Sexual ambiguity in children's human figure drawings

Four hundred sixty-one children in grades 5-9 drew a person and indicated the sex of their human figure drawing. A significant number (8%) of children were unable to classify their drawings as to sex; the frequency of uncertainty did not vary with grade or sex of child. Inability to determine the sex of one's own drawing is hypothesized to be a conceptual rather than a perceptual problem, and to reflect uncertainty about the essence of sexual identification.     

The representation of depth in children's drawings of a table

Willats (1977) analysed developments in the drawing of a table in terms of the projection system in which the table top was represented, and concluded that representation of depth in drawing goes through a series of discrete stages, each of which can be identified with a projection system. A partial replication of Willats' study is presented here, using a much larger sample. The relationship between age and use of projection system found by Willats was in general supported. Not all the “stages” were found to be discrete, however, and an examination of the way in which the table tops were drawn shows that whilst the majority of older children appeared to use perspective, they did not use it correctly. A method is given by which tables that are drawn as if from a central viewpoint can be formally classified. It is concluded that development in the understanding of the representation of depth is not very closely linked to development in the use of projection systems.     

The use of children's drawings in multiple family group therapy

This paper describes the advantages, difficulties and techniques of including young children in multiple family group therapy (MFGT). Multiple family group therapy consists of weekly sessions where three or more families meet conjointly with a therapist or cotherapists. Clinical vignettes demonstrate how to use children's drawings with parents to improve family communication. The efficiency of MFGT is compared to family therapy or individual therapy. The effective use of this modality with some children under 10 years is discussed.This research was supported in part by Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Psychiatry Education Branch Grant MH 13882 from the National Institute of Mental Health.     

Rigidity in children's drawings and its relation with representational change

Four studies tested the application of to the drawing domain. In particular, we tested her claim that young children are inhibited in their attempts at changing their graphic representations (representational change) due to being constrained by the order in which the elements of the representation are drawn (procedural rigidity). The first study required 60 children (4- to 6-year-olds and an older comparison group of 8-year-olds) to make three drawings of a familiar and novel topic. From these drawings each child was measured for procedural rigidity. In a further drawing the child was asked to modify their usual representation of each topic. Regression analyses revealed procedural rigidity levels were not predictive of manipulation performance. A second study, testing 75 4- to 6-year-olds and a third study, testing 30 3- to 4-year-olds, revealed that when young children were specifically asked to manipulate rigid sub-procedures on a familiar topic they were indeed able to do so. Finally, a fourth study (testing 40 5-year-olds and 40 8-year-olds) removed the notational trace in drawing (a possible aid for procedural interruption) but this still produced no evidence of a relation between procedural rigidity and representational change. We suggest how the concept of procedural rigidity might be re-interpreted for the drawing domain so that the RR model can remain as a domain-general theory of cognitive development. We also suggest the development of information processing may be crucial for flexibility in drawing.     

Attachment-based classifications of children's family drawings: psychometric properties and relations with children's adjustment in kindergarten.

Investigated an attachment-based theoretical framework and classification system, introduced by Kaplan and Main (1986), for interpreting children's family drawings. This study concentrated on the psychometric properties of the system and the relation between drawings classified using this system and teacher ratings of classroom social-emotional and behavioral functioning, controlling for child age, ethnic status, intelligence, and fine motor skills. This nonclinical sample consisted of 200 kindergarten children of diverse racial and socioeconomic status (SES). Limited support for reliability of this classification system was obtained. Kappas for overall classifications of drawings (e.g., secure) exceeded .80 and mean kappa for discrete drawing features (e.g., figures with smiles) was .82. Coders' endorsement of the presence of certain discrete drawing features predicted their overall classification at 82.5% accuracy. Drawing classification was related to teacher ratings of classroom functioning independent of child age, sex, race, SES, intelligence, and fine motor skills (with p values for the multivariate effects ranging from .043-.001). Results are discussed in terms of the psychometric properties of this system for classifying children's representations of family and the limitations of family drawing techniques for young children.     

The effect of affective characterizations on the size of children's drawings

Previous research has yielded conflicting findings about the existence and the direction of the size changes which occur in children's drawings when they are asked to draw topics which have been given an affective characterization. The present study was designed to investigate whether children scale up the size of drawings of topics which have been given a positive characterization, and scale down the size of drawings of topics which have been given a negative characterization. The participants were 258 children aged between 4 and 11 years who completed three drawings of either a man, a dog or a tree. Each child drew a baseline drawing of a neutrally characterized figure, and two further drawings of a positively and a negatively characterized version of the same figure. It was found that the children drew the positively characterized topics larger than the neutrally characterized topics, and reduced the size of the negatively characterized topics relative to the baseline drawings. These patterns occurred at all ages and with all three drawing topics. Two possible explanations of the findings are discussed: the operation of an appetitive‐defensive mechanism in children, and the acquisition of pictorial conventions.     

Experimenter effects on children's understanding of false drawings and false beliefs

Two experiments were conducted in which a variant of J. McGarrigle and M. Donaldson's (1975) "Naughty Teddy" intervention was applied to children's understanding of false drawings and false beliefs. The results showed that preschool children's understanding of the contents of an out-of-date drawing improved when the drawing was made by a capricious agent ("Naughty Snakey" glove puppet) rather than by the experimenter. The children's performance on a false belief task also improved when the events that set up the false belief were the result of the actions of the glove puppet. The results are discussed in terms of the role of children's sensitivity to the pragmatics of interactions in their development of a theory of mind.     

Sensitivity to viewpoint in children's drawings of objects and relations between objects.

Previous literature suggests that young children are relatively insensitive to viewpoint, only showing their view when the task is manipulated to provoke it. In contrast, older children appear to become more sensitive to viewpoint and it has been claimed that there is a developmental progression toward use of linear perspective as a means of drawing a view-specific scene. This study investigates sensitivity to viewpoint by manipulating it directly. Children between the ages of 6 and 14 years were asked to draw an L-shaped array of three cubes from one of three views: frontal eye level, frontal looking down, and corner looking down. At every age children showed sensitivity to their view in the sense that there were consistent differences between the drawings produced in the three viewing conditions. In the case of younger children this did not lead to an accurate portrayal of either their view or the array relations. Older children portrayed their view and the array relations more accurately, and viewpoint had a strong effect on the choice of projection system both within and between objects. There was no evidence of a general progression toward use of linear perspective.