Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF FAMILY DRAWINGS BY AMERICAN, KOREAN, JAPANESE, AND CHINESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: TESTING CULTURAL CONSTRUCTS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

Barbara Schaeffer Bowers, M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

2002

Dissertation Committee: Approved b Professor Seymour Kleinman, Adviser Professor Erika Bourguignon Professor Susan Dallas-Swann College of Education

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3059206

UMI__ ®

UMI Microform 3059206 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by Barbara Schaeffer Bowers

2002

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

Using family drawings as a tool in cross-cultural family research gives particular advantages. Drawing, as a means of communication, is universal, able to transcend boundaries of nation and culture, carrying meanings that, while specific to one culture, may be understood by members of another. Drawings can parsimoniously convey complex

family systems in an at-a-glance presentation. This study investigates cultural differences as they are seen in family drawings by American and Asian university students, set within a framework of accepted constructs that describe family patterns and relationships. These are: nuclear versus group-orientation; matri-focal and patri-focal families; and F.L.K. Hsu's (1967) construct of dyads (a father/eldest son dyad for Asians, a husband/wife dyad for Americans.) Expected differences between American and Asian cultures serve as a basis for testing these constructs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This study, set in retrospection, combined the Hulse Draw-A-Family Test (1951) and the Burns and Kaufman Kinetic-Family-Drawing Test (1970) with two drawing tasks devised for this project, a Place-Drawing-Task (PDT) and a Family-Circle-Diagram task (FCD). Analysis of family drawings support their applicability in cross-cultural research by demonstrating both universality of drawing and clear cultural differences. Construct based on membership (nuclear and group oriented) was partially supported through analysis of PDT drawings. Extended family membership in American families was fluid across the set of drawings but constant for Asians. Both groups stressed the father/mother dyad, and evidenced parent/child dyads linked by father/eldest child and mother/youngest child relationships. American families were found to be matri-focal, while Asian families were patri-focal. A further cultural difference was seen in the impact of divorce on American families. Americans showed a particular candor in presenting family problems not seen in Asian drawings as evidenced by omitted and isolated family members in the drawings Results underscore the need for a culturally informed application of family drawing tests.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VITA

January 21, 1953 ...... Born - Columbus, Ohio 1976 ...... B.A., Cum Laude Ohio Wesleyan University 1986 .... G.T.A., History of Art, The Ohio State University 1989 to present ...... OSU Collegium Musicum 1991 ...... M.A., History, The Ohio State University

1996 .. Researcher, Kent State University, Psychology Dept. 1995-1998 ...... Board of Directors, AVISTA Association Villard de Honnecourt for Interdisciplinary Study of Medieval Technology, Science and Art 1999 to present ...... Secretary, AVISTA 2002 ... Artistic Assistant, New York Baroque Dance Company

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Studies in: Somatic Studies and Dance Counseling Psychology Art and History of Art Anthropology Music iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... ii Vita ...... iv

List of Figures ...... ix Chapters: 1.Introduction 1 Reproduction of drawings, Appendix B ...... 3 Historical Background, Anthropology ...... 3 Use of Family Drawing Tests in Psychology ...... 4 Family drawing tests in other countries ...... 5 Cross-cultural studies with Kinetic Family Drawings.. 6

Using drawing tests with adults ...... 16 Using retrospection ...... 19 Family Drawing Test used with Kinetic Family Drawing 20 Family drawing as family photo ...... 21 Studies related to Family Circle Diagram Task...... 22 2.Methods 24

The drawing tests ...... 24 The test booklet ...... 26 Scoring...... 27 v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data collection, soliciting participants ...... 29 Aspects of population ...... 32 Insider information ...... 32 3 .White-American Student Drawings ...... 36 The population ...... 36 The Family Drawing Test (FDT), General patterns .... 36

FDT, Father/mother dyads ...... 37 FDT, Organization of siblings ...... 38 The Family Circle Diagram Task, Central figure ..... 39 FCD, Largest figure ...... 41

When parents are not prominent ...... 42 FCD, Special ways of showing relationship ...... 43 Evidence of family problems ...... 44 FCD, Isolated figures ...... 44 FCD, Parent/chiId dyads ...... 47 Place Drawing Task (PDT) ...... 49 The Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) ...... 50 Candor in White-American drawings ...... 52 Depiction of extended family in White-American drawings ...... 54 4.Asian Group Student Drawings ...... 57 The population ...... 57 The Family Drawing Test (FDT), General patterns .... 58 FDT, Father/mother dyads ...... 60 FDT, Organization of siblings ...... 61 The Family Circle Diagram Task, Central figure ..... 62 vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FCD, Largest figure ...... 64 Special ways of showing relationship (FCD) ...... 65 Family problems ...... 66 Parent/chiId dyads ...... 67 The Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) ...... 69 Place Drawing Task (PDT) ...... 71 Extended family members ...... 72 5.American Minority Student Drawings ...... 74 Hispanic-American student drawings ...... 74 Asian-American student drawings ...... 76 African-American student drawings ...... 78 6 .Cross-Cultural Comparisons ...... 85 The universality of drawing ...... 85 Testing constructs related to membership ...... 86 Split families, a cultural difference ...... 89

Candor, a cultural difference ...... 90 The role of the elder generation ...... 91 Cultural differences in PDT ...... 92 Cultural differences in FDT Patterns ...... 93 Cross-cultural comparison, FCD ...... 96 Going beyond the directive, cross-cultural similarities ...... 101 Cross-cultural comparison, KFD ...... 104 Picturing family difficulties, a cross-cultural perspective ...... 106

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 .Conclusions 112 Limitations ...... 117 Recommendations...... 119

Appendix A. Drawing Test Booklet ...... 121 Appendix B. Figures ...... 128

Bibliography ...... 217

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Place Drawing Task, Participant #4 ...... 129 2. Family Drawing Test, Participant #4 ...... 130 3. Family Circle Diagram, Participant #4 ...... 131 4. Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #4 ...... 132 5. Family Circle Diagram, Participant #8 ...... 133 6. Family Circle Diagram, Participant #9 ...... 134 7. Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #14 ...... 135 8. Family Drawing Test, Participant #16 ...... 136 9. Family Circle Diagram, Participant #16 ...... 137 10.Family Drawing Test, Participant #19 ...... 138 11.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #19 ...... 139 12.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #19 ...... 140 13.Family Drawing Test, Participant #21 ...... 141 14.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #21 ...... 142 15.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #21 ...... 143 16.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #22 ...... 144 17.Family Drawing Test, Participant #23 ...... 145 18.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #23 ...... 146 ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. figure Ease

19.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #23 ...... 147 20.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #25 ...... 148 21.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #26 ...... 149 22.Family Drawing Test, Participant #31 ...... 150 23.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #31 ...... 151

24.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #32 ...... 152 25.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #33 ...... 153 26.Family Drawing Test, Participant #37...... 154 27.Family Drawing Test, Participant #39 ...... 155 28.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #42 ...... 156 29.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #43 ...... 157 30.Family Drawing Test, Participant #46 ...... 158 31.Family Drawing Test, Participant #50 ...... 159 32.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #50 ...... 160 33.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #50 ...... 161 34.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #52 ...... 162 35.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #59 ...... 163 36.Family Drawing Test, Participant #65 ...... 164 37.Family circle Diagram, Participant #65 ...... 165 38.Family Drawing Test, Participant #67 ...... 166 39.Family circle Diagram, Participant #69 ...... 167 40.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #72 ...... 168 41.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #74 ...... 169 42.Family Drawing Test, Participant #85 ...... 170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure Page

43.Family Drawing Test, Participant #J91 ...... 171 44.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #J92 ...... 172

45.Place Drawing Task, Participant #J93 ...... 173 46.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #J94 ...... 174 47.Place Drawing Task, Participant #C99 ...... 175 48.Family Drawing Test, Participant #C99 ...... 176

49.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C103 ...... 177 50.Family Drawing Test, Participant #C104 ...... 178 51.Family Drawing Test, Participant #C107 ...... 179 52.Family Drawing Test, Participant #C109 ...... 180 53.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C110 ...... 181 54.Family Drawing Test, Participant #C113 ...... 182 55.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C113 ...... 183 56.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C116 ...... 184 57.Family Drawing Test, Participant #K117 ...... 185 58.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #K119 ...... 186 59.Family Drawing Test, Participant IK120 ...... 187 60.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #K121 ...... 188 61.Family Drawing Test, Participant #K123 ...... 189 62.Family Drawing Test, Participant IK125 ...... 190 63.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #K125 ...... 191 64.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IK125 ...... 192 65.Family Drawing Test, Participant #K126 ...... 193

66.Family Drawing Test, Participant #K127 ...... 194 xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure Page

67.Place Drawing Task, Participant #K128 ...... 195

68.Family Circle Diagram, Participant IK128 ...... 196 69.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IK128 ...... 197 70.Place Drawing Task, Participant IH131 ...... 198 71.Family Drawing Test, Participant #H131 ...... 199

72.Family Circle Diagram, Participant IH131 ...... 200 73.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #H131 ...... 201 74.Family Drawing Test, Participant #H132 ...... 202 75.Family Drawing Test, Participant #B142 ...... 203 76.Family Drawing Test, Participant #B143 ...... 204 77.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IB143 ...... 205 78.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B145 ...... 206 79.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B147 ...... 207 80.Family Drawing Test, Participant #B148 ...... 208 81.Family Drawing Test, Participant #B148 ...... 209 82.Place Drawing Task, Participant IB150 ...... 210 83.Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B150 ...... 211

84.Family Drawing Test, Participant IB151 ...... 212 85.Family Circle Diagram, Participant IB151 ...... 213 86.Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IB151 ...... 214 87.Family Circle Diagram, Participant IB152 ...... 215 88.Family Circle Diagram, Participant IB153 ...... 216

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Drawing is a means of communication that transcends the boundaries of nation and culture. It is universal in that drawings by members of one culture can be understood by members of another. Seen collectively, a group of drawings by members of a culture present a picture of that culture. Family drawings can then give a picture that reflects cultural patterns of family relationships. The advantage of using drawings in cross-cultural research lies in the ability of a drawing to parsimoniously carry meaning. In the case of family drawings, this allows

for an at-a-glance presentation of complex systems of extended membership, hierarchies, and relationships, becoming an ideal research tool for cross-cultural study. The aim of this study is to explore how family drawings

by members of one culture may differ from those by members of another. Further, how cultural differences in family drawings fit into a framework of accepted constructs used

to describe family patterns and relationships.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The term "construct", as it is used in this study, refers to a way of conceptualizing differences based on observation, rather than as an empirically testable hypothesis. A construct is descriptive. This study uses constructs that describe family membership, hierarchies within the family, and relationships between family members. These are: the construct of nuclear versus group-orientation of families;

the construct of patri-focal and matri-focal families; and F.L.K. Hsu's (1967) construct of father/eldest son dyad for Asian (type A cultures) and husband/wife dyad (father/mother) for American (type B cultures). This study is circular in the sense that constructs of how families are structured (membership, hierarchy, relationship) allow for a cross-cultural study of- family drawings by providing a conceptual frame to work within. The evidence provided by the drawings is then turned around to study the validity of the constructs. Expectations of cultural group differences reflected in membership, hierarchy, and relationship are the basis of comparative analysis. As a comparative study, relative numbers of variables are considered to reach conclusions accepting or rejecting current constructs of family differences between Asians and Americans.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduction of family drawings. Appendix B Owing to the great number of individual drawings generated by study participants, 616, it is not feasible to

reproduce them all. Drawings that are relevant in illustrating specific issues raised in the course of this study are collected in Appendix B. In order to meet format requirements, many of these drawings have been altered in

size or darkened in the process of photocopying. A numbering code identifies Asian participant drawings by nationality, and American minority participants by ethnic group as follows: C is Chinese, J is Japanese, K is Korean, A is Asian-American, H is Hispanic-Aroerican, B is African-American. Participant numbers were randomly assigned within a group.

Historical background. Anthropology In a sense, crossing Clinical Psychology with Anthropology brings the research back to its origins. Using drawing as a tool in early field research came out of an application of Freudian principles of projection, and the idea that drawing is language-free. Early field uses of drawing tests such as the 1956 study by L.R.C. Haward to measure westernization in Nigeria used a human figure test (Haward, 1956). similarly, Wayne Dennis used the Draw-A-Man test with a Hopi population to measure acculturation (Dennis, 1966). Dennis is best known 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for his massive study with children in eleven countries and various ethnic populations (Dennis, 1966). A I960 study by Dennis and Raskin, cited by Klepsch and Logie (1982), using

drawing with five linguistic groups, found a significant correlation between figure placement and writing.

Use of Family Drawing Tests in Psychology Historically, one of the earliest studies by Flury (1954, cited by Kirby, 1970) in a German psychiatric hospital sought to identify pathology by having patients draw their families. This study looked for themes, size relations, relative placement, figure omissions and additions. The use of drawing tests in clinical assessment and counseling research has centered in several areas. Owing to the popularity of drawing tests in clinical assessment (Walsh & Betz, 1990), much research attention has been devoted to investigating the validity of these tests, other research has been directed at establishing normative data. The attractiveness of having children draw has meant that drawing tests, especially the Kinetic Family Drawing, have been added to research test batteries (particularly in dissertations). This is often done without any attempt to score drawings or explore their use.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Clinical use, when not tied to psychoanalytic interpretations, treats the KFD as a picture of 'the self in family' (Oster 6 Gould, 1987) to show systems of hierarchies, alliances, and role obligations. The KFD in particular is used to assess psychopathology. Much attention in research has been given to finding single sign indices, clusters of indices, and global rating systems. With an increased interest in culturally sensitive counseling (Lappin, 1983), clinical research has produced a number of cross-cultural studies employing the KFD (Handler

& Habenicht, 1994).

Family drawing tests in other countries Applications of family drawing tests in other countries appears in the literature: in Italy by Comunian (1984) giving attention to first figure drawn; Lara, Acevedo, Lopez, & Fernandez, (1994) to study mother/child dyads and attachment patterns; Katakis, (1976) to look for patterns of thought, feelings action by having all family members draw; in France, a KFD test-retest study by Morval and Laroche, (1976); in Germany, Roth and Huber, (1979) using the KFD to explore the element of "wished for family" or social desirability as diagnostic. The Swedish study by Spigelman, Spigelman, and Englesson, (1992) is particularly relevant in that it studies how divorce effects KFD drawings. They found that 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. omitted family members in the drawing were linked to families experiencing problems. Separation of figures, or distancing of all figures was a strong indicator, as was

central figure placement.

Cross-cultural studies with Kinetic Family .Drawing The construct of nuclear versus group oriented family structure forms a basis for a cross-cultural scoring system for the KFD developed by Wegmann and Lusebrink (2000). Membership, or who is depicted as family, is given a cultural reading. This is done by expanding KFD scoring to allow for a possible pattern of families with extended members. The authors came up with a system of 44 scoring variables (largely adapted from Burns and Kaufmann, 1972, 1970), divided into six categories, one of which is membership. The system was tested on three groups: Swiss, Taiwanese, and American (no distinction was made as to ethnic group membership). Results showed cultural differences in the reliability of the variables selected, i.e., the two American graduate students from Berkley couldn't make the same decisions in scoring aspects of the KFD drawings using the system. DeOrnellas compared KFDs of African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian third-graders (1997). She found no significant difference in extended family members or interaction. This study assumed that African-Americans, as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. matriarchal would draw the mother figure largest. No significant difference was found. African-Americans omitted parents more often. She further expected African-American families: to be multigenerational; have extended kin networks; and be headed by a single mother. The role religion and spirituality, said to be characteristic of African-Americans was expected to be significant as a cultural difference. Hispanic Americans were expected to have an extended family orientation to include close friends and godparents. African-Americans were found to have larger family size. There were more siblings, but not more extended family members. Findings did not support the interpretation of African-American families as matriarchal. Single parent families were drawn as actually existed. Animals were not counted as family members. Hispanic-American families with substance-abusing and nonsubstance-abusing adolescents were the topic of a dissertation by Jose Osorio-Brana using KFDs (1996). In this study, all family members drew. The intent was to evaluate the validity of the KFD when matched with other measures. Some scoring variables were valid (25 of 37). He found that KFD was suitable in the assessment of family hierarchy. The KFD identified proper authority distribution in family structure, such as parent coalition versus parent child coalition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abate (1994) studied children from various American ethnic groups by analyzing activities. She found no ethnic group linked differences. There was a stylistic difference with Asian-Americans in that their drawings were more elaborate.

KFDs by Chinese-American and American children was the topic of a dissertation by Verna Nga-Fun Chuah (1992). She found the KFD test to show cultural differences, and to be a measure acculturation. She found that it was not common for the Chinese-American children to draw KFD drawings of their families doing things together, when compared to Americans. Foods distinguished groups. Chinese-Americans excluded some members living in the home. While many Americans included animals as family members, few Chinese-Americans did. The variables she studied were: ascendent father; orientation father and mother; barriers; activity levels, facial expression mother, number of siblings, total number of family members; and types of activities. Chinese-Americans depicted more grandparents. Chuah's interpretation was that KFD drawings by Chinese-Americans showed more traditional values, such as the father's dominance in family. This she described as Partiarchal. She found "normal hierarchial relations" in Chinese families.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Virginia Cazot used family drawings to explore the cultural and societal behavior in the Azore Islands as a dissertation study (1991). She modified KFD scoring to focus on: whether nuclear family was represented: whether extended family members were represented; whether family member roles were traditional; whether family members were portrayed as acting together or alone; and what objects

accompanied the figure. She found that half the scenes were of the family eating. Grandparents were included in 81% of the drawings. A number of children omitted figures. When she questioned them, they gave good answers such as: (the family member had) gone to bed and the parents were watching TV, and (that person was) the "one shooting the photo, so couldn't be in the picture." One participant intentionally excluded the stepmother and half-siblings. Labeling was spontaneous in 40% of the drawings. Shaw's 1989 study of African-American children was based on expectations of cultural differences used in

describing families. Based on constructs of group orientation versus nuclear, the role of extended families was expected to be seen as an emphasis on kin (especially grandmothers) by African-Americans, more so than White-Americans. She anticipated religious orientation to be a strong element in drawings. She found family drawings by African-Americans to demonstrate family: cohesion; closeness; role fluidity; the importance of extended family

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. members; and an emphasis on religion. Her criticism of conventional Burns and Kaufman KFD scoring, in respect to African-American families was: that it is not effective in conveying the importance of extended family life, nor does it reflect the importance of religion. Nuttall, Chieh, and Nuttall, (1988) used the KFD in a cross-cultural comparison of American and Chinese children. The purpose of the study was to examine how family drawings "reflect the cultural patterns and values of these two groups" (Nuttall et al., 1988, p. 191). The authors looked at: family membership, friends, and activities. They found that the Chinese included parents and grandparents more frequently in their drawings than did the American children. Their interpretation was that the Chinese children in their study saw themselves as members of nuclear and extended families, whereas the American children expressed individualism and independence. The authors commented on the general presentation of figures in the KFD as follows: "It it is interesting to note that U.S. children's favorite way of depicting their families is in portrait fashion" (Nuttall et al., 1988, p. 193). This they relate to an American middle-class tradition of an annual family picture, without further description. Cho's KFD validity study measures self-concept and parent/child relationship with Chinese children (1987). Pairing semantic differential concepts with the KFD, she

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. found that the KFD did not take in to account actions that were culturally based. An advantage of using KFD was that it made "minimal language barriers.” Cho scored eight sets of variables focused on actions, positions, and physical characteristics. A number of children omitted one or both parents. One added a mother. Particular were drawings without a father. She interpreted this in a a cultural

context as follows, "In Chinese families the father usually has very little communication with the child.” (Cho, 1987, p. 95). She also saw the small number of variations in KFD activities as indicative of Chinese culture: "Chinese children are more restrained as a group, and thus may be prone to the influence of the stereotype prevailing in society." (Cho, 1987, p. 104). Respect, rather than intimacy, was highlighted as a value in family relationships. Based on scoring contact and actions, the father was described as remote, and so the families centered around the mother, described by Cho as the "heart of the family". Distance was not seen as emotional distance, but explained as the father's absence. Lack of variation in KFD actions was interpreted by Cho to suggest Chinese group-orientation, and not individuality. Gender

was found to be irrelevant. Combining the Thematic Appreception Test (TAT) and the KFD was the basis for a dissertation by Rosendo Urrabazo (1986), who studied machismo as a Mexican-American male

