum E Cooper; David Saunders
Archive | 2016
Callum E Cooper; David Saunders
Archive | 2015
Callum E Cooper; David Saunders
Archive | 2015
David Saunders; Callum E Cooper
Archive | 2015
David Saunders; Rachel Evenden; Callum E Cooper
Archive | 2015
Peter E. Morris; Catherine O. Fritz; Graham Smith; Amar Cherchar; Robin G M Crockett; Chris A Roe; Roz Collings; Kimberley M Hill; David Saunders; Martin Anderson; Lucy Atkinson