A brief history of Projective Drawing
Projective
drawing has been used by many clinicians for finding out the developmental
status as well as the personality of children (Harris, 1963; Koppitz, 1968,
1984). Drawings were originally used as one kind of
children’s intelligence test. Goodenough (1926), a pioneer in projective
drawing techniques, made efforts to determine children’s intelligence through
studying their drawings. Although it was not the intention of Goodenough to
conduct tests for evaluating children’s emotions or in the diagnosis of
psychopathology, he discovered that drawings were useful for these purposes.
Goodenough believed that “children draw from the world they know rather than
the world they see” (Burgess & Hartman, 1993). Falk (1981) noted that
children are more likely than adults to get engaged in drawing because they tend
to communicate through symbols, especially when they find it difficult to
express or too fearful to tell others about their feelings. According to West
(1998), for “children who may have been sexually abused by a family member, the
projective is a way to disclose when the children do not have the vocabulary to
disclose and a way to tell without telling” (p. 1163).
Goodenough’s method initially used to evaluate intelligence, the
Draw-A-Man (DAM) test, was re-evaluated by Harris (1963), focusing on evaluation
on a number of domains of cognition other than only general intelligence. The
Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test (Harris, 1963) is a screening tool for
clinicians to assess the cognitive ability of children. “Of all intellectual
screening measures, it is probably the briefest and most convenient to use”
(Oster & Crone, 2004).
Since the 1940’s, children's drawings have also been used as
nonverbal measures of personality (Buck, 1948; Machover, 1949) and emotional
difficulties (Koppitz, 1966, 1968). It became apparent to many clinicians that
certain drawing tasks tended to tap personality factors in addition to
intellectual and conceptual capabilities (Burgess & Hartman, 1993; Hammer,
1980). Apart from human figure drawings, a number of other projective drawing
tests have been applied therapeutically with children. Within this context,
drawings provide a valuable source of information about a child's psychological
realities (Klepsch & Logie, 1982; Naglieri, 1988; Wilson & Ratekin,
1990; Gross & Hayne, 1998). One of the most well-known projective drawing
techniques is Buck’s (1948, 1966) House-Tree-Person (HTP). The house drawing is
thought to carry information on issues related to the home and those living in
it, whereas the tree is believed to represent the drawer’s projection of
his/her mother figure. The presence or absence of certain features, details,
proportions, perspective, and the use of color is believed to reveal the
unconscious realities of the drawer.
Other projective techniques commonly used to assess children's
thoughts and feelings include the Draw-A-Family Test (Hulse, 1951) and the
Kinetic Family Drawing Test (Burns & Kaufman, 1972). In these tests,
children are asked to draw their family members and themselves engaging in
certain activities. By examining particular features of the drawings, including
the relative sizes, proximity, and placement or omission of various family
members, the clinician will be able to make inferences on the dynamics of the
relationship between the child and his/her family members (Chandler, 1990;
Oppawsky, 1991; Sourkes, 1991). In certain legal settings, these drawings have
been used to make decisions regarding child custody (Levick, Safran,
& Levine, 1990; Lyons, 1993). In 1990’s, human figure drawings were found
to be one of the top ten instruments used by clinicians working with children
(Archer, Maruish, Imhof, & Piotrowski, 1991; Gross & Hayne, 1998).
Recent
research shows that projective drawing continues to be popular among
psychologists, psychotherapists, and social workers (Hammer, 1997; Hojnoski,
Morrison, Brown and Matthews, 2006; McNeilly & Gilroy, 2000; Safran, 2002;
Silver, 1996; West, 1998; Yellow, 2008). Leibwitz (1999) indicated that
projective drawing tests, such as House-Tree-Person (HTP), Draw-A-Person (DAP),
Human Figure Drawing (HFD), and Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD), “are commonly
included in diagnostic batteries, assessment procedures, and as a method to
measure change resulting from psychotherapy” (Leibwitz, 1999, p. IX). Robinson
(2011) stated that:
Drawings were noninvasive, nonthreatening, and ideal for
people who would not or could not speak of their troubles. Projective drawing
has been used to capture and describe emotional and psychological processes
over the past century. Developed within the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic
literature, drawings were used in a way to view the inner world of the
individual. Drawings were used to not only assess a person’s emotional state,
but also his or her inner conflicts. Drawings were used to assess unconscious
processes such as wishes, desires, and fear. As a result of this interest,
projective drawing drew together the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and art
therapy. (p. 4-5)
Clinicians
who use drawings as a means for assessment as well as therapy permit children
to draw whatever they like with or without a theme in any way that they feel
comfortable. In comparison to cognitive interventions, projective drawing
represents a more direct means for interacting with children because emotions
such as sadness cannot be adequately explained by words, where the subtlety of
bodily responses including tension and sensations can be fundamental markers in
understanding the current perceptions and stress of children (Burgess &
Hartman, 1993). Regarding the interpretation of drawings, DiLeo (1983) made a
crucial point that children should be encouraged to tell what they have drawn
in a general way which is nonspecific. The children’s narration as well as the
drawings, comprising the signs, symbols, shapes, colors and line quality, which
reflect the children’s unconscious memories, help the clinicians better
communicate with their little clients (Burgess & Hartman, 1993; Yellow,
2008). Thanks to Hammer and Buck’s contributions to a number of handbooks,
research literature was consolidated in an attempt to attribute meanings to the
various aspects of projective drawing (Bieliauskus, 1980; Buck, 1966, 1992;
Jolles, 1971; Leibwitz, 1999; Mitchell et al., 1993; Ogdon, 1967, 1981; Urban,
1963; Wenck, 1977).
In
the past two decades, a renewed interest regarding drawings to be used in the
assessment process has developed (Hammer, 1997; McNeilly & Gilroy, 2000;
Safran, 2002; Silver, 1996). Oster and Crone (2004) stated that drawings within
the psychological battery “serve a special function by offering a minimally
threatening, yet maximally absorbing introduction” (p. 22). Koppitz (1968)
believed that drawings could be seen as a language, which can be analyzed in
terms of structure, quality, and content. Thus, drawings play a role as the
bridge between clinician and client and facilitate communication.
Hammer (1967, 1997), Harris (1963),
Klepsch and logie (1982), Leibowitz (1999) and other researchers on projective
drawing have documented the clinical use of projective drawing in the
assessment of clients’ personality strengths and weaknesses, attitude,
emotional characteristics, status of behavioral and cognitive development, and
even the ability to mobilize their inner resources to cope with interpersonal
and intrapsychic conflicts (Oster & Crone, 2004).