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. self-concept. Part of this study dealt with extended family members. He concluded that, "Hispanic children may reflect a self perception tied more to family identity than individual identity." (Urrabazo, 1986, p. 199), and also that the research cited notion of extended family networking among Hispanics more a myth than fact. In his group of 80 teenagers, there were 12 with extended family pictured (15.2%), of these, the extended family was a grandmother in five. The most frequent action was "no" action, just standing around. The issue was whether the KFD was an accurate representation of family concept. He proposed that the KFD was a snapshot of the family, as opposed to a representation of all family members "doing something unaware of a voyeur." This conclusion he based on the number of figures facing out. Cabacungan (1985) made a cross-cultural comparison of KFDs made by Japanese and Filipino children. Variables used were: presence of major figures; figure size; inter figural distance; actions; and styles. "Culture significantly affected the frequency of drawing the actual family size, actions depicted, communication, nurturence levels and styles used." (Cabacungan, 1985, p. 228). She found that Japanese children drew their actual family size more often, adding "nonmajor figures", mostly grandparents. She related figure size to importance (i.e., large = important). Children from both cultural groups made the mother the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. largest, therefore most important. Cabacungan's study used a system of classifying KFD scene types into 'work' and 'recreation'. She found a cultural difference between Japanese and Filipino children. Japanese made recreation scenes more often compared to Filipino children. Brewer, studying interaction patterns in children's KFD drawings across American ethnic groups, and a group of Vietnamese children. She found a connection between behavioral style and activity level. Age was a factor as well. The dissertation study by Lourdes Kalan Ledesma (1979) using KFD with Filipino adolescents, analyzed a group of 29 variables combined with a Family Adjustment Test. Looking at types of actions in the KFD, and judging activity levels, socioeconomic status was found to play a significant part. Upper class standing was connected to passive actions, while lower class actions were manual labor. Praying was proportionally a frequent activity in the upper class. Other aspects of scoring looked at figure size, orientation, and faceings. One finding of the study

was to support Filipino matricentrism. Pets were not counted as as figures. Deren (1975), evaluated Draw-a-Family Test validity by measuring figure size, detail, and number figures compared to actual family size. Draw-a-Family Test differs from the Family-Drawing-Test in the directive: to draw a family and 13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not your family. This adds the element of projection of an idealized, socially acceptable family versus one's own family. (See also the German study by Roth and Huber, 1979.) This study compared three groups: African-Americans (said to be matriarchal) Puerto Ricans (said to be patriarchal), and White-Americans (citing Spiegel, 1960, and Benedek, 1959; Americans were said to simply show "greater variability", p. 542). A relevant aspect of this research study was the author expected differences between ethnic groups based on definitions grounded in cultural constructs. Further, she included drawings by parents in the study. She found that the African-Americans did make

the mother relatively larger than father. The Puerto Rican children did not draw their father significantly larger (did not show patriarchy). Scoring for amount of detail tended (but not significantly so) to confirm her matriarchy hypothesis for African-Americans. The number of figures in the drawing was used to compare children and parents. The number of parents and children drawing the actual family size was about equal. Children tended to omit family members.

Olivero studied children's evaluations of family roles as a cross-cultural comparison of three cultural groups using the Draw-A-Family test (1973). Family patterns in the three groups varied considerably. The three groups were: Italian (low socioeconomic class Rome), Sardinian (small 14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. village), and two villages in Ivory Coast. In the Rome group, both parents worked outside home. In Sardinia, fathers were typically shepherds, away from home ten months of the year, and so the mother had a strong family role. In i the Ivory Coast, the family is polygamic, and so there are many moms. Drawings were found to be sensitive to family patterns. Drawings were scored as to: omissions, separation, isolation, leading role (first on left, largest, most detailed), and parent activity by profession. For the Ivory Coast, of 36 drawings 20 had fathers, 17 mothers; as compared to Sardinia and Rome where 95% of the children drew both parents. Analysis of spatial relationship of parents tended to represent the father being separated from the family in Sardinia. Leading figure in Sardinia was one parent. For the Ivory Coast, the person drawn in the leading role was a non-parent adult about as often as a parent (rarely the self). In Sardinia, where the father is away and the mother is dominant at home, girls showed a female as leading figure significantly more. Only the Sardinian group of children's drawings showed the father working. Mothers in all groups were shown doing usual house work except for the Ivory Coast which had the lowest number working moms. Olivero concluded, "The findings show very clearly that the Draw-A-Family Test may be used not only as a clinical tool for studying the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. individual personality but also for assessing the effects of different sociocultural patterns in family life." (Olivero, 1973, p. 157). Other studies used KFD: with Black, Anglo, and Chicano retarded children (Mangum, 1976); Gregory with Native Americans (1992); Chartouni with American-Lebanese children (1992); Bently with American and American minority children to study cognitive styles, intelligence, and family drawings (1976); an analysis of Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test across four ethnic groups found similarities rather than differences with Anglo, Black, Mexican, and Yucca (Merz, 1970); in a human figure drawing test, significant cultural differences were found by Laosa between Mexican and American children (1974); and with Vietnamese, McClemments-Hammond (1993) found evidence of cultural patterns in the KFD with this group that match those of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (the mother as the heart of family, and the father as respected, but remote and distant).

Using drawing tests with adults The question of what happens when adults draw is salient in this study. Stylistically, many of the drawings look like children's drawings, which possibly suggests that drawing skill plateaus at an early age without training. Lyons, in her study of art therapy in child custody 16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. disputes commented that the parents drew at the same developmental level as the children (Lyons, 1993). Casabianca, went as far as to describe adult drawings in her study as "infantile" (Casabianca, 1992). Family drawings by all members appears in research covering a variety of topics. One of the earliest studies of applicability of the Draw-A-Faraily tests with whole families was conducted by Shearn in 1969. Deren 1975 used KFD with African-American families. Sex abuse and child abuse have been studied using KFD by: Hackbarth (1988); Howett (1984); and Casabianca (1992). Schwartz studied the use of KFD in general family assessment (1981). Substance abuse in families was the topic of Osorio-Brana's 1996 study of all members of Hispanic-American families with substance abuse problems. KFD was also used to study the

impact of childhood cancer in families (Corman, 1988). In all these studies, the KFD is used under the assumption that scoring KFD variables have same validity for adults as children. This is done without looking much into the nature of adult drawing. Hulse took up this issue in 1951: While interesting material is occasionally obtained from drawings by adults, the method is much less rewarding than it is in child psychiatry. In our culture drawing is an accepted pastime for the child, and he feels at ease when presented with drawing material in the examiner's office. The adult, however, expects to communicate in words. (Hulse, 1951, p. 173)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Handler and Habenicht are also critical of using KFD with adults. They write that using the test with adults is "an unusual and perhaps unwarranted use of the instrument" (Handler & Habenicht, 1994, p. 459). Oster and Gould are

more positive of using KFD with adults. They write that the KFD when "used with adults brings forth memories of past family experiences and interrelationships" (Oster & Gould, 1987, p. 48).

This last point made by Oster and Gould may be seen as describing a phenomenon related to psychological regression. When adults are drawing, the process already takes one back to childhood. By asking participants in this study to think back, setting the study in retrospection, the process of recall has perhaps already begun. This process is further facilitated by using the PDT first in the test booklet as a focusing device (G. Crawford, personal communication, October, 1994).

Deren (1975) in her study based on constructs of matriarchy for African-Americans and patriarchy for Puerto Ricans, compared parents' drawings with their children's. She analyzed the number of family members in the drawing and found that adults drew more members in one third of the drawings, and fewer family members in one third. Her analysis of the finding for adults drawing extra members did not consider a connection based on on cultural

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. differences in respect to extended family membership. I believe this is would be a valid interpretation of Deren's data.

Using retrospection This study is set in retrospection for several reasons. The first is that it assures that Asian participants will draw their childhood memories of their home country. In

asking for a memory of the family doing something together, it is thought that the participant will draw a scene that has special meaning. By placing the study in retrospection, it is hoped that participant's age differences will be

evened out since all will be looking back to the same point in their lives'. (Participant ages range from 18 to 65). Three other studies employed drawing techniques and retrospection. In a 1990 study, Kathleen Schell used these two techniques to explore family history. Barker studied developmental factors in a group of women, placing a KFD in retrospection to age five (1990). Cook used an Adlerian Life Styles Inventory pared with the KFD, finding the KFD a visual complement to the inventory (1991). In another study set in retrospection and employing a drawing technique, Pipp, Shaver, Jennings, Lamborn, and Fischer, explored the development of relationships with parents in a group of undergraduate students. Underlying the retrospection technique is "the assumption underlying 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this use is that a person's cognitive/affective reconstructions are part of adaptation in the present, not necessarily as accurate representation of the past (1985, p. 992) Subjects were asked to draw circles to represent themselves and their parents at different points in time. Drawings were paired with a questionnaire. Results supported using the technique in demonstrating developmental patterns. The authors concluded that: "Techniques involving retrospection, therefore, have the promise of serving as natural bridges between social, developmental, and clinical psychology (Pipp et al., 1985, p. 1001).

Eamily Drawing Test used with the Kinetic Family Drawing There is only one research study that compared the FDT and the KFD, a Master's Thesis by Johnston (1975). Studying the presence of emotional indicators in family drawings by a group of adjusted and a group of emotionally handicapped children, Johnston hypothesized that both would distinguish groups, but expected the KFD "would produce more dynamic and therefore more valid material for indicating the extent of emotional conflict as the child sees it." (Johnston, 1975, p. 9). She found a significant difference between groups, but concluded that the KFD was not better.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Family drawing as family photo In the 1988 study by Nuttall, Chieh, and Nuttall, comment is made about an American way of presenting family members as a portrait in their study comparing Chinese and American KFD by children. Unfortunately, they do not go into any detail nor make a statement of what general patterns of presenting family members that the Chinese children use. It may be assumed that the KFD was not very kinetic, and lacked interaction among family members. Further they concluded that the Chinese students, because they included parents and grandparents reflected both nuclear and extended families. This seems to be a misapplication of the construct in one instance, and in another doesn't allow for the grandparents to be resident (as this dissertation project records by looking at a set of drawings, focusing on membership.) Three other studies made a connection with how families were depicted in the KFD and the family photograph. Rosendo Urrabazo, in his study of Mexican-American teenagers, also saw a "snap shot” aspect in the KFD drawings. This was due in large part to all members depicted as standing around, facing outward. A similar conclusion was reached by Gregory about the Native-Americans in her study (Gregory 1992). This was also noted by Schiller (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I believe that this family photograph association with the KFD actually reflects a problem with the directive that is remedied when "doing something together" is added. Another relevant point is simply that it is easier to draw people full-face rather than in profile. Making an association between the family photograph and the FDT is more plausible, in that FDT drawings present a more formal presentation of family members. In this study, two FDT drawings actually placed the family members in a frame (example: fig. 42).

Studies related to FCD There are several visual/spatial methods of showing family dynamics and relationships in testing and psychotherapy that are similar to the FCD. One is Fullmer's Family Bond Inventory (1968), which is intended to show an individual's perception of key relationships in the family. The instructions are: place symbols representing family members (F, M, boy, girl, and an X for any significant other person who has regular contact with

the individual) on blank piece of paper, number each sibling in birth order, and circle yourself. Another is Van Treuen's diagramming technique (1986). In this technique, family members place symbols representing themselves on a piece of paper, relative to one another to show relative closeness and distance between members. Family members are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. then asked to draw lines to represent the quality of the relationships. This technique is very similar to one used by Fleuridas to look for family patterns of hierarchy and authority. In this study, stick figures were used with additional arrows to indicate a chain of command (1987). Variations used in research are: by Russel (a chess board, 1980); Wilner and Rau (1976); Madanes, Dukes, and Harbin

(pick a 'most like' family pattern, and also rearrange stick figures, 1980). Two similar techniques use clay to show relationships. These are: Keyes (1984); and Arrington (1991). Keyes'

family Clay Sculpture is intended to be used with adult therapy clients in exploring their childhood family dynamics. The client is asked to "think back" and make clay figures to represent family members. The principle of showing members in relationship is the same, close shows emotional closeness. The central figure is referred to as the "power figure" in the family. Gerber and Kaswan (1971) used dolls in their family research. Participants were asked to place the dolls in relationship to one another to demonstrate different feeling states (angry, happy, loving, worried, sad). Negative emotional states showed greater distance between figures. The opposite was true of positive emotional states. This study demonstrated that spatial placement carries meaning.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 METHODS

The drawing tests The form of this study is a comparison of four drawing tests: the Hulse (1951) Draw-a-Family Test (Family Drawing Test, FDT); the Burns and Kaufman (1970) Kinetic-Family-Drawing Test (KFD); a Place-Drawing-Task (PDT); and a Family-Circle-Diagram task (FCD). Both the PDT and the FCD were devised by the author for this study. All drawing tests were set in retrospection by asking the participant to "think back to the time when they were 10 or 12 years old." (See appendix A for the complete test

booklet). The FDT is a straightforward use of the test in line with Hulse (1951), Deren (1975), and Koppitz (1985), which asks the participant to draw a picture of their family. The KFD was adapted for use in this study by adding the word "together" to the directive. A review of the literature shows that the Burns and Kaufman directive is occasionally varied. Adding "together", it would seem happens unconsciously. O'Brien and Patton (1974), in their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. often cited study, make this change without mentioning it. Only Brewer (1980), in her dissertation catches the directive change in the O'Brien and Patton study. A recent Master's thesis (Nintchff, L., 1998) adds "together" in the directive. Changing the directive does change the type of drawing insofar as it forces the drawer to find a moment when all family members are interacting. While some member/role identification may be lost, it avoids "standing around" as an activity. A second adaptation of the KFD was to ask to "Give your drawing a title" (a title line was printed on the bottom of the test booklet KFD page). Titling the KFD was intended (following Kwiarkowska, cited in Oster & Gould, 1987) to give additional, culturally relevant information that would avoid ambiguous interpretations. The Family-Circle-Diagram (FCD) was devised for this study to depict hierarchies within the family, and relationships between members. This diagram technique, related to a technique presented by Van Treuen (1986), Fullmer's Family Bond Inventory (1968), and the Family Clay Sculpture (Keyes, 1984), asked the participant to draw a

large circle to represent the family. Including themselves, participants were asked to make circles to represent family members, using larger circles to represent important family members. Further, the most important family member was to be placed in the center. Placing circles close to one 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. another was to signify which members are close to each other. The drawer was asked to label family members and to number siblings. What "important" and "close" meant was left open for the participant to interpret. (Korean, Chinese, and Japanese languages have the same variability in interpretation as English). The Place-Drawing-Task (PDT) was also devised for this study. The directive asked the participant to draw the "place where they lived". As with the directive for the FCD where an intentional vagueness in meaning was built into the directive (so as to allow for individual interpretations), so too is the interpretation of "place" left up to the participant. Additionally, the PDT, coming first in test order, was intended as a focusing device (G. Crawford, personal communication, Oct. 1994).

The test booklet (see Appendix A) THE FAMILY STUDY DRAWING BOOKLET is a word-processor generated test booklet, printed on 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. The test booklet contains a very brief explanation

of the purpose of the study, basic instructions, and a brief demographic questionnaire on gender, age, race, home country, and home countries of parents and grandparents. The remainder of the test booklet presents four drawing tasks, followed in order, one per booklet page, with instructions for each task given at the top. All tasks are 26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prefaced with the instruction "Think back to the time when you were about 10 or 12 years old". Participants are instructed to use a No.2 pencil, which allows for erasures to be analyzed.

Scoring Scoring was done both by considering the four tests together and also by analyzing tests individually. Taken together, membership could be followed through the set of drawings. This was particularly important in examining constructs of nuclear and group oriented family patterns. Questions of: which family members were consistently represented; figure omissions; and figure isolation could be answered in respect to membership. Drawings in a set by a single participant were treated as referential to one another. For example, if a figure was slightly isolated in the FDT drawing and definitely isolated in the FCD diagram, a better judgement could be made as to what the participant intended to communicate. One clear example is the set by participant #35 [figs. 36, 37]. In this set, the mother appears to be isolated in the FDT. In the FCD, it is quite clear that the isolation is intentional. The participant erased and redrew the circle that represents the mother, placeing her further from the family.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The PDT, although intended to be primarily a focusing device, was evaluated for scene type in relation to concepts of nuclear and group oriented patterns based on whether the scene presented a wider setting (group) or a restricted, personal setting (as a single family home would

for a nuclear family). Analysis of the FDT went beyond traditional interpretations and looked at the general pattern of figure arrangement. A system of organization evolved in the course of analyzing FDT drawings into linear (example figs. 10,

31) and grouped figures. Grouped figures were further identified as: true groups (figures grouped to suggest a sense of interaction, example fig. 48); and dispersed groups (equidistant spacing of figures over the sheet, example fig 62). Drawings were scored for secondary figure groupings (examples figs. 13, 57) and isolated figures (example fig. 8). Relative proportions of type were evaluated for loading within a cultural group and interpreted. FDT was scored for: membership (especially when

extended members were depicted), position of father and mother (as this related to dyad formation, following Hsu, 1967), ordering of siblings. Novel interpretations were noted.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The FCD was scored for some of the same variables as the FDT, providing for comparison of the two. Common aspects were: membership; extended family members; isolated members, and dyad formation. Family hierarchy was a key focus in this test and was measured in two ways. These were: central figure and largest figure. Novel interpretations were recorded. Pertinent aspects of the KFD in relation to cross-cultural comparison were: scene type and membership. Features of proximity, isolation, and hierarchy were interpreted to be related to scene, i.e., scene-dependent variables. Following Cabacungan (1985), KFD scenes were

grouped generally into work scenes and leisure types. An unanticipated source of analysis in these family drawings lay in finding relationships between particular aspects of individual drawings, sets of drawings, and split families. While not the intended focus of this study, aspects of: position; irregularity; atypical presentations; scene type could be related to families where there was evidence of problems and family splits.

Data collection, solicitino participants Soliciting participants for the study proceeded in two ways. One was to gather drawings in class and the other was to set up collection stations in graduate residence halls.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with the cooperation of two professors at colleges in central Ohio, I was able to bring my test to a general psychology class and twice to an "Assessment in Art Therapy" class. In these cases, the students were somewhat familiar with drawing tests. Participation was strictly voluntary and students were allowed adequate time to do the drawings. Afterward, I presented the research project and fielded questions. American and international graduate student participants were solicited through an advertisement that was placed in mailboxes and posted in two graduate student residence halls. Distribution and collection boxes for the study booklet were set up at the residence halls' front desks'.

A resident in one of these halls, I found it helpful to personally ask students I met if they would help me with my study. This worked especially well riding the elevator where I would have a moment to talk about the study. I believe that students were willing to help because I stressed that drawing stick figures would be fine, that the

test was anonymous, and that I was doing the research on my own, without any funding (otherwise I could pay participants). Copying my photo to add to the call for participants may have helped. The number of completed booklets increased at the pickup box, so recognition may

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have been a factor in successfully soliciting participants. On several occasions, I posted a 'thank you for your help' notice by the main elevators. Student participants were all volunteers of mixed ages and from a variety of American ethnic groups and foreign countries. Information about each participant is limited to age, sex, home country, American ethnic group, and whether

the participant had had art training (vague statement left to personal interpretation, and often garnering extra comments). Further questions concerning parent's and grandparent's nationality were included to better identify the participant and avoid errors of classification. (For example, a set of drawing by a Canadian woman whose parents and grandparents were from Taiwan; or, a set of drawings by a student from Peru whose family had immigrated from India.)

