Table 2.
Exploratory factor analysis on dream phenomenology revealed two latent factors.
| Factors | h2 | u2 | com | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Positive-constructive dreams | 2) Immersive dreams | ||||
| Goal-orientation | 0.73 | 0.02 | 0.54 | 0.46 | 1 |
| Helpfulness | 0.66 | 0.01 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 1 |
| Valence | 0.46 | − 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.79 | 1.2 |
| Persistence | − 0.06 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 1 |
| Vividness | − 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.24 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| Awareness | 0.24 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 1.5 |
| Specificity | 0.22 | 0.42 | 0.26 | 0.74 | 1.5 |
| Variance explained | 19% | 17% | |||
Fit indices: RMSR = 0.02, Tucker—Lewis = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.027.
The phenomenological characteristics of goal-orientation, helpfulness, and valence clustered into a factor we named Positive Constructive Dreaming, which was multiplied by − 1 for subsequent analyses. The phenomenological characteristics of persistence, vividness, awareness and specificity clustered into a factor we named Immersive Dreaming. The fit indices were clearly within accepted standards of a good fit.