Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 By 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 Copyright 2002 by Bowers, Barbara Schaeffer All rights reserved. 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. ii 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