The question of family national background actually turned out to be quite interesting. While many American students were from families in the country for generations, there was much evidence of recent immigration. Many cases the participant went into great detail explaining their national heritage. Others did not know and marked the blank accordingly. The choice of marking American ethnic group, proved not to be as straightforward as I thought it would be. Some participants refused. One wrote "human" instead. Further

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - problems concerned cases where the parents were Hispanic or Asian. Participants did not always identify themselves as Hispanic or Asian-American when one or both parents were.

Aspects of population

American participants were compared to a combined Asian group of university students from Korea, Japan, and China. These were selected for study from a larger collection of drawings by students from many other countries around the world. The dichotomy of Asian and American is suggested in Hsu's writings (1967), and also by Bourguignon (E. Bourguignon, personal communication, Sept. 12, 1999). Founded in the cultural constructs this study investigated, clear differences were to be expected in regard to dyad formation, orientation (nuclear/group), and hierarchy. It was expected that drawings by Asian participants would reflect a father/eldest son dyad, a parti-focal dominance, and be group oriented. Reverse expectations held for American participants.

Insider information

As a way of checking my observations and conclusions about Asian drawings, I met with three graduate students, one each from P.R. China, S. Korea, and Japan.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One concern was that the directives for the drawing tasks be open to individual interpretation, as they are in English, and that this openness would carry over into Japanese, Korean, and Chinese languages. Rather than solely working backward from what the contents are in the drawings, which do present a variety of images, I asked my insiders. It is the case that "family", "place", and "most important" can mean different things to an individual within the cultures of China, Korea, and Japan.

Questions concerning "place" dealt with whether the building was a single family home, as in American drawings, and if the setting was rural or urban. As well, I wanted to double check scenes of family activities, in respect to the FCD, aspects of hierarchy, importance, and dyad formation were also doubled checked to get the insider's perspective. In general, my observations were correct. "Insider information" helped to confirm and give word, narrating the drawings. In a few instances, aspects of national group culture emerged in some details in the drawings that, as an American, I was unaware of. For the most part, comments made by my insiders reinforced one another in respect to their perspective of family life, providing validity to combining the three national groups. This was particularly the case in regard to the role of the father and the mother. The father is seen as the supporter of the family and is away at work. The mother is focused on the children, 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and is the power in the hone. This is seen in the FCD of the "somewhat" isolated father and the children grouped around the mother. Family hierarchy and seniority are stressed. As remarked by xiyi "the senior male is commander of the family." In Japan, "Marriage is for trust, not love. Trust is most important," as Yoko explained. One point of difference raised by Yoko, my Japanese insider and Xiyi, a graduate student from China, is the approach to resource management within the family. The aim is the same, to preserve the children. In the Japanese family, as explained to me by Yoko, the children come first and are given all (food for example). Xiyi said that the parents take what is needed first, so they can provide for the children. Interpreting scenes of the family watching TV: while I found an association in White-American KFDs with dysfunction, in the Asian group drawings this is a close family activity as explained by both Yoko and Xiyi. Time together, especially for a Japanese father, is precious. While White-American drawings were often very candid with family problems, this is NOT the case with the Asian group drawings as explained by Yoko. An isolated father reflects work necessities. A sibling, as a family focus, may legitimately reflect family favoritism (FCD #J94 [fig. 46]).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Certain aspects of westernization, social affluence, and changing times were raised in conversation about the drawings that can not be fully addressed here. By placing the drawings in retrospect, issues relating to changes in the culture over time come into play. What is seen in some drawings is a picture of life in the '50's and '60's. While my insiders made this point, it is also true of the drawings in this study as a whole, and is therefore uniform. As a White-American, I served as my own insider in interpreting drawings for this group of participants.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 WHITE-AMERICAN STUDENT DRAWINGS

The population Eighty-eight White-American university students volunteered to participate in this study. The number of children in these families range from one to six. The distribution is: 9 families have a single child (10%), 39 families are made up of two children (44%), 20 have three (23%), 18 have four (20%), two families have five children (2%), and there are six in three families (3%). (Three participants in the study made drawings with an inconsistent number of siblings. In these cases, the most complete number is used.)

The Family Drawing Test (FDT). General patterns Seventy-seven FDT drawings by White-American students can be grouped based on general patterns of figure presentation. (The 11 excluded drawings are from eight participants who drew Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD) for the FDT, and three from participants who are the only child in a single parent home.) Of these 77 FDT drawings, the 36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. greatest: number, 40 (52%), show family members presented in a line, with equal distance between figures. The second largest group, with 14 examples (18%), is of family members presented as a line of figures, with secondary groupings and/or isolated members. There is a total of 11 FDT drawings that show an isolated family member. Ten participants present their families as a pattern of dispersed figures (13%). There are two that show a dispersed pattern with some of the family members in a true group (#39 [fig. 27], #51). Eleven drawings are of a true figure group, showing sense of interaction between members (13%).

EDT. Father/mother dvads Seventy-four FDT drawings by White-American students can be analyzed for evidence of Father/mother dyads. (Fourteen drawings are excluded from this analysis. These are six from single parent families and 8 that were KFD drawings.) Father/mother pairings in this group of drawings is a nearly constant feature. Sixty of 74 drawings depicted the father and mother together (81%). This was the case whether the parents are drawn first of a line of figures (in 37, 49%), drawn first of a group or dispersed pattern (in 18, 24%), drawn last in a line, after the children (in two), or placed together, surrounded by their children (in three). In six of the FDT drawings, the participant places 37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the children in between the mother and father figures. While this divides the father/mother dyad, the effect of the drawing is one of parental protection of the children (#6, #14, #15, #21, #48, #52).

Of the eight drawings where the father/mother dyad is split (11%), four of the participants made drawings intentionally isolating a parent from the family unit (#16 (fig. 8], #23 [fig. 17], #61, #65 [fig. 36]). Two of the drawings picture extended family members (a great grandfather in #46 [fig. 30], and a grandmother in #79). The remaining two FDT drawings without a parent dyad show a father/eldest son pairing (#37 [fig. 26], #88). Five drawings emphasize the father/mother dyad in showing the parents separate from the children (either by size, placement, or some other indication).

EDT. Organization of siblings Age rank ordering of siblings in FDT drawings is found in 67 drawings by White-American participants. (The 21 drawings excluded from analysis are: eight single child families, eight KFD drawings, and six where no ages were given. Number 84 is both a KFD and no age ID drawing.) In these drawings, there is a fairly strong tendency to order family members from left to right, in descending order by age. This happens in 46 drawings (69%). The other 21

drawings (31%) organize siblings as follows: three with the 38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. father/mother dyad in the center (4%); (this actually arranges the father and eldest son as a pair in two of the three FDT drawings); four are of siblings in inverse order (6%); four have the siblings grouped by gender (6%); and

nine drawings show a random arrangement of siblings (13%). This group of nine FDT drawings random age ordered siblings is notable. While these drawings do not follow organization pattern, characteristic of the majority of FDT drawings, they make particular statements. In some cases, they show close families. In other cases, they suggest that out of order marks a family that is "out-of-order” . Two of the drawings are true, clustered family groups, an arrangement that already accentuates the family unit. A third, #35, shows a strong father/mother dyad with the children grouped together. The remaining six FDT drawings are drawn by participants from split families (i.e., six of 19). The arrangement of siblings in the total number of

split families (19), show that an equal number are regularly arranged. Seven are not analyzed (four single child families, one without age ID, and two that are KFD drawings).

The Family Circle Diagram Task. Central figure In 88 FCD diagrams by White-American student participants, the mother is placed in the center as "most important” in 35 diagrams (40%), 13 place the father in the 39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. central spot (15%), 21 place both parents to demonstrate equal importance (24%), and 19 do not have a parental figure in the center of their FCD diagrams to signify most

important status in the family (22%). These 19 that do not have a parent identified as the most important member in the family are particular. They show both extremes of family unity and disunity. Of these 19 FCD diagrams without one or both parents placed in the center of the FCD, four participants place themselves in the center as most important. Four place another sibling in the center. The remaining one is unique among the diagrams. It shows a complex, multigenerational diagram (#46 [fig. 30]). Five diagrams have no central figure. Of these, two participants intentionally isolate a family member (#22 [fig. 16], #66). Participant #22 draws connecting lines

between six of the family members (father, mother, and four children). The third brother appears deliberately isolated, drawn small and placed off to the side. FCD #2 shows a father/sister pairing in one corner opposite a mother/self pairing (no figure in center). Diagram #43, also without a parent on center, is one of a set that has a KFD family scene of the parents announcing their divorce to the

children. »

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FCD diagrams which show unity (and/or equality) are highlighted, particularly in three diagrams. In two of these, the participants intentionally makes all figures equidistant to show an equality of family members, enhancing their diagrams to make their family relationship clearer. Participant #8 [fig. 5] makes a center point in the diagram. Participant #13 draws dark connecting lines. Additionally, #66 has no central figure with all figures equal in size. In family diagram #87, the figures are presented in two parallel rows, with the figures drawn

equal in size.

FCD. Largest figure Looking at which family member is depicted as largest i.e., considered most important by the drawer, of 88

diagrams by White-American university students, 32 have the mother as the largest figure (36%), 16 the father (18%), 22 show the father and mother equal in size (25%), and 18 do not have a parent figure drawn largest (20%). Of these FCD diagrams that do not have a parent figure drawn largest to indicate importance: 11 make all figures equal in size (13%); two have the participant as the largest figure (#16 [fig. 9], #25 [fig. 20]); #46 [fig. 30] shows a complex multigenerational FCD; and four have some but not all figures drawn large (#9 fig. 6, #22 [fig. 16],

#65 [fig. 37], #70). 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When parents are not prominent FCD diagrams are especially striking when they do not follow the pattern of drawing one or both parents as the largest, most important family member. These FCD diagrams are associated with families where a member is intentionally isolated, and where there is evidence of a family split. For example, one of two diagrams in which the participant made themselves the largest figure is from a split family. In this FCD (#16 [fig. 9]), the participant drew herself as the largest, central figure of a split family. Not only is the father figure isolated but "Dad's

girlfriend" is also added outside the family circle. Diagrams where all figures are drawn equally large (excluding two that show the family unified in the center) show that five of seven are associated with isolated family

members. In diagrams where no parent figure is indicated as most important by figure size there is a striking association. All four of these family diagrams are associated with isolated members and split families as follows: in FCD #9 [fig. 6], mother and brother are drawn large, with the father figure placed outside the circle; in #22 [fig. 16],

the third brother is shown isolated; in #65 [fig. 37], father and sister are drawn large and the mother isolated; participant #70 made a FCD that includes grandparents and a stepfather (in this FCD, the self, mother, and sister

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. figures are drawn equally large, an additional line is made between the mother and the stepfather, also an added comment signified "close").

FCD. Special ways of showing relationship Twenty of 88 FCD diagrams show individual, novel interpretations of the FCD diagram task by overlapping some

or all figure circles (23%). Overlapping circles representing family members indicate especially close relationships. In #25 [fig. 20], the participant colors in the intersection of father and mother circles for emphasis, and adds "center shared by both parents, share authority, circles overlap because of closeness". FCD diagram #26 [fig. 21] has the father circle surrounding the mother circle (as does #71), adding the note, "Mom + Dad, one is

not more important than the other". Of the White-American FCD diagrams, 7 of 88 participants draw all circles to overlap. Further, participants use overlapping to make clear particular relationships, much in the same way that figures are intentionally isolated. Of the 88 FCD diagrams, 13 have only some of the figures overlap (15%). In #54, three of the children overlap with parents who do not. Similarly in #59 [fig. 35], the second brother, who is the youngest in the family overlaps with the mother and father, but not the participant (the parents do not overlap). Participant #75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. makes the mother the center of the family. Circles representing the children overlap with her's while the father's figure is shown isolated. Overlapping circles showing close relationships add weight to stressing the father/mother dyad. In diagrams where some of the figures have overlapping circles, the father and mother figures overlap in 6 of 13 (46%).

Evidence of family problems White-American diagrams which are atypical are often associated with a split family. Of these 13 diagrams which present only some of the figures overlapping, four are from split families (#4 [fig. 3], #16 [fig. 9], #43, #50 [fig. 32]). For example, in #50, only the stepmother and the stepbrother figures overlap. FCD diagram #4 [fig. 3] provides another telling example. The mother figure is drawn large and placed centrally. Her figure is overlapped with the participant's own circle, her brother's, an aunt's and uncle's, and family pets. Stepdad and "real" Dad are represented by small circles placed far out, at opposite ends of the family circle.

FCD. Isolated figures As overlapping shows closeness of family members, isolation of a figure makes a different and equally strong

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. statement. Isolated figures represent family members who were not close, as the participant recalls relationships in the family. There are 18 FCD diagrams with an isolated family member (20%). All of these diagrams may suggest the possibility of strained relationships within the family, setting them apart from the majority. As a group, these diagrams have atypical features which present a picture of

a less than stable home life. Eight do not have a parent or parent dyad as the central figure. Of the isolated figure FCD diagrams, eight are of families where there is a split. In nine, the father is isolated. In two the mother is isolated. Five show an isolated sibling. The drawer isolates themselves in two of these FCD diagrams. These 18 FCD's are described as follows: #9 [fig. 6] The father is drawn outside the family circle. A brother is placed in the center. This set also has an inconsistent sibling count between the three figural the drawing tasks. #11 The Father is isolated. The self figure is central. This father embraces his family in the FDT, but is placed at a distance in both the FCD and the KFD. #16 [fig. 9] The Father is on the edge of the family circle. The self figure is in the center. "Dad's Girlfriend" is seen outside the family circle, having been erased and redrawn smaller than the dog's circle. #22 [fig. 16] Brother No.3 is isolated, while all the other family members are connected by lines. #23 [figs. 17, 18, 19] From one of the "disappearing parent" sets of drawings. The father is isolated in the FDT. Mom and the kids have their back to him. He is isolated in the FCD, and is missing from the KFD. 45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. #31 [figs. 22, 23] The self is isolated. A sister is in the center. A stepfather is drawn. The drawer erased her figure and moved it further from the mother. The KFD has no distinct people drawn and no one is identified. #33 [fig. 25] The father is isolated with the comment "YUCK!". The FDT is of a single mother family. #42 [fig. 28] The older sister is isolated. There is a father/mother center. The FDT and KFD are regular. #45 Brother No.l is isolated. The mother is the central f igure. #57 The self is isolated. The father is in the center. The KFD is a camping scene titled "Happy Days" (which may suggest that there were few of them). #65 [figs. 36, 37] The mother is isolated. The self is central. Grandparents are added to the FCD. Also, they are the only figures drawn close to one another. #66 Sister No.l is isolated. There is no central figure. The KFD has no figures identified. #70 The grandparents are isolated. The stepfather is central. #72 The father is isolated. The mother is central. The father figure is omitted from the FDT. The KFD shows a dinner scene that has an empty chair. The father figure has been erased, removed from the family picture.

#74 [fig. 41] The older sister is isolated. The father and mother figures are not drawn closely. The KFD shows "The Nightly Routine" of the family fighting. #75 The father is isolated. The mother and children figures are tightly placed together and overlap. The mother figure, in the center was erased and drawn larger. #78 The mother is isolated. The father is central. The mother figure is omitted in the FDT and the KFD. #79 The father is isolated, placed on the rim of the family circle, and the mother is central. In the FDT, the grandmother is isolated. In the KFD, the father and mother are paired, but the self is isolated.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Additionally, #61 had first drawn a FCD that excluded the mother figure, erased it, and redrew it to have a mother.

EgD.«_Parent/ghild dyads A parent/child dyad is identified when a single child is paired with a parent. This is irrespective of whether there is a father/mother dyad. Looking for possible

parent/child dyads in the 82 FCD diagrams where there are two or more children in the family, 19 show a parent/child pairing (23%). No parent/child dyad is seen in 63 diagrams (77%). The number of children in the family varies from two to four. The distribution of parent/child dyads is as follows: 11 in a two child family, three in a three child family, and five in a four child family. In these 19 diagrams, there are 31 individual parent/child pairings. A single parent is paired with a child in seven FCD diagrams (three times with the mother and three times with the father). In 12, both parents are paired with a single child. The father is shown in close relationship with a single child in 14, which is almost equal to the number of times the mother is paired with a single child, 15. Of the 14 father /child dyads, an equal number is father/son and father/daughter pairings. Mothers and sons are paired in eight of the 15 FCD diagrams, which is about equal with the number of mother/daughter dyads, seven.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There is no apparent relationship between which sex parent is paired with which sex child. Nor does there appear to be any indication that one sex parent is more likely to be the one forming a parent/chiId dyad, the numbers being almost

equal. However, when one looks at the link based on age there does seem to be a suggestion of a pattern in White-American FCD diagrams. Of 30 diagrams (excluding #2 which can not be age ranked), ten form the dyads with the youngest child, ten the oldest, and ten with a middle child.

There is a match between sex of the parent and birth order of the child. The first born and the last born show a connection with the sex of the parent. Father/eldest dyads occur in seven of ten FCD diagrams (mothers and the eldest child form a dyad in three). Dyads formed with the youngest child and a parent show the opposite tendency. In ten FCD diagrams where a parent/youngest child dyad, the mother is paired with the youngest in seven, (father with the youngest in three). Also, in more than half of the FCD diagrams where there is a parent dyad (11 of 19), the participant drew themselves as having a close relationship with one parent. This may suggest a recall bias introduced by the self perspective. Dyads between parent and child do not indicate family problems. Of the 19 families where there is a split, only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. one shows a parent/child dyad. This is #50 [figs. 32, 33] where the only close relationship the participant makes is between the stepmother and the stepbrother.

Place Drawing Task. PDT The first of the drawing tasks in this study, the Place task asks the participant to think back to the time when they were 10 or 12 and to "draw the place where you lived". The directive is open ended, allowing the participant to make their own interpretations of what "place" means to them.

The 88 place drawings by White-American university students actually show very little variation. Seventy-nine participants drew the standard American single family home (90%). six of these are in rural settings (7%), and three have additional information (such as an aerial view with streets marked, the location on a state map, and their own room marked). Three made an apartment for the place, and two place their house in the wider context of a neighborhood. There are four atypical place drawings. PDT drawing #50 is a floor plan for an army barracks, #48 looks like an exotic village, #14 [fig. 7] is a split drawing showing "Mom's house" and "Dad's apartment. Participant #4 [fig. 1] drew her own room for the place where she lived.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although a very snail number, these four place drawings have a high association with families where there is evidence of family problems, (three of four). Only the place scene of the exotic village comes from a set of drawings where there are no other indications of family problems.

Other than the place drawing for participant #4 [fig. 1] who has drawn her own room, "my room" is specially marked in two other drawings (#30 and #74). Although only 3 of 88, two of the three are drawn by a participant where there is evidence of family problems. Participant #74 [fig. 41], while not from a split family, drew a KFD of his parents fighting under the title: "The Nightly Routine” .

The Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) There was a total of 97 KFD drawings by White-American university students. The scheme for organizing KFD drawings arose from the necessity to organize such a large number of drawings, and comes from working with the drawings, taking into consideration cross-cultural loading for scene type. In addition to the 88 drawings expected as part of the test booklet, 8 participants drew a KFD drawing for their FDT drawing. Participant #14 [fig. 7] split the KFD making two drawings to show the reality of the divorced family. The KFD titled "My Childhood" has one scene of dinner with Mom and another of traveling by car with Dad.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The large number of KFD scenes by White-American participants, although quite varied, can be organized according to scene type. The 35 KFD scenes by White-American participants distributed as follows: 16 dinner (the single scene, most often depicted), 5 Christmas, 6 work, and 10 indoor leisure, 14 vacation scenes, 14 road trip scenes, 14 wilderness activity scenes, and 15 scenes of outdoor leisure. The greatest number of drawings related to leisure and vacation (64 or 66%). Scenes of the family working together were rare (6 or 6%). Three have religious content: #51 "Mom Leading the Rosary"; #70 "Going to Church"; and #75 "Family at Church on Easter". Three unique drawings are associated with family dysfunction: #43 [fig. 29] "Mom and Dad Announcing Their Divorce"; #74 [fig. 41] "The Nightly Routine" (i.e., constant family fighting); and #4 [fig. 2] a schematic drawing of the family house, each family member isolated in separate compartments. (The participant who drew this scene is from a split family.) It is one of the KFD drawings that

were drawn instead of an FDT drawing. This participant's other KFD shows the family watching TV. Additionally, one of the vacation scenes titled "The Sucky Vacation" shows

the parents fighting, #21 [fig. 15].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In many of the drawings, parents have an active, supportive role. Of the 15 outdoor leisure KFD drawings, five show the parents watching their children participate in various activities (soccer and baseball games, a tennis match, a figure skating competition). Families are depicted playing together in five of the KFD drawings as follows: #35 making music, #38 playing a board game, #45 playing tennis, #85 playing cards, and #87 playing baseball. Considering the group of 19 families that show a split,

there is a general distribution among the different types of activities. The exceptions are: three of five Christmas scenes, and three of four scenes of the family watching TV. While this is suggestive, in the case of #84, a single mom with two kids, the picture may reflect an economic reality, no money for vacations.

Candor in White-American drawings One feature of White-American drawings as a group is the high level of candor, as seen in an amazing openness to communicate aspects of family relationships that are painful and unpleasant. Consider the KFD drawing of the parents announcing their divorce, or the FCD diagram that shows both "Dad" and "Dad's Girlfriend". The picture of "The Sucky Vacation" openly shows family discord, as does "The Nightly Routine" of the family fighting in #74 [fig. 41], adding cartoon style dialogue balloons filled with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. marks to represent cursing. One participant added the following comment to her FCD drawing, isolating their father's figure, "....dad didn't think of us as being too important to him" (#44). As well, the title for a road trip drawing is, "A Typically Tense Family Outing" (#52 [fig. 34]).

While it is not always the case that a split family is presented as an unhappy or unsupportive family unit (drawing #70 for example shows a KFD with the stepfather embracing the mother in a Christmas scene), a large number of participants do indicate emotionally strained families or split families. And, not all the drawings which suggest problematic, family relationships are associated with split families (for example, KFD #74 [fig. 41] shows the family fighting).

Discord in the drawings is often seen in subtle ways. Participant #50 wanted to explain to me why he drew his father with crossed out eyes. This was her way to indicate dad was an alcoholic. Another example, in FCD #31 [fig. 23] the drawer erased her circle and redrew it, positioning it further from the mother (stepfather in the picture). Similarly, in FCD #50 [fig. 32] the participant redrew himself, his father, and brother to be smaller while moving the stepbrother to overlap with the central, large figure representing the stepmother. There is also the case where the father is entirely erased out of the picture (KFD #72 53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [fig. 40]). Beyond these suggestive examples, one finds a strong relationship between isolated figures, figures omitted, and the parent who disappears gradually in the course of the drawing set, "the disappearing parent phenomonN.

Depiction of extended family in White-American drawings When answering the question "who is my family?" in this study's three family drawing tasks, White-American participants very often do not include the same members in their drawings. Another observation is that these participants depict family pets (birds, cats, dogs, and a hamster in #81) as family members. This is seen clearly in FDT #39 where the dog and two cats are part of the family group. In FCD #4 [fig. 3], the family pets are named and drawn with circles which overlap family members. The presentation for "Puppy" the cat is the same as for "Andy" the brother. The number of FDT drawings that have extended family depicted (counting family pets which are included in eight drawings) is actually very small, only 12 (14%). Four that have people are: two with grandmothers (#39 [fig. 27], #79), one with two sets of grandparents and a great-grandfather (#46 [fig. 30]), one includes an elected family member, "Betty" in #67 [fig. 38]. Additional

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. information provided by the participant states that Betty lived upstairs and worked in a publishing house with the father. The FCD is more sensitive to depicting extended family members than either the FDT or the KFD. Fourteen of the 17 FCD diagrams with extended family show a second, and (in one case) a third generation. Aunts, uncles or cousins appear in eight. Three have domestic pets. There are two non-blood relations, "Betty" from #67 [fig. 38] and "Dad's Girlfriend", shown outside the family circle, in #16 [fig.

9]. White-American participants are even less likely to depict extended family members in scenes of the family doing something together. KFD #28 adds a grandmother in the family dinner scene, who is not pictured in either the FDT or the FCD. "Betty" is not included KFD #67. Nor is the great-grandfather from #46 included in the family scene of preparing dinner. The remembered family scene that the KFD asks the participant to recall includes the family dog(s) in four additional drawings, where they are shown for the first time. There are two drawing sets where extended family membership is constant. The grandparents who are part of the extended family of a single mother household, shorn in FCD #80, are depicted watching a baseball game with the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. participant and her mother. The cat in drawing set #84 remains a constantly depicted family member in all of the family drawing tasks. In families where there is a divorce or split, one expects to find the depiction of extended members, since it is often the case that a divorced parent will seek help and emotional support within the family. There is a difference

between tests with the FCD being more sensitive to presenting extended family members. Of the 19 sets of White-American drawings from participants where there is a split in the family, the only associations between FDT

drawings is the depiction of family pets (#4 [fig. 2], #44, #84). The association of split families and FCD diagrams is stronger. Eight (of 19, 47%) FCD diagrams from split families can be matched with 17 that show extended family members in the FCD.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 ASIAN GROUP STUDENT DRAWINGS

Thepopulation Forty-two international university students from Japan, China (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and People's Republic combined), and South Korea volunteered to participate in this study. Nine participants are from Japan (21%). 18 are in the combined Chinese set (43%), and 15 students are from Korea (36%). These drawings constitute the "Asian group", and were selected on the basis of shared culture (Hsu, 1961) from a larger pool of international student drawings. This choice is reinforced in two ways: through conversations with "insiders" (three international graduate students: Kim, a Korean; Xiyi, a mainland Chinese; and Yoko, a Japanese woman) who reviewed the drawings and answered questions (see METHODS Chapter 2); and by the unity of the images, (based on formal aspects of style and content in the drawings as a group). Family size ranges from one to five children. Two families have a single child (5%), 12 have two children (29%), 18 are three child families (42%), and there are 57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. five families each with four and five children (12%). Both families from the People's Republic have three children. All sets of drawings, except one, depict intact, two parent families. The exception is a drawing set by participant #106. This shows a single mother with four

children. The father is deceased.

The Family Drawing Test (FDT): General patterns General patterns of figure organization in 38 drawings are grouped as follows: 1) equidistant figures in a line, 2) figures in a line with secondary groups and/or isolated figures, 3) clustered as a true group, and 4) dispersed. Drawings that are excluded from analysis are: two FDT drawings that were kinetic; one by a single parent participant; and one that was a symbolic representation. The dispersed pattern is the most prevalent pattern in this group, with 14 of 38 (37%) drawings showing this even distribution of figures on the sheet. Other patterns are distributed as follows: eight (21%) are equidistant figures in a line; nine (34%) are of figures in line with secondary groupings; and eight (21%) are true cluster groups (having a sense of interrelation between figures, #099 [fig. 48] for example). Three of the dispersed pattern drawings, (J93, C107 [fig. 51], K129) have a particular common pattern of the parents together at the top and the children grouped 58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. together on the bottom. Drawing #J93, a Japanese is remarkably like IC107 [fig. 51], a Chinese drawing. Only in drawings by Asian participants is the mother depicted wearing an apron. These drawings as a group serve to illustrate the unity of drawings from the three national groups. Drawing IK127 [fig. 66], although not identical, belongs with this group. In this Korean drawing, the parent figures are superceded by the grandparents, forming a hierarchy of age. Hierarchy was a common theme in conversation with my insiders. They made the following comments: Kim talked about hierarchies; Xiyi spoke in terms of seniority; and Yoko spoke of respect for elders. The grouping of figures carries cultural significance in the placement of father with mother, and the children as a separate unit. Adults grouped separately from children is seen in line patterns of organization (#C109 [fig. 52] for example where there are grandparents along side the

father/mother dyad). Yoko commented, "Elder people separate, show respect for age", and added that she would draw it that way. In nine FDT line of figure drawings with a secondary grouping of family members, three show a father/mother dyad with the children grouped separately (#J9l [fig. 43], #C104 [fig. 50], #C109 [fig. 52]). In four, the father is paired

with the oldest child. Drawing #Clll may also show this 59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. paring of father and eldest, but there was no way to definitely establish a sibling age rank order. It is very rare to find a family member that is isolated in the Asian drawings. There are however two cases

and both of these make strong statements. In drawing #C108, the eldest brother appears isolated. This is a position that he carries in all three drawings in the set. The set

of drawings by participant IC113 [figs. 54, 55] (a Chinese woman) make a poignant statement about her status in the family. In her Family Circle Diagram, she draws herself as a tiny speck on the edge of the family circle. I asked Xiyi about what this meant to him. He commented that, "parents have their preferences". In the FDT drawing, the father is drawn somewhat isolated from the family. The PDT drawing is of her own room. This is the only Asian drawing that has this scene.

One very striking feature in these Asian drawings is that the children are placed behind the parents. This occurs in six of 42 FDT drawings (14%).

FDT. Father/mother dvads A paring the father and mother as a dyad is a constant feature in 34 of 38 (89%). (Four are excluded from analysis: two KFD drawings made for the FDT; and the single mother family drawing; and the FDT that was a symbolic representation.) There are three with a parent/chiId 60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pairing. The father is paired with the eldest child in #J95, IK117 [fig. 57], IK122, and the mother is paired with the youngest in two of these drawings, IK117 [fig. 57] and

#K122. In two drawings, one of which is a single child family, the parents are placed on the ends with the child(ren) in between.

Maintaining the father/mother dyad is consistant in 33 of 38 drawings. This is irrespective of: whether the father/mother dyad is drawn first or last of a line of figures (in six); the father and mother are together in the center of a line of family members (three drawings); the father and mother are paired as part of a true clustered family group (six examples); or in a dispersed pattern (fourteen drawings).

FDT. Organization of siblings Of the 42 FDT drawings by Asian participants, 30 can be evaluated for how drawers present their siblings. (The 12 drawings that are excluded from analysis are: two drawings from single child families; the two that were KFD drawings;

one that was a symbolic reprehension; and seven that could not be ordered according to age.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The pattern of organizing siblings in an age descending order, from left to right is found in 17 FDT drawings (57%). An inverse ordering, age ascending, left to right is found in seven. Random ordering of the siblings occurs in six drawings.

The Family Circle Diagram Task: Central figure The central figure is the family member the drawer designates "most important" (according to their own interpretation) by placing it in the center of their FCD. Asian group participants place the father in the center in 12 FCD diagrams (29%). Participant IK129 marked the father most important. The mother is in the center of three family diagrams as most important. The father and the mother are placed together in the center (father/mother dyad) in 10 FCD diagrams. The remaining 16 have either all family members in the center, as indicated by overlapping circles or other means, no central figure, or a figure other than a parent placed in the center as most important. These 16 drawings that had no parent or parent dyad

present several different family patterns. Each makes a different statement. In some cases it is to express closeness. In others, by identifying a family member other than a parent as most important, to make clear a different

family dynamic.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Showing closeness, one drawing with no central family member (IC106) has the widowed mother as household head. In this FCD diagram, all figures are of equal size and equal distance from the center. Other ways of showing familial closeness, if not equality, is to make the circles overlap (IC103 [fig. 49], IK116 [fig. 56]). Other patterns showing closeness have all members in one central circle (IK128

[fig. 68], IK130), or show them placed tightly together (#J89).

A particular pattern found in Asian drawings shows the father as slightly isolated with the children grouped with the mother. This accounts for two of the FCD diagrams where there is no central figure (#J92 [fig. 44], IC107). Yoko explained that this means the father is away working a lot, and the mother and children are the focus in the home. Participant #J94 [fig. 46] has a second sister in the center. This figure is drawn small and attention is given to encircling the pair of grandparents and the parent dyad (larger figures). Yoko explained that this could be an accurate family diagram for a Japanese family. In Japan one

child might be a favorite, and this is shown openly. Five other diagrams have family member other than a parent in the center. In these diagrams there is still a father/mother dyad. Drawing IK127 has the grandfather pictured in the center as the most important

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. member of the family. Diagram IK121 [fig. 60] in this group without a central parent figure depicts a complex scheme of arrow pointing to family members, indicating relationships. The drawer positions himself in the center and makes all

family members equally large. Drawing IK118 also has doubled lines to indicate stronger relationships, especially between the mother and the youngest child. Kim explained that this pattern of special relationship between the mother and youngest child is very typical for Korea.

FCD. Largest figure In Asian diagrams, primacy of size is most often given the father/mother dyad (14, 33%) in FCD diagrams. An almost equal number (13, 31%), identify the father as most important. Five give this status to the mother (12%). Ten FCD diagrams (24%) do not have a parent figure depicted as largest. All members are presented as being equal in six of the drawings (#C106, IK117, IK121 [fig. 60], IK125, #K128 [fig. 68], #K130). This is shown by having either all figures share a single circle, or by drawing all figures the same size. Three have a grandparent as the largest, most important family member (#J94 [fig. 46], #C109, #K127). There are four Asian group FCD diagrams with grandparents. In one, the grandparents are not drawn largest is #K125. This is the set where the grandparents are likely from different sides of the family, and are not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shown together in any of the drawing tasks. The remaining diagram #K120y has the eldest brother as the largest figure (no central figure). In this FCD, the self is the smallest figure, and there is a father/mother dyad.

Special wavs of showing relationship (FCD) Some Asian participants went beyond the directions for the FCD, spontaneously coming up with ways of indicating family relationships. One finds several different ways of presenting unity, if not equality, in FCD diagrams by Asian participants. One way is to place all family members in one central circle (IK128 [fig. 68] and IK130). Another way is for #J89, circles representing family members to be drawn tightly together in the center of the diagram (example #J89). In the single parent family, all members are shown as equal with no single member placed in the center*(#106). Father/mother dyads are emphasized by overlapping circles in three diagrams. One of these is made in such a way that the overlapping circle of the father and the mother hold smaller circles representing the children, IK116 [fig. 56]. Participant IC105 depicts father and mother a second time in the center, after drawing them as the largest figures. Diagrams that make all the family member circles overlap occur in drawings IC103 [fig. 49] and #C109. A "bull's eye"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pattern representing a unity of family members are seen in three: IC102, IK130, and #0119. Using additional lines shows relationships in IK118 and #K121 [fig. 60].

Family problems

Strained relationships may be evidenced in several of the Asian group drawings. One case is drawing set IK119. Here the father figure is omitted in the FCD and the KFD.

FCD diagram #C119 [fig. 58], is particular in that the father figure is omitted. Only the mother and the two sisters are shown. The father is depicted in the FDT, but is not included in the drawing of the family doing

something together. (This is the only drawing where there is a suggestion of the disappearing parent phenomenon.) The set by participant IC108 also may suggest a strained

relationship. In this set, the eldest brother is consistently isolated from the family in the three figure

drawing tasks. (In general, isolation in Asian drawings is subtle and always best described by the limiter

'somewhat'.) In set IK122, it is the second and youngest brother who is somewhat isolated. FCD diagram #C110 [fig.

53] depicts the children isolated from the parents. This arrangement of family members was interpreted by my insiders to be a way of emphasizing parent hierarchy. Two FCD diagrams depict a family member drawn as half a circle

on the very edge of the family circle (#J95 and #C113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [fig. 55]). In #J95 the father is isolated. In IC113 [fig. 55] the participant drew herself as a tiny speck while her other sister, the youngest, is shown in a close relationship with the mother.

Parent/chiId dyads

Evidence for an especially close relationship between a parent and child in Asian FCD diagrams is clear in only

five of 42 (12%). A general impression Asian diagrams make is that, except for a strong father/mother dyad, they tend not to show close contact between family members. This did not surprise my insiders. Five FCD diagrams show a special relationship between parent and child through the arrangement of family member circles, placed close to one another (#J97, #C108, IC114, #K118, IK125 [fig. 63]). Two FCD diagrams are of dyads formed between one parent and a single child (IK118, #K125 [fig. 63]). In #K118, the close relationship is between the mother and youngest child (fourth sister). This connection is enhanced through additional, drawn lines. The mother and youngest child are also paired in the KFD in this set of drawings. In IK125 the father is paired with the younger sister. Three of the five show a parent/child dyads with each parent. In these three, the mother is always paired with the youngest child. In two, the father is paired with the oldest child (once a son, once a daughter). In family diagram #C108, the mother 67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the third sister (the youngest) are paired, as are the father and the self figure (the third brother). Analysis of these eight dyads shows no link by parent sex. Both the father and the mother form a parent child in four of the FCD diagrams. There is no link by sex of the child. Both the father and the mother form a dyad in two diagrams with a daughter, and in two with a son. There is no link based on the child's sex. Four dyads are formed with sons and four dyads are formed with daughters. There is, however, a link based on birth order for a dyad between mother and child. In all four of the parent/child pairings, the mother is paired with the youngest child. The father is

paired with the first born child twice (two of four father/chiId dyads). The close relationship between mother and youngest is also found in the FDT for participant IK117 [fig. 57]. In this family drawing, mother and father each are holding the

hand of a child. The mother holds hands with the youngest, and the father with the eldest. A middle child stands on her own. Kim, when seeing this drawing, especially commented that this type of relationship between mother and youngest is very typical.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Kinetic. JamilY-Drawing (KFD) A total of 44 KFD drawings by Asian participants are analyzed for scene type. In addition to the 42 KFD drawings that are to be expected as part of the drawing sets, two additional action drawings that were drawn as FDT drawings are added. Dinner is the most common single scene type (13 of 44). In all, 16 of 44 KFD drawings show vacation and leisure scenes (36%). The four scenes of indoor leisure are: two of the family playing music together, and two of the family watching TV together (two additional scenes show the family watching TV as they ate dinner). Yoko commented about #J92 that because of schoolwork for the kids and dad's work, time together is precious. This scene she thought shows a close family and a happy time. Baseball is in one Japanese KFD drawing of father and son playing together (the mother is omitted from this KFD). The automobile is a focus in three drawings (road trip vacation IC107, going on vacation #J95, driving to a picnic spot #J93). Holiday celebrations account for six KFD scenes (14%). New Year celebrations and preparations are present in four KFDs. "Korean Lunar New Year" is specified in IK126. A Chinese Noon Festival is in one drawing, IC124.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Work scenes show: tending bees (IC105), garden work (IK118, IK129), family building a house (#K120), and house cleaning (#K125 [fig. 64]). Xiyi commented that tending bees is most likely the family's income. Three scenes show religious practice. These are the family praying together in two very similar scenes. A third Korean KFD drawing shows "Ceremony for Ancestors", IK128 [fig. 69]. (Kim thought that it was unusual to have the mother in the picture since this is something only for

men.) Outdoor leisure scenes is a fairly large category (7 of 44, 16%) owing to four picnic drawings. Xiyi commented that picnicking is especially popular for young families. Yoko explained that #J93 is a special scene of a picnic at

cherry blossom time. The others are: baseball (#C89), Hiking (#J97), and cooking out (IK123). One drawing is unique. KFD drawing IK119 [fig. 58] shows the mother and daughter siting on a park bench. This KFD drawing belongs to the set where there are other unique features. The father is only presented in the FDT drawing. Also, a sister is missing in the KFD drawing. The FCD diagram shows a close relationship between the mother and the two girls, drawn as a bull's eye pattern (excluding the father). Kim agreed that this scene represented a park bench. He also added that it is very typical in TV soap operas to see this format of two people sitting on a park bench talking. 70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Place Drawing Task (PDT) Participants depict single family homes in 16 drawings (38%). An almost equal number draw apartment buildings, 15 (36%). Three floor plans are of single family homes. Nine participants made maps of their neighborhoods to show various features such as schools, shops, parks and civic buildings. Two of the Korean drawings feature homes and schools, and indicate where the participant lived.

Nine of 42 (21%) Asian PDT drawings are notable in that the participants do not indicated any specific house or apartment as their home. What is seen is a larger setting, often with much detail, but without a special notice of

"home." For example, #J93 [fig. 45] has an entire 3-D map of a town. The houses are marked, but not the participant's own. Drawing IK127 shows a similar wider setting. Five anomyous place drawings are of apartment buildings. Others are a rural landscape (IK129) and a cityscape (#K129).

