Advertisement

Projective Drawings

  • Emanuel F. Hammer

Abstract

Anthropologists have demonstrated how a past world may be imaginatively reconstructed from one of its products, even if it be only a fragment of a tool, a pot, or some drawings left on walls. Similarly, an individual’s inner world may be understood through a sensitive reading of a series of his projective drawings-free renditions of a House, a Tree, a Person, a Family, an Animal, his favorite doodles, and so on.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albee, G. W., & Hamlin, R. M. An investigation of the reliability and validity of judgments inferred from drawings. J. clin. Psychol, 1949, 5, 389–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albee, G. W., & Hamlin, R. M. Judgment of adjustment from drawings: The applicability of rating scale methods. J. clin. Psychol, 1950, 6, 363–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alschuler, A., & Hattwick, W. Painting and Personality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
  4. Anastasi, Anne, & Foley, J. P., Jr. A survey of literature on artistic behavior in theabnormal: Experimental investigations. J. gen. Psychol, 1941, 23, 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, S., & Laffal, J. Body type and figure drawing. J. clin. Psychol, 1953, 9, 368–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berrien, F. K. A. A study of the drawings of abnormal children. J. educ. Psychol, 1935, 26, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blum, R. H. The validity of the Machover DAP technique. J. clin. Psychol, 1954, 10, 120–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buck, J. N. The H-T-P technique, a qualitative and quantitative scoring method. J. clin. Psychol Monogr., 1948, no. 5, 1–120.Google Scholar
  9. Caligor, L. The detection of paranoid trends by the 8 Card Redrawing Test. (8 CRT). J. clin. Psychol, 1952, 8, 397–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunnette, M. Fads, fashions, and folderol. Amer. Psychol, 21, 1966, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eigenbode, C. R. Effectiveness of the Machover signs and others in differentiating between a normal group and a schizophrenic group by use of the projective drawing test. Unpublished master’s thesis. George Washington University, 1951.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, S., & Fisher, Rhoda. Test of certain assumptions regarding figure drawing analysis. J. abn. soc. Psychol, 1950, 45, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldworth, S. A. A comparative study of the drawings of a man and a woman done by normal, neurotic, schizophrenic, and brain damaged individuals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1950.Google Scholar
  14. Gonder, E. Art and Play Therapy. New York: Doubleday, 1954.Google Scholar
  15. Graham, S. Relation between histamine tolerance, visual autokinesis, Rorschach human movement, and figure drawing. J. clin. Psychol, 1955, 11, 370–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grams, A., & Rinder, L. Signs of homosexuality in human figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol, 1958, 22, 394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffith, A., & Peyman, D.: Eye-ear emphasis in the DAP Test as indicating ideas of reference. In Murstein, Handbook of Projective Techniques, New York: Basic Books, 1965.Google Scholar
  18. Gunzburg, H. C. Scope and limitations of the Goodenough drawing test method in clinical work with mental defectives. J. clin. Psychol, 1954, 10, 8–15.Google Scholar
  19. Hammer, E., & Piotrowski, Z. Hostility as a factor in the clinician’s personality as it affects his interpretation of projective drawings. J. proj. Tech., 1953, 17, 210–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammer, E. Relationship between diagnosis of psychosexual pathology and the sex of the first drawn person. J. clin. Psychol, 1954, 10, 168–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammer, E. F., (Ed.). The Clinical Application of Projective Drawings. Springfield, I11.: Charles C Thomas, 1958.Google Scholar
  22. Hiler, E., & Nesvig, D. Evaluation of criteria used by clinicians to infer pathology from figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol, 1965, 29, 520–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holzberg, J. D., & Wexler, M. The validity of human form drawings as a measure of personality deviation. J. proj. Tech., 1950, 14, 343–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hozier, Ann. On the breakdown of the sense of reality: A study of spatial perception inschizophrenia. J. consult., Psychol, 1959, 23, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, J. The projection of assaultive aggression in the human figure drawings of adult male Negro offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1951.Google Scholar
  26. Machover, Karen. Personality Projection In the Drawing of the Human Figure. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mott, S. M. The development of concepts: A study of children’s drawings. J. genet. Psychol, 1936, 48, 199–214.Google Scholar
  28. Plaut, Erika, & Crannell, C. W. The ability of clinical psychologists to discriminate between drawings by deteriorated schizophrenics and drawings by normal subjects. Psychol Rep., 1955, 1, 153–158.Google Scholar
  29. Reznikoff, M., & Tomblen, D. The use of human figure drawings in the diagnosis of organic pathology. J. consult. Psychol, 1956, 20, 467–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reznikoff, M., & Nicholas, A. An evaluation of human figure drawing indicators of paranoid pathology. J. consult. Psychol, 1958, 22, 395–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ribler, R. I. Diagnostic prediction from emphasis on the eye and the ear in human figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol, 1957, 21, 223–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richey, M. H., & Spotts, J. V. The relationship of popularity to performance on the Goodenough Draw-A-Man test. J. consult. Psychol, 1959, 23, 147–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schafer, R. Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidl-Waehner. Formal criteria for the analysis of children’s drawings. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1942, 17, 95–104.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, L. D., & McGowan, J. F. The differentiation of human figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol, 1959, 23, 129–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherman, L. J. Sexual differentiation or artistic ability? J. clin. Psychol, 1958a, 14, 170–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sherman, L. J. The influence of artistic quality on judgments of patient and non-patient status from human figure drawings. J. proj. Tech., 1958b, 22, 338–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singer, R. H. A study of drawings produced by a group of college students and a group of hospitalized schizophrenics. Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1950.Google Scholar
  39. Singer, R. H. Various aspects of human figure drawings as a personality measure with hospitalized psychiatric patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1957.Google Scholar
  40. Siprelle, C. N., & Swensen, C. H. Relationships of sexual adjustment to certain sexual characteristics of human figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol, 1956, 20, 197–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spoerl, D. T. Personality drawing in retarded children. Character Pers., 1940, 8, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Springer, N. N. A study of the drawings of maladjusted and adjusted children. J. genet. Psychol, 1941, 58, 131–138.Google Scholar
  43. Steinmann, K. The validity of projective technique in the determination of relative intensity in psychosis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, New York University, 1952.Google Scholar
  44. Swensen, C. H. Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings. Psychol Bull, 1957, 54, 431–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sundberg, N. I. The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the United States. Amer. Psychol., 1961, 16, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tolor, A., & Tolor, B.: Judgments of children’s popularity from their human figure drawings. J. proj. Tech., 1955, 19, 170–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waehner, T. S. Interpretation of spontaneous drawings and paintings. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1946, 33, 3–70.Google Scholar
  48. Wexler, M., & Holzberg, J. D. A further study of the validity of human form drawings in personality evaluation. J. pro. Tech., 1952, 16, 249–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitmyre, J. W. The significance of artistic excellence in the judgment of adjustment inferred from human figure drawings. J. consult. Psychol., 1953, 17, 421–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Meissner, P. B., & Wapner, S. Personality Through Perception. New York: Harper, 1954.Google Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, J., & Garfinkle, L.: Preliminary study of the art productions of the adult psychotic. Psychiat. Quart., 1942, 16, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emanuel F. Hammer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations