Three Lethal ErbB Errors You May End Up Making

Table ?Table11 shows that the two conditions did not differ in time dedicated to each stage, except for stage 1, telling and clarifying the dream/event. Table ?Table11 also shows that the two conditions did not differ in report valence, that initial dream reports were significantly longer than initial event reports, and canonical dream reports were longer than canonical event reports, but not significantly so. Canonical reports were significantly longer than initial reports for dreams [t(10) = 7.001, p in the canonical dream and event reports identified by the dreamer, in the session, as connected to prior waking life, did not differ significantly between the dream and event conditions. Expressing this number of words as a percentage of the canonical report length, participants identified waking life sources for 19.42% of canonical dream report content and 22.52% of canonical event report content. Table 1 Ullman method: valence and length in words of the initial dream or event report, time spent on each of the stages of the Ullman method, length of canonical report, and number of words in each canonical report connected, during the group session, to prior ... Table ?Table22 shows that the dream condition was significantly higher than the event condition on the Exploration-Insight subscale, as hypothesized. Items 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 of the GDI/GEI have a face validity of assessing level of Personal Selleck GSKJ4 insight obtained from the dream or event discussion. Pooling the GDI data from the current two studies and from Edwards et al. (2013), the five GDI items had a Cronbach��s alpha = 0.778, and the corresponding five items on the GEI from the current two studies had a Cronbach��s alpha = 0.893, indicating that the items can be taken together, and used as a measure of personal insight. Table ?Table22 presents the means of the five items for the dream and event conditions, showing that the dream condition resulted in significantly higher ratings for Personal Insight than did the event condition, as hypothesized. Scores on the Action subscale did not differ significantly between conditions. Scores on the Experiential subscale and on GDI/GEI item 1 show that the dream and event reports were explored equally thoroughly during the sessions. Table 2 Gains from Dream Interpretation and Gains from Event Interpretation subscale scores for the Ullman dream and event conditions, mean of the personal insight items (5, 6, 7, 10, 11), and mean score for dream/event exploration item 1. The meta-analysis of the work of Clara Hill, calculated by Edwards et al. (2013), showed the following GDI subscale means: Exploration-Insight gains, mean = 7.40 (SD = 1.