A particular building type occurs in place drawings from participants from all three countries. This is a walled compound. My insiders confirmed that these were

rural, single family houses. Participant #C99 [fig. 47] noted that his uncle's family shared the house. Place drawing #C96 is a diagram of such a walled compound with one of the buildings being identified as the grandparent's house, single family walled compounds in rural settings are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. presented in seven of the drawings. An eighth drawing depicts a broad landscape with agricultural activity. One participant (#C113) drew her own room. In this drawing, the participant narked herself as a speck at the edge of the fanily circle in the FCD diagran, and her sister as just half a circle.

Extended fanilv members

Asian participants only depict grandparents as extended family members. Further, the grandparents are drawn in all figure drawing tasks. There are four sets of drawings that show the elder generation (10%). These are: #J94 [fig. 46], #C109 [fig. 52], #K125 [figs. 62, 63, 64], , #K127 [fig.

6 6 ]. In one of the drawings (#K125 [figs. 62, 63, 64], a dispersed pattern FDT), the grandmother is not paired with the grandfather. Kim, a Korean, commented that he thought the grandmother was the father's mother, and so was placed more prominently to show greater status. There are two drawings that picture a pet dog. In these drawings the dog is closely associated with the mother, and so is probably not the family's pet. In FDT drawing IC107 [fig. 51] mother holds the leash. The dog is again shown in the PDT drawing, tied outside the house. In FDT drawing

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. #K123 [fig. 61] the dog is pictured as part of the clustered family group, but is shown sitting on the mother's lap. Place drawings refer to extended members, but they are

not included in the drawings as family. In #C99 [fig. 47], there is a note about the uncle's famiy sharing the house. The other is #C96, a drawing of a compound indicating the

grandparent's house. One FCD diagram (#K128 [fig. 68]) has an additional note referring to three sisters, three brothers-in-law, and five nephews. I asked Kim, my Korean insider about whether this meant that sisters are not part of the family when they marry. He said that although sisters are considered to be with their husband's family, they are still thought of as part of the family for all special occasions. He thought this was an unusual family diagram.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5 AMERICAN MINORITY STUDENT DRAWINGS

Hispanic-American student drawings Four Hispanic-Americans participated in the study. All are second generation Hispanic-Americans, two parent families. For two of the participants, both parents came from Mexico. The other two have one parent of Mexican origin and one American parent. Since there are so few sets of drawings, detailed analysis is impractical. However, these drawings warrant consideration for the information they present. In many respects, the Hispanic-American drawings mirror drawings made by White-Americans. All four place drawings show the typical American single family house. There are two differences. Place drawing IH132 shows the house from the back door, and the drawing by participant #H131 [fig. 70] is populated with family members, making a small KFD drawing of this task. Dinner is chosen as the family activity in all of the drawings. FDT drawings by three participants show patterns that can be matched with White-American FDTs. In one, the father 74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and eldest son are paired, and father and mother hold objects relating to their work (#H132 [fig. 74]). (This feature is also seen in Korean drawing #K120 [fig. 59].) FDT drawing IH131 [fig. 71] presents a family with a number of extended family members, each drawn equally, as a portrait. For the FCD, one drawing has no central figure, one depicts the father/mother dyad equally, and one shows the mother in the central position. The remaining FCD drawing has 11 family members in the center as a core, drawn equally large. The family core is surrounded by satellite groups of extended family members drawn to a smaller scale. In respect to figure size in these drawings, all family members are drawn equally large in one, the father is largest in another, and the father/mother dyad is

emphasized in a fourth. There is one parent/child dyad. The father and the youngest daughter, and the mother with the third brother (the two remaining brothers are isolated). This set of drawings by participant IH131 [figs. 70, 71, 72, 73] is especially interesting in that it presents a picture of extended member family life described in the literature (DeOrnellas 1997, Wenar 1990, Urrabazo 1986). However, since this set of drawings is one of only four, no conclusions should be based on it. In this set of drawings, the FDT includes three grandparents (Grandma Hansen is Danish), an aunt, an uncle, and a cousin. The cousin is 75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. numbered along with the two children of the nuclear family. The FCD has a total of 18 family members pictured. The 11 that are shown as part of the core family group, are the

same as in the FDT from this set. The place drawing also has extended family members pictured, identifying the "Mexican Grandparents". The family dinner scene pictures ten of the family members together (Grandma Hansen is missing). There are two 'fill-in-the-blank' places along with the note, "represents other frequent visiting family from Mexico".

Asian-American student drawings Seven Asian-American university students volunteered to participate in this family study. While the number is insufficient to look for patterns, these drawings do provide a glimpse of Asian-American life, and can be looked at for parallels and differences when compared to drawings by other groups. Family background for these seven are: five are second generation Chinese; one is half Japanese; nne is half Chinese. Family size ranges from one to five children. There is one set of drawings that depict a single mother with a set of grandparents, IA137. In the set of drawings for IA135, the mother figure only appears in the FCD, where she is shown close to the self. (The Place task for #A135 is unique in that it pictures a living room with a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prominent TV set.) The FDT for #A141 is one of only two drawings in which participants omit themselves, even though the direction for the task specifies for participants to include themselves. (The other one is #K119.)

Extended family members in this group of drawings appear in three of seven sets (43%). In drawing set by the participant from a single mother family (#A137) pictures the grandparents in all three of the family drawing tasks.

This is similar to drawings by Asian participants, and one drawn by a Hispanic-American. The KFD scene this participant drew, omits the mother in the scene "Going to Church." Participant #A138 only includes extended family in the FCD. This FCD shows a set of grandparents, aunts, an uncle and a cousin, one interesting aspect of this diagram is that the nuclear family is depicted as a unit of equally sized figures, larger than the figures representing extended family members in the FCD. Additionally, the

participant has redrawn the FCD to enclose the family in a separate larger circle. A similar pattern of depicting the nuclear family as a distinct group among extended members appears in #69 [fig. 39], White-American, and in #H131 [fig. 72], Hispanic-American. This group of participants made drawings that are like other American drawings. Except for the place drawing of a living room, the American style single family home is presented in all the drawings by Asian-American 77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. participants. KFD drawings presents a wide range of scenes representing different classes of activities. Dinner at hone is in one drawing. Eating dinner out is another. Garden work, a religious scene, and picnicking scenes (nore common in Asian group drawings) are presented. For The FCD central figure: the father is chosen once; the mother once; and both parents once. Three of the drawings have no central figure. Familial equality is shown in IA138, but only among the members of the nuclear family. The other patterns seen in drawings are represented in this Asian-American group, for example: the father/mother dyad, parent/child dyad, sibling pairing, figures presented linear in the FDT and figures grouped. Participant IA136 made a KFD drawing of a dinner scene with a place set at the table for "a friend”. This is similar to KFD IH131 [fig. 73] which has a place set at table for unnamed relatives visiting from Mexico.

African-American student drawings Of the number of university students who volunteered to participate in this study, thirteen described themselves as African-American. This number, although small, does allow for analysis and comparison with other groups in the study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawings by the African-American participants show some similarities and also some differences worth considering when compared with other Americans and with drawings by

international students in the Asian group. Family size ranges from one child (in one family) to nine children (in two families). Two families have two children, three families have five children. Families with

four children account for three sets of drawings. The types of family members included in these drawings needed to be expanded for this group of participants. Included in the set are a pair of foster brothers (#B144), and a "common-law wife" (#B143 [fig. 77]). Split families in this group of African-American drawing represent 4 of the 13 drawing sets (31%). Of these, there is one single father (#B149) and two single mothers

(#B148 [fig. 80], IB154). The fourth #B143 [fig. 76], adds a second mother. In some cases, representations of extended family members do not remain constant from drawing to drawing within a set. Unlike Asian drawings, two White-American drawings, and one Hispanic-American drawing that have extended family members depicted in all the drawings of the

set, African-American drawings do not show a consistent depiction of extended members. There is no one outside of the nuclear family who is represented in all drawings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There are two FDT drawings with additional members. #B143 [fig. 76] has a second mother pictured with one of the children. There is also the drawing by participant

IB148 [fig. 80] who includes her father beside her mother, even though he had passed away when she was four years old. This is also the only drawing where there is a domestic pet, a dog, drawn.

The FCD, which is often more sensitive to allowing for the depiction of extended family, presents extra members in 3 of the 13 drawings (23%), and in none of the other drawings. These are: a mother who is added in #B149 a single father parent set; two foster brothers are added in #B144; and IB150 [fig. 83] that shows extended family members in three groupings of figures. In IB150 [fig. 83], the three groups of figures representing family members are enclosed in separate circles. In addition to a circle containing the immediate family, each of the other circles have as their largest figure a grandmother surrounded by aunts and cousins. Three African-American KFD drawings have extended family. The drawing of the single father family presents a KFD of father and daughter at a theme park with four nameless cousins. The Funeral scene depicted in IB143 [fig. 77], "Big Moma Gone", shows the deceased grandmother, the church choir, an added uncle, and the fifth brother's common law wife and daughter. The largest number of family

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in a KFD is in IB151 [fig. 86]. There are 23 separate family figures drawn by the participant at the scene of a "Family Reunion." Isolated figures are less frequent in this group of drawings. In drawing IB152, the father is isolated in the FDT, but appears in all the other drawings. FCD Drawing (#B152 [fig. 87]) has the second brother placed in the center as most important. The extra mother figure is set off with the eighth brother by a bracket in FDT IB143. In effect, this isolates the pair. In the FCD by this participant, the extra mother is not shown. However, brother number 8 is shown half out of the family circle, (This manner of presenting a half figure is found in some Asian drawings.) In general, FDT family patterns are similar to other drawings. In the FDT drawings (excluding single child families), family members are presented in a line of figures most often, 9 of 12 (75%). Of the three drawings that not linear, one drawing is almost a KFD in so far as the family members are pictured doing individual activities (as in #J98), the father and mother embracing, #B151 [fig. 84]. FDT IB153, a dispersed pattern, suggests an enumeration of the many members (9 children), as does multiple member family #B154 (family members are shown as two lines of figures).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One particular feature of this group of drawings is the equal spacing of the figures in but two drawings, irrespective of pattern (excluding the single child family, and #B151 [fig. 84] that is a KFD drawing for a FDT drawing). There are two exceptions. In two drawings the children are grouped separately from the parents (IB142 [fig. 75], #B148 [fig. 80]). These match some Asian drawings in that there is a dominant father/mother dyad and the children are grouped separately. Age order ranking of siblings is left to right, eldest drawn first. Participant #B142 [fig. 75] places the youngest first. Irregular drawing features in this group of drawings are: the participant did not number themselves (#B15l [fig. 84]); and in #B144 the participant omits herself. The father/mother dyad is in all two parent family drawings. Even in the set of the widowed, single mother, the father/mother dyad is maintained in the FDT and FCD The deceased father is included beside the mother in the FDT drawing. Unity, if not equality of family members, is notable in a number of drawings by African-American student participants. Of 13 FCDs, three have the family members shown as a pattern of concentric rings, like a bull's eye. This presents a pattern where all members are equal (#B142, IB147 [fig. 79], #B153 [fig. 88]). Overlapping family 82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. member circles are used by two African-American participants (#B145 [fig. 78], IB153 [fig. 88]). One, IB153 [fig. 88] places her siblings in a central circle which overlaps with the father's and the mother's circle. Another way of presenting equality is seen in #B145 [fig. 78]: here all circles denoting family members are presented as a series of interlocking rings. Two FCD drawings were redrawn to make clearer the egalitarian relationships within the

family (#B145 [fig. 78], and IB151 [fig. 85]. Additional notes by the participants give word to what is seen in the diagrams as follows: #B145 [fig. 78] "My whole Family is very important"; IB151 [fig. 85] "Just imagine its 6 circles all the same size, pressing against the large circle."; and IB153 [fig. 88] "All of us are close to each other". There are three bull's eye patterns. Two of these have the children placed center as most important in the family. In diagram #B152 [fig. 87], the second brother is placed in the center of the bull's eye. This is a drawing from the set where the father was isolated in the FDT. Only two FCD diagrams in this set by African-American participants has a parent/child dyad. One dyad is formed by the mother pairing with a son (in #B143 [fig. 76] with the fifth son, who is shown in the KFD with his own child and common-law-wife). In #B144 the mother is paired with the eldest son.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A particular feature of these drawings is the definite pairing of siblings. This occurs in the two families where there are nine children in the family. Place drawings by African-American participants show a single family home in ten cases (77%). Apartments are shown in two and the whole neighborhood in another. A floor plan of a single family home is presented in one place task drawing. While the drawing of the whole neighborhood has no

indication of the participant's own home, both the floor plan drawing and the drawing of the apartment building note own room and own apartment respectively. KFD scenes have the following distribution of types: two religious scenes (family at prayer in #B142, and "Big Noma Gone", a funeral in IB143 [fig. 77]), one Thanksgiving drawing, one vacation at a theme park, two roadtrip scenes, five scenes of a family cookout, one scene of the children playing basketball (no parents), and one titled "Leisure Time" which shows just a TV set (#B144).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6 CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

The universality of drawing The universality of drawing as a means of communication is seen on a very basic level in the commonality of scene types in the KFD. A picnic in Japan looks like a picnic in America. Families hiking together are similar in presentation. The Japanese father and son playing baseball could be an American scene. Presentation of family members in the FDT and FCD follow the same general patterns. As an example demonstrating the cohesiveness of Asian images, the group of three FDT drawings, one from each national group,

are indistinguishable from one another in their content and form. For the Place Drawing Task, Korean apartment buildings and homes are readily seen for what they are, as

is the American single family home. On a deeper level, the systems of analyzing patterns and content for the family drawing tests that evolved through the course of this research are applicable for all groups. This supports on a structural level the similarity

of family presentation in drawing tests. Taken from the 85

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. perspective of the participant, spontaneous ways of showing special relationship that went beyond the directives for the drawing tests, are similar across groups. This is especially so in the FDC. Taken all together, the fundamental similarity of the drawings across cultural

groups supports the concept that drawing is universal.

Testing constructs related to membership To test the construct that American families are nuclear units, and that American minority and Asians as group oriented families made up of networks of extended family members, basic family membership is considered. Differences are found in basic family membership presented in the drawings when a member check is done across the set. FDT, FCD, and KFD taken together show a pattern of consistency in Asian drawings and a fluidity in American drawings. The FCD is more sensitive to including extended members than either the KFD or the FDT for White-American participants. Of the two Asian-American drawing sets that show extended family members, one has extended family members only in the FCD. The other was a single mother and the grandparents who are included in all of the drawings. One of the four Hispanic-American sets, a participant with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 extended members in her core family (shown in all the drawings) included extra, extended members only in their FCD. The core question of "who is family?” becomes a way of testing the concept of nuclear and group oriented family cultural differences. Directives for the drawing test are phrased in an open-ended manner, allowing participants to

interpret what "family” meant to them. Since this open-endedness in the way the directive is phrased is the same for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, differences in how Asian participants interpret the directive can show cultural differences. Four of 42 (10%) Asian participants included extended family members in their drawings. In all cases,

grandparents are consistently depicted in all of the family drawings. Family member depiction in White-American drawings is inconsistent. The greatest number of members are pictured in the FCD. An unexpected cultural difference

in White-American drawings compared to Asian drawings is that pets are included by Americans as family members. In FDT, 12 drawings (14%) in this group have extended family members. The four with people (5%) include: an elected

member, "Betty”; two sets of grandparents; and one drawing with a core family including a great-grandfather along with ten extended family members (#46 [fig.30]). FCD diagrams in this group depict extended family members in 17 diagrams 87

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (19%), of which 14 show a second, and (in one case) a third generation. Aunts, uncles or cousins appear in eight. There are two non-blood relations, "Betty" and "Dad's Girlfriend." White-American participants depict extended family members least often in KFD scenes, a total of seven drawings (8%). Of these five are family pets. Four pets are included for the first time. There are two drawing sets where extended family membership is constant. Both of these are households with a single mother. In one there is a set of grandparents. The other consistently depicted family member is a cat. The three American minority groups (owing to small sample size) are suggestive of possible trends. One of four Hispanic-American drawing sets depict extended family members. In this one case, there is a wealth of extended members, 11 in a core family group that appears in all drawing tasks. Additional members are added in the FCD. Two of seven Asian-American participants depict extended members. In one case, a set of grandparents are consistently depicted as part of a single mother household.

In the other case, extended family members are added only to the FCD (an uncle, aunts, cousins, and grandparents). In African-American drawing sets, seven of 13 show extended family members (53%). No extended members are consistently depicted across the drawings in the sets. Variations are idiosyncratic. One drawing includes a second mother for one

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the children in the FDT. A second shows a deceased father and the family dog. In one FCD, a mother and sibling (missing in the FDT) is added for the first and last time

in the set. Another single father household shows unnamed cousins in the KFD. A funeral scene KFD adds the grandmother (as deceased), and three other family members for the first time. The scene of the family reunion in one KFD has the largest total number of figures depicted, 23.

Split families, a cultural difference One major cultural difference between Americans and

Asian that is clearly seen in family drawings is the large number of split families among American participants. In the White-American group there are 19 sets of drawings (22%) that suggest a family split (either by showing a

single parent, a second marriage, an isolated parent, or a parent who is excluded from one or more of the family drawing). African-American drawings show a split in four of 13 sets (31%). Two of the seven sets of drawings by Asian-American participants depicted a family split (29%). All four of the Hispanic-American families were intact. In the Asian group of drawings, there was one family where the father was deceased. (The deceased father was included by one African-American participant in the FDT and FCD.) Participant #44 (White-American) made a family tree diagram to show a deceased father in the FDT). 89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Depiction of extended families in American drawings is found linked, although weakly, with families that are split. Of 17 White-American FCD diagrams depicting extended family members, eight are matched with families where there is a split.

Candor, a cultural difference Related to this phenomenon of split American families is another cultural difference between the groups. This is the candor that American participants show in presenting family problems in their drawings, an openness that is not

readily seen in Asian drawings. While this might reflect that Asian students studying at an American university as a group come from more stable family backgrounds, the answer might also suggest a cultural difference. As Yoko, my Japanese insider, commented; nWe keep our problems hidden." Two sets of drawings suggest family difficulties. One was by Chinese participant #C113, who drew her own room for the PDT, and in her family circle diagram depicted herself as a tiny speck on the very edge, and her sister as half a circle. (Drawing one's own room is strongly linked to family problems in White-American drawings.) The other, #K119, is unusual in that the father figure is omitted. Only the mother and the two sisters are shorn close in the FCD. In the KFD, the participant omits her sister and is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. alone with her mother. This is the only set of Asian drawings that suggest the disappearing parent phenomenon seen in White-American drawings.

The role of the elder generation The role of the elder generation as shown in family drawing tests needs to be considered in the light of cultural differences. One aspect that was constantly

stressed in conversation reviewing the drawings with my Asian insiders is respect for elders and hierarchy. In the four Asian drawings with grandparents, the grandparents are shown in the KFD as active family members. In the other family drawing tasks, the position of the grandparents clearly suggest prominence. In one FDT the grandparents are placed in the center of the family (elders and children grouped separately). In the other FDT, they are drawn first at the top of the family, only one of the four FCD diagrams has the grandfather d r a m largest and placed in the center as "most important." The other FCD to make the grandparents prominent, shows them d r a m as the largest figures in the FCD.

In the American group of drawings, the role of the grandparents in family hierarchy is mixed as well. In the two American drawings where the grandparents were constant members in a single mother household, their roles are similar to the Asian group. In American FCD diagrams, only 91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 of 14 depicting grandparents has them placed as the center of the family group. Grandparents that are shown in

one Hispanic-American drawing set, two Asian-American drawing sets, and one African-American family FCD. None of

these participants prominently place their grandparents in their FCD diagrams.

Cultural differences in PDT American participants drew single family homes and apartments in 99 of 112 PDTs (88%). Asian participants drew single family homes and apartment buildings in 31 of 42 PDTs (74%). Depiction of wider settings for the PDT by Asian participants accounted for nine place drawings (21%). These were maps, a landscape, and a cityscape. Additionally, an unanticipated feature in place drawings by this group was anonymity. In line drawings, the participant did not indicate any specific house or apartment as their

home. This anonymity of place and the number of wider setting drawings may be interpreted as supporting the construct of group-orientation in drawings by Asian

participants. In American drawings, only one by an African-American participant depicts a wider setting of a neighborhood without the self-reference of noting her own home. Two drawings by White-American participants place

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their home in a wider neighborhood setting. An additional participant drew what looks like an exotic mountain village (no home noted).

Cultural differences in FDT Patterns Family Drawing Test (FDT) drawings are analyzed according to pattern of general presentation (linear or grouped figures), and in respect to formation of secondary figure groups and isolated figures. Results indicate that the FDT can be interpreted two ways, as a visual enumeration of family members in some instances, and in others, as making a formal presentation of the family (as in a professionally done family photograph). Evidence for each is found in both American and Asian groups. One cultural difference between Asian participants and American participants is the proportion of dispersed pattern presentations versus linear presentations. This difference can be reasoned to relate to writing format (linear in English, vertical in Asian languages). White-American participants made linear presentations of their families in

54 of 77 FDT drawings (70%), as opposed to Asian FDT drawings (17 of 39, 44%). The dispersed pattern of presentation is presented in 36% of Asian drawings, and in 13% of White-American drawings. Looking at the way participants drew their parents in the FDT in respect to father/mother dyads and parent/chiId 93

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dyads for possible cultural differences, results show that in two parent families a father/mother dyad is a constant feature across groups. It is in 81% of White-American FDT drawings, 84% of Asian FDT drawings, all of Hispanic and

Asian-American FDT drawings, and in all but one drawing by African-American participants. The father/mother dyad is maintained even in a drawing that pictured the deceased father.

A split dyad (children placed between the parents) is interpreted as showing parental protection. White-Americans participants picture the children placed between the parents in six cases. This family arrangement is seen in two of the Asian drawings. Evidence of a parent/child dyad, as would be expected following Hsu, found in FDT drawings where there is no father/mother dyad. Three Asian diagrams have parent/child dyads. The father is paired with the eldest child (one son,

two daughters) and the mother with youngest. There are no parent/child dyads in drawings by African-American participants. One Hispanic-American participant drew a father/eldest son dyad. In the White-American drawings, of the two where there was not a father/mother dyad, the father was paired with the eldest son in two and the mother with the youngest in one of these. In the three White-American drawings of parents surrounded by their children, a father/eldest son dyad is in two, one of these 94

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has a mother/youngest child dyad. One Asian-American participant drew a father/eldest daughter dyad paired with a mother/youngest child. Organization of siblings reveals evidence for the FDT being an enumeration of family members. In the White-American group, 46 of 67 drawings showed a left to right, age descending order (67%). Four are in inverse

order. Nine are randomly ordered. All Asian-American drawings follow a regular age descending order. One Hispanic-American drawing follows an inverse ordering, as did one African-American FDT. The African-American drawings

also give one example of random ordering. For Asian participants, regular age descending ordering of siblings is found in 17 of 38 drawings (45%), inverse order in seven (18%), and random order in four. Concerning possible cultural loading in the directive for the FDT that may have influenced the drawing, there is some evidence that White-American participants did not

follow directions. Nine drew a KFD for their FDT, and while the directive for the FDT, in asking the participant to label family members, lists "Father, mother,....”, nine of the participants in this group still place the mother first. Five made patterns without pairing the father and mother. Thirty-seven of 80 participants (not counting the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eight single child families) did not number siblings as directed. In six sets of drawings, it is not possible to infer an age hierarchy of children. One striking cultural difference seen in Asian FDT drawings compared to American drawings is that a number picture the children behind the parents (6 of 42, 14%). The relation to a family photograph is clear (reiterated by Xiyi), this it also makes a cultural statement as interpreted by my insiders. The meaning is to convey respect for the parents, therefore hierarchy (according to Yoko). Never did an American participant draw the children

behind their parents. A further point of cultural difference is seen in FDT drawings that stress the father/mother dyad by setting the parents off as a unit and grouping the children, or through emphasizing the parents by size and detail. This is found: in 8 of 32 Asian FDT drawings (21%); in 5 of 60 White-American drawings (8%)? in one drawing by an Hispanic participant; and in 3 of 13 drawings by African-American participants (23%).

Cross-cultural comparison. FCD

FCD analysis tests constructs that describe family patterns. Constructs of patri-focal and matri-focal could be tested by evaluating which family member the participant chooses as "most important" in the family. This directive

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for the FCD, phrased to be open to individual interpretation in English, is also open to interpretation in Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. The question, "who is close among family members?" is asked by the directive to be open to individual interpretation by the participant. "Close" carries the same indistinct meaning when translated. FCD analysis further investigates Hsu's concept of a father/son dyad. Additionally, individual, spontaneous and creative ways of interpreting the directive by participants leads to observations not anticipated in the FCD's original concept. The FCD is the most sensitive of the drawing tests in presenting extended family relationships. It is also the most sensitive in presenting complex systems of family relationships. The directive to place the "most important" family member in the center is interpreted differently across cultures. There are clear differences between Asian participants and American participants. White-Americans make the mother the central figure in 35 of 88 FCD diagrams (40%), the father in 13 (15%), and the father/mother dyad in 21 (24%). Other patterns show a sibling, the participant, or figures drawn to express equality. American minority groups show a different emphasis in the family. Asian-American participants left the center empty in 3 of 7 drawings. (The participant, father, mother, father/mother 97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dyad are central in one FCD each.) The four Hispanic-American FCD diagrams show: the nuclear family (11 members) in one center; no central figure in one; the

mother and the parent dyad each in one. African-Americans tend as a group to stress the children. This is done as follows: by having the children in the center (3 of the 13 diagrams); the nuclear family in one; and all members in the third. The mother is central in three, the father in

two, the parent dyad in one. In one drawing a participant drew himself in the center. In another, the participant has placed a second brother on center. Asian participants place the father in the center most often (14 of 42 diagrams, 33%). The father/mother dyad are central in 10 of 42 drawings (24%). The mother alone is placed in the center as most important in three diagrams (7%). Sixteen have no parent in the center (38%) and present patterns suggesting a unity of members, or particular family relationships. In Asian FCD diagrams, one pattern is to have the children grouped with the mother and the father shown slightly isolated. This is interpreted by Yoko as showing a usual family situation in Japan. The father is away from the family working, and the mother and children are the focus at home. One diagram shows a grandfather as most important member in the family.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The results of analyzing FCD for the type and number of largest figures drawn gives a distribution for White-Americans that is similar to that for central figure placement. The mother is most often drawn the largest (32 of 88 diagrams, 36%). The father/mother dyad is emphasized in 25% of the diagrams (22 of 88 diagrams). The father is largest figure in 16 (18%). All figures are drawn equally large in 11 (13%). In two diagrams, participants makes themselves the largest, most important family member. The pattern of largest figure diagramed in the FCD for American minorities showed the following: for Asian-Americans, all equally large in two, the mother in two, the father/mother dyad in two, and the father in one; Hispanic-Americans show all equally large in two, the parent dyad in one, and the father as largest in the fourth; African-Americans drew all figures equally large in 6 of 13 FCD diagrams (46%), the mother as largest in three, the father in two, mother and grandmothers in one, and the father/mother dyad in one. Asian participants show a similar pattern of designating largest figure as most important, the centrally placed figure. The father/mother dyad is shown as most important in 13 of 42 diagrams (31%), the father in 14 of 42 FCD diagrams (33%), the mother alone in 5 (12%), all

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. members equally large in 6 (14%), three diagrams had a grandparent as most important, and one has the eldest child, a son, as the most important. All American drawings, 140 drawing sets could be evaluated for parent/child dyads (excluding single child families). Of this total, there are 40 FCD diagrams that evidenced parent/child dyads (29%) in the FCD, where

relationships are most clearly seen. Analysis of FCD diagrams show some evidence for parent/chiId dyads. Nineteen of White-American diagrams have parent/chiId dyads. Of these 12 are of both parents in relationship with a single child giving a total of 31 pairings. No gender based relationship is found. However, there is some indication of parent/child dyads based on birth order. Thirty dyads (one has no age identification) show that: the father and the eldest child formed a dyad in ten; the mother and the youngest in ten; and in the remaining ten, the bond is with a middle child. In American minority drawings, two African-American

participants drew parent/child dyads. The pairs were only between the mother and child (in one case with the eldest brother, in the other with a middle brother). One Asian-American participant shows a bond between father and eldest child (son), and between the mother and the youngest

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (the participant, a son). One Hispanic-American FCD diagrams shows a father/youngest child, and mother/middle child dyad. Asian FCD drawings are similar to White and Asian-American diagrams in that the dyads are based on birth-order and not gender. In 40 FCD diagrams by Asian participants, there are five (13%) that show a parent/child dyad (three with both parents in relationship with a single child each, two with one parent in relationship). The mother is linked with the youngest child in all dyads. The father forms a dyad with the eldest in two diagrams (once a son, once a daughter). To test the observation that there are so few parent/child dyads in the Asian group, diagrams made by one and two child family participants were looked at as a group, the rational being that small family size would load the analysis in the direction of finding dyads. It was found that of 12 possible FCD diagrams, only one formed a parent/child dyad.

Going beyond the directive, cross-cultural similarities A number of participants spontaneously came up with novel ways of interpreting the FCD to show their family's relationships. These relationships indicated an even greater closeness of members in several ways: by overlapping family circles; making bull's eye patterns;

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adding lines to show close connections; and by adding written comments. Conversely, participants also showed strained relationships within the family by: overlapping some but not all circles; isolating members; placing members outside the family circle; connecting some but not all members; depicting some family members as half circles on the edge of the family; and also adding written comments. Novel ways of interpreting the FCD were found in drawings by White-American, African-American, and Asian participants. Ways of showing relationships, beyond the basic FCD directive, are similar for these three groups. The four Hispanic-American FCD diagrams, perhaps owing to small sample size, showed FCD diagrams that followed the directive. This similarity of individual interpretation of these groups support the universality of drawings. Novel FCD patterns of family relationships often go beyond the directive to emphasize prominently the father/mother dyad, stressing the father/mother dyad is found in similar ways in all national groups. These ways are: through overlapping of the circles representing father and mother; placing both parents equally in the center; making both father and mother equally large; and by adding extra comments. In White-American FCD diagrams, 21 of 88 have father and mother centered (24%). Parents are drawn equally large

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by participants in 22 of 88 (25%) of White-American FCD diagrams. Six White-American FCD diagrams have the parent's circles overlapping. FCD diagrams by Asian participants show the same tendencies to stress the father/mother dyad

as White-American participants. In this group of drawings, the father and mother are placed centrally in 10 of 42 FCD diagrams (24%), and to be made the equally the largest drawn figures in 14 of 42 FCD diagrams (33%). One Asian

participant drew the father/mother dyad a second time, to place his parents unquestionably in the center for sure. In Asian FCD diagrams, there are two overlapping father and mother circles. Another participant double circles the parents. For each of the American minority groups, the father/mother dyad is stressed as a centrally placed figure group in one FCD, and as largest figures in two FCD diagrams. Novel ways of showing family unity, if not equality, among members is done is ways that are similar to ways of stressing the father/mother dyad. This comes through overlapping all figures, placing all figures in the center, by making all figures in the FCD equally large, and by extra added comments. In both Asian and African-American FCD diagrams, there is a novel way of showing family unity. This is to make a bull's eye pattern. Three such patterns are in African-American FCD diagrams. There are two in Asian FCD diagrams. White-American participants make all

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. figures equidistant in three FCD diagrams, and all figures equally large in 11 (13%). Asian-American participants show all family members equally large in six FCD diagrams. One Hispanic-American FCD follows this pattern also. There are two FCD diagrams by Asian participants that overlap all circles. Seven White-Americans also overlap all circles.

Given that so many participants across groups spontaneously come up with similar, if not the same, novel solutions to showing family relationship in ways beyond what the directives for the tasks call for adds support to

the universality of drawing tests.

Cross-cultural comparison. KFD Analysis of KFD drawings also underscores the universality of drawing tests. There are some specific differences in the scenes that would point to a specific culture, but these are more artifact as they relate to material culture (for example, an Asian style family compound as compared to the American single family home). The general impression made by KFD scenes is that the subject matter is largely universal. Differences that are

found between groups are differences of quantity and proportion rather than type. By combining scene types and making a comparison based on work versus leisure, there is a difference between the scenes drawn by Asian participants and American participants. In a combined American group, 104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. there are seven work scenes in total (6%), while Asian participants made five (11%). Vacation and leisure scenes account for 50% (60 of 121) of American drawings and for 25% (11 of 44) of Asian KFD drawings. African-Americans were cooking out as their most frequent family scene (5 of

13 scenes, 38%) instead of eating dinner. One White-American and one Asian participant shows a cookout scene. That all of the Hispanic participants made dinner KFD drawings may be sampling error, given there are only four, or it may suggest particular importance of family dinner together. There is considerable variety of scenes made by Asian-American participants (no two were the same). A larger sample size may show a difference by type. Holidays are shown in 16 White-American KFD drawings (6%), in 1 of 13 African-American scenes (8%), and in 6 of 44 Asian drawings (14%). Roughly interpreted this may point to a difference in stressing cultural celebrations. Picnicking was relatively important to Asian participants (4 of 44 scenes, 9%). This is compared to one picnic KFD by an Asian-American participant and one by a White-American. Religious practice is a scene in three Asian drawings (7%), in three White-American drawings (3%), and in two drawings by African-Americans (15%). The proportion of religious scenes in African-American may be sampling error, or it may suggest a cultural difference. A final point regarding

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scene type, two participants in the White-American group drew scenes that showed family dysfunction. Proportionally a small number, but remarkable.

Picturing family difficulties, a cross-cultural perspective While looking for evidence of family dysfunction was not an initial aim of this research study, never the less indicators of family problems were too apparent to be overlooked (the proverbial dinosaur in the living room). Part of seeing family drawings as indicating pathology is influenced by the literature, and the use of FDT and KFD as diagnostic tools. This gives a clinical slant to interpreting what participants present in their pictures. This is especially true in regard to family members who are isolated and omitted in drawings. It is also seen in KFD scene type, and in the subject selected for the Place Drawing Task. Ultimately, it comes from the necessity to deal with so many families drawn by American participants that suggest a split in the family unit (22% in White-American, 29% in Asian-American, and 30% in

African-American). Figure isolation is especially telling. In a clear sense, an isolated family member goes against the fundamental nature of a family as a supportive unit and signals a problem within the family. Similarly, a member who is omitted from the family breaks the family unit. 106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Omitted family members could be counted by checking basic member count across tests. Analysis of FDT drawings and FCD diagrams identifies omitted and isolated members. The FCD in particular proves to be especially sensitive to depicting family relationships across all groups in showing isolation. In looking for basic patterns of figure organization, FDT analysis shows isolated family members, it also formed the basis for a disappearing parent phenomenon that was seen in some drawing sets. This phenomenon is seen where a parent starts out isolated from the family unit in the first drawing of the set (FDT) and, in the course of the set, totally disappears from the family unit. There is also a relationship between random ordering of siblings and families that evidenced a split. In the FCD, isolated members are clearly seen, sometimes placed outside of the family circle. Figure isolation is also found in a more subtle manner. Isolation is seen in diagrams where only some of the family members are drawn large or central. So too, overlapping some but not all family circles is an indicator. There is further evidence of family difficulties when no parent figure is placed centrally or drawn largest to denote most important by the participant. When participants draw themselves as most important family member, or place a sibling in that position, it is linked to split families. 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Atypical Place Drawing Task subjects are found to be related to split families. This is especially the case where the participants drew their own room or specially mark it in the drawing. This is true for White-American participants and one Asian participant. KFD drawings also show evidence of family problems as seen in scenes drawn by White-American participants who overtly made scenes that depict family problems. One participant drew her parents announcing their divorce.

Another made a picture of her family fighting. Additionally, one family vacation scene depicted the parents fighting. Further, there was some distribution loading as to scene type with "Christmas" and watching TV associated with split families, in White and

African-American families. Divorce shows up as a cultural difference in this research between Asian participants and Americans. It may

be that Asian participants present a biased sample in that, as international students they may represent a higher functioning group, coming from intact families. Or, these drawings may reflect another cultural difference, as

pointed out by Yoko. Asians are not open with family problems. There is a marked difference in the level of candor displayed by American participants. Considering that volunteer participants (all national groups) were drawn

from two art psychotherapy classes and a general psychology

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. class, as well as by open solicitation in graduate residence halls, there could be a bias toward openness with family history by the art psychotherapy and psychology students. Never the less, family drawings do present some relationships and situations that indicate family problems. Since all except one (a family with a deceased father) of Asian drawing sets present intact, two parent households, making an analysis on readily identifiable split families, as in the American group, was difficult. It is very atypical to find an isolated family member in the Asian drawings, unlike the American drawings. Figure isolation in Asian drawings is rare and should carry the qualifier "somewhat1* since it is never seen as extreme as in American drawings, and may not necessarily carry the same indication of problems within the family unit. There are, however, two such cases and both of these make strong statements. In drawing #0108, the eldest brother is somewhat isolated, a position he carries in all three drawings in the set. Drawings in the set by participant #0113 (a Chinese woman) suggests possible family problems in the way American drawings do. In the FDT [fig. 54], the father is drawn somewhat isolated from the family. In the FCD [fig. 55], the drawer makes herself a tiny speck on the edge of the family circle. The place drawing is of her own room. The only Asian drawing with this scene. Seen in

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relation to the strong connection this feature has in American drawings, one can argue for an interpretation of distress that is cross-cultural.

Omitted members in Asian drawings are also rare. Only one case, the drawing set by a Korean woman, IK119, omits a father over the course of the drawing set. Only the mother and the two sisters are shown close in the FCD. There are rings in the bull's eye pattern for other members, but none are named. In the KFD both father and sister are omitted and the scene type is atypical [fig. 58]. The father is only depicted in the FDT, and the participant omits herself. This is the only drawing where there is a suggestion of what was seen in American drawings as the disappearing parent phenomenon that is associated with family splits. Caution should be exercised that a cultural pattern not be interpreted as showing a problem. Considering that isolation is not extreme, in Asian drawings, it may carry a different interpretation. Patterns in the FDT and FCD that show a somewhat isolated father were interpreted by my insiders to reflect the father is away from the family and

the mother the focus at home. Also, watching TV does not necessarily have the same negative association in Asian drawings as in American drawings. Owing to the limited (precious) time the family spent together, as Xiyi commented, TV watching was family time together. A further

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cultural difference was pointed out by Yoko in commenting that parents have their "preferences". White-American families, by my interpretation as the cultural insider, try to hide preferences, showing, at least, a face of equality. A final note: using drawing tests in research must carry the same caution as their use in clinical assessment. They are and should be a starting point for a dialogue. This research has presented the universality of drawings and also their sensitivity to relationships and cultural differences.

Ill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS

To answer the overarching question: can family drawing tests be used in cross-cultural family research, this study does demonstrate that on the one hand drawing is a universal means of communication, and on the other hand family drawings do reveal aspects of culture that are specific and informative. This study of family drawings tested prevailing constructs used to describe cross-cultural differences in families. These were: nuclear or group oriented; parti-focal or matri-focal; and father/eldest son or husband/wife (father/mother) dyad dominant (Hsu, 1967). Analysis of four drawing tests showed that these constructs can only be partially supported when evidence from family

drawings is considered. The four drawing tests, Place Drawing Task (PDT), Family Drawing Test (FDT), Family Circle Diagram (FCD), and the Kinetic Family Drawing Test (KFD), provided a set of drawings by a single participant. Taken together, total information was greater than individual test

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interpretations. Key aspects of membership, important to testing constructs of nuclear and group oriented families could be answered. It was also possible to document changes in family composition across the sets, and the durability of dyads within the family. Cross-cultural differences were found when the tests were combined. It was found that Asian participants consistently drew extended family members in all their drawings. Membership was fluid for American participants, with the FCD being most sensitive to showing extended family. Either the FDT or the KFD evaluated in isolation would miss the patterns of extended membership in the American group. Types of family members needed to be expanded for the African-American group. White-Americans included pets as family members (an unexpected cultural difference). The role of extended family members in families where there was a split was documented. The large number of split families in the American group stood in sharp contrast when compared to the Asian group, which was made up of intact, two parent households. Analysis linking particular features in drawings across the set, could be tied in as evidence for family problems. This was seen in types of scenes in the PDT and KFD, as well as patterns of relationship in FDT and FCD. Figure isolation was found to be a significant indicator of problems. American participants showed great candor in presenting

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. family problems. This was in contrast to Asian participants, who did not overtly indicate family difficulties. The difference in candor highlighted a

cultural difference between groups. Cultural differences in the role of the elder generation were clear across the drawing sets when groups were compared. Hierarchy and respect showed up in figure

placement in FDT and FCD. In the American group, inconsistency in including elders across the set when added to an evaluation of figure placement in the FDT and FCD to show a more mixed role of elders. In families where there was a divorce, grandparents were sometimes found in single parent households. The four tests, evaluated individually provided evidence of cultural differences as well as unity. Aspects of hierarchy, isolation, omission, and dyad formation were key in evaluating FDT and FCD. The FDT was found not to be the static portrait

described in the literature (O'Brien & Patton, 1974). The general pattern of figure placement showed cultural differences between Asian and American group participants. An interpretation was that these differences are related to

writing formats (vertical versus linear). Seen in the light of Dennis' 1960 study of figure drawing and linguistic groups (cited in Klepsch & Logie, 1982), this idea has

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. weight. Evidence showed that the FDT can also be a visual enumeration of members in some cases and refer to a formal

portrait in others. Hsu's construct of a husband/wife dyad for Americans and a father/eldest son dyad for Asians was not supported. The father/mother dyad was constant across cultural groups. Particular patterns in the FDT were identified for the

Asian group. These showed a somewhat isolated father and a mother grouped with children for one. Placing the children

behind the parents in the FDT was only seen in Asian drawing. So too was a way of emphasizing the father/mother

dyad in the FDT more characteristic of Asian drawings when compared to American drawings. The FCD gave the most complete information in respect to membership, hierarchy, and relationship. It also was

analyzed in respect to the construct of patri-focal and

matri-focal as ways of describing cross-cultural family differences. Evidence supported American families as

matri-focal and Asian families as patri-focal.

Parent/child dyads seen in the FCD for both Asian and

American drawings showed some evidence for relationships based on the sex of the parent and the birth-order of the

child. The connection with the mother and the youngest carried across cultures. Hsu's construct of father/eldest

son dyads was supported to an extent. However, the mother/youngest child should also be considered.

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Analysis of KFD scenes showed more similarity than cultural difference. Cultural differences were seen more in proportion than in type. American participants drew more leisure scenes compared to more work scenes in drawings by

Asian participants. Cultural differences in PDT did support constructs of nuclear and group oriented families when interpreted as to type of setting chosen. When evaluated on the basis of individual focus and wider setting, Asian participants did show a more inclusive scene. Added to this was a surprising

anonymity in the drawings. Although not the initial focus of this study, much information in the drawings relating to family problems in the American group could not be overlooked. There is a particular slant in the literature towards looking for pathology, given that FDT and KFD are clinical assessment tools. Too, the number of split families in the American group gave evidence to difficult family situations. Family

members that were isolated and omitted made strong statements. A phenomenon of a disappearing parent was seen when a set of drawings by a single participant were evaluated. Basic pattern of sibling figure organization in FDT was linked to split families. Scene choice in both PDT and KFD were found to be indicative of family problems.

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While a numbers of American drawings gave evidence of dysfunction, there was also some indication of family problems in Asian drawings.

In so far as this study was made possible by volunteer participation of anonymous American and Asian students, issues around population come to the forefront in a

discussion of limitations. One issue is that American minorities are under represented. Further, the study was not conducted with matched populations. In the case of the Asian group of students, they tended to be older than the majority of American participants. Although Cho (1987) found that gender was irrelevant in her study with Chinese children, gender was not a focus of this study beyond the investigation into parent/child dyad formation (where it was found to be irrelevant). Another area of concern with

the population is that information on socioeconomic status was not available. Class may be an influential factor. The influence of westernization (mentioned in the methods section in respect to conversations with insiders) may be a limiting factor in that it can not be definitely assessed with this volunteer population. Given that the Asian participants were international students studying at American institutions, some influence of westernization may be assumed. However, to what an extent this may influence a 117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. set of drawings by a particular participant, set against a hypothetical set by a native participant, can not be known.

Indeed, considering the effect of age and having the drawing set in retrospection, there is already some

evidence of changing times and cultural changes already in drawings by Asian participants, based on commentary by native insiders who reviewed the drawings. A different

study may be able to assess westernization (as was done with Draw-A-Man tests in the 50's and 60's). It is a consideration of this research project, but not the main focus.

A strong consideration, while maybe not a limitation in a direct sense, is the whole issue of what happens when adults draw. The issue is a limitation in that this is truly a dark area of research. One one hand there is the

aspect of clinical application. Although drawing tests are used most often with children, they are also used in psychological, clinical evaluations of adults. On the other

hand, the use of drawing tests in research projects such as

this study need to carefully consider what may be

influencing an adult's drawing that may differ from a

child's. For example, is the drawing, set in

retrospection, really showing the child's view, as suggested by Oster and Gould (1987)? Or, is the drawing a

projection of an adults' culturally influenced ideal of family? In the study by Pipp et al., (1985) using drawings

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with college students, the suggestion was made that the drawings reflected present adaptation. It is conceivable that adaptation would be associated with acculturation. A final consideration in respect to limitations is what may be missing? This study used drawings to make cross-cultural comparisons. The organizing principle for the research was to frame it as a challenge of accepted constructs that described membership, hierarchy, and relationship in families. These are not the only ways of looking at families and cultures. Is it an appropriate

focus to limit the research to these aspects? What may be other aspects of family and culture that could be investigated using drawing?

Recommendations There are several ways that this study may be expanded. One advantage in this research would be to dialogue with the participants. Interviews with participants would verify assumptions made when looking only at the drawings. Expanded interviews could give information about the

participants to support or challenge findings. Another way to expand this research would be to increase participation by American minorities. In this study, drawings by Hispanic and Asian-American participants could only serve to indicate possible trends.

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aspects of the drawings that were not analyzed, such as use of space, physical contact, and skill related variables could be worthwhile areas to explore. In the course of doing this research, two paradoxes of Asian culture cane to light in conversations with my insiders that could be investigated. One paradox is the relationship of power in respect to the father's role as head of the family as seen along side the role of the mother as the power in the home. The other paradox is the child-centered family focus, and a family hierarchy dominated by the parents. How might these paradoxes play out in family drawings? Careful and subtle analysis of family drawings may clarify these family relationships.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A DRAWING TEST BOOKLET

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FAMILY STUDY DRAWING BOOKLET

Barbara S. Bowers, M.A. Doctoral Candidate The Ohio State University Jones Tower, Room 455 614-688-9556

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THANK YOU for participating in this study!! The purpose of this study is to look cross-culturally at family structure, roles and relationships.

In this exercise you will be asked to do four drawing tasks. Follow the instructions given for each drawing task. Use as much time as you like.

Your ability to draw well is not important. This is not a test of artistic skill. Simple stick figures would be fine. Please use a pencil and not an ink pen.

Please start by answering a few questions. Your age _____ Your Sex M F Your home country ______Were you born in the United States of America? Yes No Are you Hispanic? Yes No Are you Asian? Yes No Are you African-American? Yes No

Your father's home country ______His father's home country ______His mother's home country ______Your mother's home country ______Her father's home country ______His mother's home country ______123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawing Task No.l Think back to the tine when you were about 10 or 12 years old. DRAW A PICTURE OF THE PLACE WHERE YOU LIVED.

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawing Task No.2 Think back to the tine when you were about 10 or 12 years old. DRAW A PICTURE OF YOUR FAMILY: Include yourself in the picture. Label each family member (Father, Mother, Brother, Sister) If there are other children, number each one (oldest no.l)

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawing Task No.3, The Family Circle. Think back to the time when you were about IQ or 12 years old. MAKE A DIAGRAM OF YOUR FAMILY: 1.Start by making a large circle on the page. 2.Inside the circle, make smaller circles to represent your family members. Include yourself. 3.Use larger circles for important family members. Place the circle representing the most important family member in the center of the family circle. 4.Show which members were close to each other by placing their circles close to each other. 5.Label each circle (Father, Mother, Brother, Sister). 6.If there are other children, number each one (oldest no.1).

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawing Task No.4 Think back to the time when you were about 10 or 12 years old. DRAW A PICTURE OF YOUR FAMILY DOING SOMETHING TOGETHER: Include yourself in the picture. Label each family member (Father, Mother, Brother, Sister....). If there are other children, number each one (oldest no.l). Give your drawing a title.

Title:

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B FIGURES

(Some drawings and diagrams are modified to accomidate dissertation format reguirements.)

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sK ParticiPant #* . nCt iasK* . Place ora^M pig. *■

129

proVUbfted perm.as.on-

^ecopy^"6'- permiss'°n Reproduced s'Sw b.Aw')

Fig. 3 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #4

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. r • k J *

Fig. 4 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #4

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 5 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #8

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 6 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #9

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drawing Task No.4 Think back to the tiao whan you woro about 10 or 12 yoara oil. MAW A FICTUM cm VOU* FAMILY m i n o m m k t n i m Toonxki Include youraalf In tho picture. label oach faally aoabar (Father, Mother, Brother, Bister....I. If thorn aro othor children, nuobor oach ono (oldest no. 1). dive your drawing a title.

< & + ■ I y/ « £ V' P- j LSu— f V

(MO

r r (-h m h o m

Fig. 7 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #14

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 8 Family Drawing Test, Participant #16

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ©EiLn!^

Fig. ) Family Circle Diagram, Participant #16

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. \ A j

c£JT3

Fig. 10 Family Drawing Test, Participant #19

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 11 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #19

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Titlvi . i j f l u n o r t n g

Pig. 12 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #19

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 13 Family Drawing Test, Participant #21

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 14 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #21

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title: Jjfa

Fig. 15 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #21

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D a d C ' D

Fig. 16 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #22

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 17 Family Drawing Test, Participant #23

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 18 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #23

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 19 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #23

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. y * t r . ^

>des dv£r/ctp tiOtL'.c^C^ QXo^jLf^u J ^3 biotkjir ^aiu-d-y Hogtf/aJ

Fig. 20 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #25

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 21 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #26

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 22 Family Drawing Test, Participant #31

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 23 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #31

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 24 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #32

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P A o r A X J

i « £^T/

Fig. 25 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #33

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 26 Family Drawing Test, Participant #37

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lu'V4Wv

Fig. 27 Family Drawing Test, Participant #39

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 28 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #42

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fta*** A < U

Fig. 29 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #43

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 30 Family Drawing Test, Participant #46

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o A A $W>- ixTTfW R< f'^kOkxr ^ , . BroHv^-

Fig. 31 Family Drawing Test, Participant #50

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 32 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #50

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V d \\lS M > ^ U A a <1

0 A euu^' Titla: \ffli V >J f A V T ^ ^ U ^

Fig. 33 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #50

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 34 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #52

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 35 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #59

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 36 Family Drawing Test, Participant #65

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 37 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #65

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D o i M o m

p ' © / A A

Hue*. f t * * * 1.

Fig. 38 Family Drawing Test, Participant #67

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 39 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #69

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title:

Fig. 40 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #72

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Titl«: _ _ J ______1----- L_------

Fig. 41 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #74

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nrfHE*.

Fig. 42 Family Drawing Test, Participant #85

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 43 Family Drawing Test, Participant #J91

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 44 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #J92

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. «cK «•>/. ■ r . ivtl iJ:j

t * T $ V l t _____

JT*/#.

^ y Jh u L ? . m ^ t S ' p s

Fig. 45 Place Drawing Task, Participant #J93

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 46 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #J94

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ y v»v*a «t .

wocW* ^***>1^ a S i* sWptfiA Ivom1<

Fig. 47 Place Drawing Task, Participant #C99

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. \ S ^ i

o r m w i w

^ - ' d W J k

% T _

r a Hi ± J

Pi9. 48 famil y °rawin9 Test, p , « . 176 1C1Pant * » »

copyfjght owner Fu„he " ^ e r reproaUc,jon Pro^ w , ttou(perm.sjon Fig. 49 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C103

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 50 Family Drawing Test, Participant #C104

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 51 Family Drawing Test, Participant IC107

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 52 Family Drawing Test, Participant #C109

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 53 Family Circle Diagram, Participant IC110

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. r*st^

Fig. 54 Family Drawing Test, Participant IC113

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 55 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #C113

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 56 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #0116

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 1 < = « - . CD

Fig. 57 Family Drawing Test, Participant #K117

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 58 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IK119

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A

o £

o o A

Fig. 59 Family Drawing Test, Participant #K120

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 60 Family Circle Diagram, Participant IK121

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. r- T'\( t i a, /.

U t , W 7 ‘

Fig. 61 Family Drawing Test, Participant #K123

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kd^VtV"

Fig. 62 Family Drawing Test, Participant #K125

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 63 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #K125 191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |T\CTT\

Fig. 64 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IK125

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 65 Family Drawing Test, Participant #K126

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. <<~) y , ^O ^ A/^iKiy 0 /

$ ^ £ p v

I K

/• w olcta&r f\a * Z o f v y 0 V-

Fig. 66 Family Drawing Test, Participant IK127

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 a o

p o o c>o

Fig. 67 Place Drawing Task, Participant #K128

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 68 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #K128

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. £^'Ct<(~rv Cy

Fig. 69 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IK128

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. \i / s \ ) y

Fig. 70 Place Drawing Task, Participant IH131

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 71 Family Drawing Test, Participant IH131

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 72 Family Circle Diagram, Participant IH131

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ft* _v\ ct> e*1 v <*<>«* o' X © ^ l**’

' £ & & & S>/i 0 H j W 7 o > Bueu m ^iu%jiu *0 o Cbr* r- .*j i <>a)

(S>d> o €>* A««ir ceuSuj tbnKtwto eK.irr'>Ji\ t>» JMtT

Fig. 73 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IH131

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 74 Family Drawing Test, Participant #H132

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 75 Family Drawing Test, Participant #B142

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k s \ v!*r

B t S )

U r A ' b ) 1 r v J H ? )

Fig. 76 Family Drawing Test, Participant IB143

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced

•n Fig. 77 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant IB143 Participant Drawing, Family Kinetic 77 Fig. Title: I* 205 o

<< * &

/ho b£ntferf<> u

/ H u W W * t / ~ ' V ) C-(oSS.(~'hi ~$txo

Fig. 78 Family Circle Diagram, Participant IB145

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 79 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B147

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4 0 W 5-s a

I t

O u t - 0 *

( jX - 7 >

Fig. 80 Family Drawing Test, Participant IB148

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 81 Family Drawing Test, Participant #B148

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CD

Fig. 82 Place Drawing Task, Participant #B150

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 83 Family Circle Diagram, Participant IB150

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. /1e, s

X t n e

Fig. 84 Family Drawing Test, Participant IB151

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ ifs' 6 Ct'tlts

all 4kc f**>c <>tfj p r e s s :

A e U ' ) t Circle. O j t f ; f X ^

W t y are

*f ««/

Fig. 85 Family Circle Diagram Task, Participant IB151

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. u/ef/.1,x'm #1..* - t, ktttr* fr/rlt P'.f)'

f~Q*>\tL ({ e«*>9r\ j

<%'A

•**»* •«

F.4M

< o t Title:

Fig. 86 Kinetic Family Drawing, Participant #B151

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 87 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B152

215

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 88 Family Circle Diagram, Participant #B153

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abate, Maura Ann (1994). developmental trends in elementary school age children's Kinetic Family Drawings (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International. 55(3), 1175B.

Abel, Theodora M. (1973). Psychological Testing in Cultural Contexts. New Haven CT: College & University Press.

Alessandrini, Susan M. (1985). An evaluation of Kinetic Family scoring variables and directions (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47f 3). 1322B.

Arrington, D. (1991). Thinking systems- seeing systems: An integrative model for systemically oriented art therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 18. 201-211.

Barkdull, Cynthia J. (1989). Mapping family dynamics through the Kinetic Family Drawing and Family Environment Scale (Doctoral dissertation, Marquette University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International 50(11). 3751A.

Barker, Cara (1990). The perceptions of eight Type A American middle class women toward those childhood factors which most influenced their development (Doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International. 52131. 1745B.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bauknight, Carolyn Bridges (1977). Parent-chiId interaction on the Family Drawing Test asan indication of withdrawn behavior in children (Doctor*i dissertac • University of West Virginia, 1977). Biggortation-APgtrac.t.S International. 38(4). 1882B.

Bently, David Simmons (1976). A Family ?r?wing_?®a1®* Relationship with intelligence, cognitive styles, sex, age, ethnic group membership and family size* ID0'?'c® r a * dissertation, United States International Universi y, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International* 33(11), 5510B.

Brannigan, G., Schofield, J., & H o l t z , R. (1982). _h Family drawings as a measure of interpersonal distance. l&fi Journal of Social Psychology. Ill, 155^15®•

Brannigan, G., Schofield, J., & HoJ-tz, R. Tho Family drawings as a measure of interpersonal distance. Thfi Journal of Genetic Psychology. 13.7, 307-308.

Brewer, Francis Lillian (1980). children's patterns in Kinetic Family Drawings (Doctoral United States International University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41(11). 4253B*

Britain, Susan D. (1970). Effect of maniPula^i?" children's affect on their family drawings. Journal -QL Proiective Techniques and Personality Assessment. ), 234-237.

Burns, R., & Kaufman, S. (1970). KinotlC Faffl1 lY . Drawings (K-F-D^: An introduction to UQdOrstandinO Cniiqr.OD through Kinetic Drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Burns, R., & Kaufman, S. (1972). Ag-tions«- Styles and Symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings fK-ErP1i-AD Interpretative Manual. New York: Brunne*/"32®!•

Burns, R. (1982). Sftlf-CrQWth in j Family Drawings ( K - F - m research and application- York: Brunner/Mazel.

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cabacungan, L. (1985). The child's representation of his family in Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD): A cross-cultural comparison. Psychologia. 28. 228-236.

Carlson, K., Quinlan, D., Tucker, G., & Harrow, M. (1973). Body Disturbance and sexual elaboration factors in figure drawings of schizophrenic patients. Journal of Personality Assessment. 37. 56-63.

Casabianca, Silvia (1992). Art therapy with families where child abuse has occurred (Masters thesis, Concordia University, 1992). Masters Abstracts International. 32(1). 0343. (University Microfilms International No. AAIMM 80925).

Cazot, Virginia (1991). The tenth isle (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts Internationa1. 52(9). 3435A.

Chartouni, Tagrid T. (1992). Self-concept and family relations of American-Lebanese children: A descriptive and comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. 52(4), 1096A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 92-25972).

Cho, Mei-Mei (1987). The validity of the Kinetic Family Drawing as a measure of self-concept and parent/child relationship among Chinese children in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International.48(8). 2020A. (University Microfilms No. 87-24208)

Chuah, Verna Nga-Fun (1992). Kinetic family drawings of Chinese-American children (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. 52(7), 3831B.

Comunian, Anna Laura (1984). Cluster analysis of the answers given to Corman's Patte Noire and Family Drawing Tests: Experimental study contribution of the answers and relationships expressed within the family. Ricerche di psicologia. 3 . 167-187.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cook, Kirsten M. (1991). Integrating Kinetic Family Drawings into Adlerian Life-Style Interviews. Individual Psychology. 47(41. 521-526.

Cook, Kirsten M. Odmark (1990). A comparison of Kinetic Family Drawings and Adlerian life styles (Masters thesis, University of Arizona, 1990). Masters Abstracts International. 29(11. 0155. (University Microfilms International No. AAI 1340278.).

Cornman, Barbara Jane (1988). Impact of childhood cancer on the family. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 42(7), 1976A.

Cummings, Jack (1980). An evaluation of objective scoring systems for Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1980). PissertatIon Abstracts International. 41(61 . 2313B.

Dennis, Wayne (1970). Goodenough scores, art experience, and modernization. In I. Al-Issa, & W. Dennis (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Studies of Behavior (pp. 134-152).

Dennis, W. (1966). Goodenough scores, art experience, and modernization. Journal of Social Psychology. 68. 211-228.

Dennis, Wayne (1966). Group Values Through Children's Drawings. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dennis, W. (1942). The performance of Hopi children on the Goodenough Draw-A-Man-Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 34. 341-348.

DeOrnellas, Kathy (1997). A comparison of the Kinetic Family Drawings of African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian third-graders (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Women's University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International. 58(5). 2716B.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Deren, s. (1975). An empirical evaluation of the validity of the Draw-a-Family Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 21, 544-546.

Faterson, H., & Witkin, H. (1970). Longitudinal study of development of the body concept. Developmental ESyChQlQqy« 2(3), 429-438.

Fleuridas, Cilette Lucienne (1987). Treatment component analysis of the Milan Systemic Model: A family therapy outcome study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48(11). 3412B.

Forrest, M., & Thomas, G. (1991). An exploratory study of drawings by bereaved children. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 30. 373-374.

Fullmer, D. (1968). Family group consultation. Family Sj c o u p Conggltatign, 2(2), 130-136.

Gardano, Ana Christina (1988). A revised scoring method for Kinetic Family Drawings and its application to the evaluation of family structure with emphasis in children from alcoholic families (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(4). 1385B.

Gardiner, Harry (1974). Human figure drawing as indicators of value development among Thai children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 5(1). 124-130.

Gardner, Howard (1980). Artful Scribbles: The Significance of Children's Drawings. Hew York: Basic Books.

Gendre, F., Chetrit, S., & Dupont, J-B. (1977). Le Test du Dessin de la Famille chez 1'Enfant. Revue de Psvchologie APPliou^e. 27f41. 243-283.

Gerber, G., & Kaswan, J. (1971). Expression of emotion through family grouping schemata, distance, and interpersonal focus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 3 6 m . 370-377.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Goodnow, Jacqueline J. (1978). Visual thinking: Cognitive aspects of change in drawing. Child Development. 49. 637-641.

Graf, M. (1986). The use of Kinetic Family Drawing with Hispanic mothers in the school setting. School Psychology International, 1, 217-223.

Gregory, Sheryl A. (1992). A Validation study of Kinetic Family Drawing of Native American children (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. 53(9). 3146A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 93-01123).

Hackbarth, S., Murphy, H., & McQuary, J. (1991). Identifying sexually abused children by using kinetic family drawings. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling. 25. 255-260.

Hackbarth, Susan (1988). A comparison of "Kinetic Family Drawing" variables of sexually abused children, unidentified children and their mothers (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(1). 2933A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 88-27261).

Handler, L., 6 Habenicht, D. (1994). The Kinetic Family Drawing technique: A review of the literature. Journal of Personality Assessment. £2(3), 440-464.

Haward, L.R.C. (1956). Extra-cultural influences on drawings of the human figure by African children. Ethnos. 21, 220-230.

Hoeppel, R. (1990). Temporal variability: Effects of extraversion and time of day upon children's test responses. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. Ilf121. 1271-1281.

Holtz, R., Brannigan, G., & Schofield, J. (1986). Kinetic Family Drawing as a measure of interpersonal distance. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 137. 307-308.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Holtz, R. , Moran, P., & Brannigan, G. (1986). Social schemas in the kinetic family drawings of young adults. The Journal of Social Psychology. 126(5). 689-690.

Horowitz, M., Duff, D., & Stratton, L. (1964). Body-buffer zone, explpration of personal space. Archives of General Psychiatry. 11. 651-656.

Howells, J., & Lickorish, J. (1969). A projective technigue for assessing family relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 25. 304-307.

Howett, Pamela Susan (1984). Kinetic Family Drawings and clinical judgement: An evaluation of judge's ability to differentiate between the K-F-D's of abusing, control, and concerned mothers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International. £5(4), 1289B. Hsu, F.L.K., (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A.J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F.L.K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self (pp. 24-55), New York: Tavistock Publications.

Hsu, F.L.K., (1970). Americans and Chinese: Purpose and Fulfillment in Great Civilizations. Garden City, NY: The Natural History Press.

Hsu, F.L.K., (1963). Clan. Caste, and Club. Princeton, NJ: Nostrand Company.

Hsu, F.L.K., (1967). Under the Ancestors' Shadow: Kinship. Personality, and Social Mobility in Village China. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Hsu, F.L.K., (1961). Kinship and ways of life: An exploration. In F.L.K. Hsu (Ed.), Psychological Anthropology: Approaches to Culture and Personality, (pp. 400-456). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Hulse, W. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child Behavior. 3. 152-174.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Issacs, M., & Levin, I. (1984). Who#s in my family? A longitudinal study of children of divorce. Journal of Divorce. 74(41. 1-21.

Jacobson, Dorthy Ann (1973). A study of Kinetic Family Drawings of public school children ages six through nine. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International. 34(6), 2935B.

Johnston, Dorene D. (1975). The presence of emotional indicators in static and kinetic familv_drawings of well-adjusted and educationally handicapped, children. Unpublished master's thesis, San Jose State University, California.

Johnson, F., & Greenberg, R. (1978). Quality of drawing as a factor in the interpretation of figure drawings. Journal of Personality Assessment. 42(5). 489-495.

Jordan, Shirley Jean (1985). A validity study of Kinetic Family Drawing (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 46(6). 2066B.

Kaplan, F. (1991). Drawing assessment and artistic skill. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 18. 347-352.

Katakis, C. (1976). An exploratory multi-level attempt to investigate intrapersonal and interpersonal patterns of 20 Athenian families. Health and Society. 3 . 1-9.

Keyes, M. (1984). The family clay sculpture. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 11. 25-28.

Klepsch, M. & Logie, L. (1982). Children Draw and Tell: An Introduction to the Proiective Uses of Children's Human Figure Drawings. NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Kirby, Franklin Richard (1970). Family drawings, individual/group identity and growth (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International. 31(8). 4998B. 224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Knoff, Howard, & Prout, H. Thomas. (1985). Kinetic Drawing System for Family and School; A Handbook. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.

Koppitz, E. (1983). Projective drawings with children and adolescents. School Psychology Review. 12(4). 421-427.

Koppitz, E., & De Moreau, M. (1968). A comparison of emotional indicators on human figure drawings of children from Mexico and the United States. Revista interamericana de psicoloqaia. 2. 41-48.

Kuhlman, Thomas (1979). A validation study of the Draw-A-Person as a measure of racial identity acceptance. Journal of Personality Assessment. 43(5^. 457-458.

Laosa, L. M., Swartz, J.D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1974). Perceptual-Cognitive and personality development of Mexican and Anglo-American children as measured by Human Figure Drawings. Developmental Psychology. 10(1). 131-139.

Lara, A., Acevedo, M . , Lopez, E., & Fernandez, M. (1994). La Conducta de apego en ninos de 5 y 6 anos: Influencia de la ocupacion materna fuera del hogar. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicoloqia. 26(2). 283-313.

Lawton, M., & Sechrest, L. (1962). Figure drawings by young boys from father-present and father-absent homes. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 18f3). 304-305.

Layton, Margaret C. (1983). Specific features in the Kinetic Family Drawings of children (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International 45fll. 0356B.

Ledesma, Lourdes Kalan (1979). The Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) of Filipino adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International. 40(4\. 1866B. (University Microfilms No. AAI 79-22072).

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Levenberg, s. (1975). Professional training, psychodiagnostic skill, and Kinetic Family Drawings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3.9(4), 389-393.

Levinson, Ralph (1983). Children's Kinetic Family Drawings and clinical judgement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International. 44(l) , 0314B.

Levy, B., & Ulman, E. (1967). Judging psychopathology from paintings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 72(2). 182-187.

Levy, B., & Ulman, E. (1984). The effect of training on judging psychopathology from paintings. Art Therapy. 23. 55-56.

Lewis, Hilda (Ed.). (1973). Child Art. the Beginnings of Self-Affirmation. Berkeley CA: Diablo Press.

Lieberman, Frances R. Baer (1992). Validity of Kinetic Family Drawings as a measurement of the perception of family relationships and family dynamics (Doctoral dissertation, Pace University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. 53(6). 3203B.

Lindzey, Gardner (1961). Projective Techniques and Cross-Cultural Research. NY: Appelton-Century-Crofts.

Lyons, Sherry J. (1993). Art psychotherapy evaluations of children in custody disputes. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 20. 153-159.

Madanes, C., Dukes, J., & Harbin, H. (1980). Family ties of heroin addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry. 17(7), 889-894.

Mangold, Jonathan (1982). A study of expressions of the primary process in children's Kinetic Family Drawings as a function of pre-drawing activity (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 44(91 . 2029A. 226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mangum, Melvin Earl (1976). Familial identification in Black, Anglo and Chicano mentally retarded children using Kinetic Family Drawing (Doctoral dissertation. University of Northern Colorado, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International. 36f7\. 7343A.

Martin, Roy P. (1983). The ethical issues in the use and interpretation of the Draw-a-Person Test and other similar projective procedures. The School Psychologist. 2 6 (1 ), 6 -8 .

McCallister, Robin (1983). Usefulness of the Kinetic Family Drawing in the assessment of aggression among a population of juvenile offenders (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International. 44(71. 2252B. (University Microfilms No. AAI 83-26346).

McClemments-Hammond, Ronna (1993). Effects of Separation on Vietnamese omnicompetent minors: Assessment through the use of the Kinetic Family Drawing Test, Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25, and the Vietnamese Depression Scale. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International. 54(6). 20Z9A.

McGregor, John Patrick (1978). Kinetic Family Drawing Test: A validity study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International 42(2), 0927B.

McKnight-Taylor, M. (1974). Perceptions of relationships in low-income Black families. Dissertations Abstracts international.35(8). 5127A. (University Microfilms No. AAI7502047)

McPhee, J., & Wegner, K. (1976). Kinetic-Family-Drawing styles and emotionally disturbed childhood behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment. 40(51. 487-491.

McWhinnie, Harold J. (1972). A note on methodology in using children's figural drawing to assess racial and cultural differences. Studies in Art Education ^_I2(2), 30-35.

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Meisels, M., & Guardo, C. (1969). Development of personal space schemata. ChiId Development. 40(41. 1165-1177.

Monttinen, Anne-Maria J. (1988). A descriptive study of the Kinetic Family drawings of children from Catholic, Withering, and Seventh-Day Adventism. Masters Abstracts International. 27(3). 0324. (University Microfilms No. AAI1335498)

Morval, M., & Laroche, J.-L. (1976). Constance du dessin de f ami lie. Techniques et MEthodes en Psychologie Clinioue. 26m . 475-481.

Mostkoff, D., & Lazarus, P. (1983). The Kinetic Family Drawing: The reliability of an objective system. Psychology in the Schools. 20. 16-20.

Myers, David V. (1978). Toward an objective evaluation procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD). Journal of Personality Assessment. 42(4). 358-365.

Myers, David Voit (1975). A quantitative procedure for evaluating the Kinetic Family Drawings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International. 36(12). 6393B.

Neale, E., Rosal, M . , & Rosal, M. (1993). What can art therapists learn from the research on projective drawing techniques for children? A review of the literature. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 2 0 , 37-49.

Nguyen, Kim-Chi (1993). Les Epreuves graphiques: MEthode d'Evaluation mEthode d 'investigation. Bulletin de Psvcholoqie. 45(406). 449-455.

Nichols, R., k Strumpfer, D. (1962). A factor analysis of Draw-A-Person Test scores. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 26f21. 165-161.

228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nintcheff, L., (1998). A comparison on Kinetic Family Drawings between adolescents in residential treatment and children at home. Master's thesis, Ursuline College, Cleveland, OH (From UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT 1389802)

Nuttall, E., Chieh, L., & Nuttall, R. (1988). Views of the family by Chinese and U.S. children: A comparative study of Kinetic Family Drawings. Journal of School Psychology. 26. 191-194.

O'Brien, R., & Patton, W. (1974). Development of an objective scoring method for Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of Personality Assessment. 38. 156-164.

Olivero, Anna Ferraris (1973). Children's evaluations of family roles, a cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Psychology. 8(3). 153-158.

Osorio-Brana, Jose (1996). The Kinetic Family Drawing as a measure of Minuchin's structural family concepts among Hispanic-American families with substance-abusing and nonsubstance-abusing adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International. 57(7). 3270A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 96-38064).

oster, G. & Gould, P. (1987). Using drawings in assessment and therapy; a guide for mental health professionals. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Pipp, S., Shaver, P ., Jennings, S ., Lamborn, S ., & Fischer, K. (1985). Adolescents' theories about the development of their relationships with parents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48m . 991-1001.

Rabin, A., & Limuaco, J. (1959). Sexual differentiation of American and Filipino children as reflected in the Draw-A-Person Test. The Journal of Social Psvchology^-Sfl. 207-211.

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rabinowitz, A. (1992). Acceptance-rejection and height of parental figures on the Kinetic Family Drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 74. 329-330.

Rabinowitz, Aaron (1991). The relationship of acceptance-rejection to social schemata and Kinetic Family Drawings. Social Behavior and Personality. 19(41. 263-272.

Raskin, L., & Bloom, A. (1979). Kinetic Family Drawings by children with learning disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 4 (3). 247-251.

Reinfurt, Lynn Leeper (1988). Emotional indicators in human figure, self-portrait, and self-in-family drawings of 218 first grade children: A comparison (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International,.49(5). 1968B.

Reinhartz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, Cecil R. (1978). A quick-scoring guide to the interpretation of children's Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD). Psychology in the Schools. 16(41. 489-492.

Reznikoff, M., & Reznikoff, M. (1956). The Family Drawing Test: A comparative study of children's drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 12. 167-169.

Rodgers, Peggy Joan (1992). A correlational developmental study of sexual symbols, actions, and themes in children's Kinetic Family and Human Figure Drawings (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts. International* .53(4), n o 4 A .

Roth, J.W., & Huber, G.L. (1979). Kinetic Family Drawings. Familiendynamik. Januar. 389-396.

Russell, Candyce S. (1980). A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 6 . 459-470.

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Saarni, C., & Azara, V. (1977). Developmental analysis of human figure drawings in adolescence, young adulthood, and middle age. Journal of Personality Assessments 41(1). 31-38.

Shearn, Charles R., & Russell, Kenneth, R. (1969). Use of the Family Drawing as a technique for studying parent-child interaction. The Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment. 33(1). 35-44.

Schell, Kathleen (1990). Young women with Bulimia: Constructions of perceived and ideal family developmental history. (Masters thesis, university of Guelph, 1990). Masters Abstracts International. 30(4). 1491. (University Microfilms No. AAIMM 65230).

Schiller, Virginia M. (1986). Loyalty conflicts and family relationships in latency age boys: A comparison of joint and maternal custody. Journal of Divorce. 9(4). 17-38.

Schofield, Janet (1978). An exploratory study of the Draw-A-Person as a measure of racial identity. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 46 . 311-321.

Schornstein, Herman M. , & Derr, John (1978). The many applications of Kinetic Family Drawings in child abuse. British Journal of Proiective Psychology and Personality Study. 23(11. 33-35.

Schornstein, Herman M., & Derr, John (1978). The many applications of Kinetic Family Drawings in child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 1 . 297-300.

Schwartz, Eileen Estelle (1981). The Kinetic Family Drawing as a family assessment measure (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International. 42(9). 3833B.

231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shaw, Jannette (1989). A developmental study on the Kinetic Family Drawing for a nonclinic, black-child population in the Midwestern region of the United States (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International. 50(10). 4749B. (University Microfilms No. AAI 90-07141).

Sidun, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Graphic indicators of sexual abuse in Draw-A-Person Tests of psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 14. 25-33.

Sims, C. (1974). Kinetic Family Drawings and The Family Relations Indicator. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 30. 87-88.

Smith, D. (1983). The art evaluation: A triage function on a psychiatric emergency admission unit. The Arts in Psychotherapy. ID, 187-195.

Sobel, H., & Sobel, W. (1976). Discriminating adolescent male delinquents through the use of Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of Personality Assessment. 40(1), 91-94.

Spigelman, G., Spigelman, A., & Englesson, I. (1992). Analysis of Family Drawings: A comparison from divorce and non-divorce families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. lfl(l/2), 31-54.

Standard, Henry Cooper (1993). An Investigation of normative adolescent separation-individuation features in the Kinetic Family Drawings of adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International. 54(8). 4408B.

Stawar, T., & Stawar, D. (1989). Kinetic Family Drawings and MMPI diagnostic indicators in adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports. 65. 143-146.

Stawar, T., & Stawar, D. (1987). Family Kinetic Drawings as a screening instrument. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 65. 810.

232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Swensen, C. (1968). Empirical evaluations of Human Figure Drawings. Psychological Bulletin. 70(1). 20-44.

Swensen, C. (1955). Sexual differentiation on the Draw-A-Person Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 11. 37-41.

Tharinger, D., & Stark, K. (1990). A gualitative versus quantitative approach to evaluating the Draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family Drawing: A study of mood and anxiety disorder children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2(4). 365-375.

Thompson, Laro Virginia (1975). Kinetic Family Drawings of adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International. 36(6). 3977B.

Ulman, E., & Levy, B. (1973). Art therapists as diagnosticians. Art Therapy. 13(1), 35-38.

Ulman, E., & Levy, B. (1968). An experimental approach to the judgement of psychopathology from paintings. Art Therapy. 8fl). 3-12.

Urrabazo, Rosendo (1986). Machismo: Mexican American male self-concept: An interpretation and reflection on Thematic Apperception Test and Kinetic Family Drawing results of Mexican American teenagers (Doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47(1). 0435B. (University Microfilms No. AAI 86-06919).

Van Treuren, R. (1986). Self-perception in family systems: A diagrammatic technique. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work. 299-305.

Vazquez, Carmen Iona (1981). Fantasies of bilingual children: An exploration into relationship of bilingualism, self-concept, and parental interaction (Doctoral

233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dissertation, City University of New York, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International. 4 2 (9). 3837B. (University Microfilms No. AAI 82-03337).

Walsh, B., & Betz, N. (1990). Tests and Assessment (2nd ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Wehmann, P., & Lusebrink, V., (2000). Kinetic Family Drawing Scoring Method for Cross-Cultural Studies. Arts in Psychotherapy. 27(3), 179-190.

Weinstein, Laura (1969). The mother-child schema, anxiety, and academic achievement in elementary school boys. Child Development. 39(1). 257-264.

Weinstein, Laura (1965). Social schemata of emotionally disturbed boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 70(6). 457-461.

Wenar, C. (1990). Developmental Psychopathology, from Infancy through Adolescence ( 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilner, R., & Rau, J. (1976). Family systems drawings. Family Therapy. 3f31. 245-167.

Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1977). An iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the drawings of young people. Art Education. 30fiK 4-12.

Winner. E. (1996). Commentary: What drawings by atypical populations can tell us. Visual Arts Research. 22(2), 90-95.

Wolcott, H. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. Jaeger (ED.), Complementary Methods for Research in Education (pp. 187-249).

Wong, B., (1998). The Chinese in New York City: Kinship and Immigration. In F.L.K. Hsu, & H. Serrie (Eds.), The Overseas Chinese (pp. 143-172). Lanham, MD: University of America Press. 234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hood, B. (1985). Proximity and hierarchy: Orthogonal dimensions of family interconnectedness. Family Process. 24. 487-507.

Worden, M. (1985). A case study comparison of the Draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49(4). 427-433.

Wright, J.H., & McIntyre, M. (1982). The Family Drawing Depression Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 38(4). 853-861.

Younger, Robert Dale (1982). Psychopathology and the Kinetic Family Drawing (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International.43(10), 3382B.

235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.