Attachment & Human Development

Vol 5 No 1 March 2003 19 – 37

A picture is worth a thousand

words: Children’s representations
of family as indicators of early
attachment
S HE RI MA D IG A N, MI C HE LL E LA DD a n d
S U S A N G OL D B ER G

ABSTRACT To ascertain whether attachment representations at age 7 are related to

early attachment behaviour, family drawings of 123 7-year-olds of known infant at-
tachment status (25 avoidant, 80 secure, 18 resistant) were scored in four ways. Three
of these were based in previous attachment research and one was based on a clinical
method. The attachment-based coding schemes included specific markers for each at-
tachment pattern (Kaplan & Main, 1985), global ratings (Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe,
1997) and efforts to classify each drawing as belonging to one of the three primary in-
fant attachment groups (secure, avoidant, resistant). In the clinical scheme, children
who had been resistant infants were distinguished from the others by use of overlap-
ping and encapsulated figures. For the attachment based schemes, although individual
markers were not successful in discriminating attachment groups, the more global ap-
proaches (aggregation of markers, global rating scales and judgments of attachment
classification) succeeded in this task. In regression analyses controlling for concurrent
child and parent measures, infant attachment did not make a significant contribution
to predicting insecurity markers in drawings, although child current emotional func-
tioning did. These findings linking attachment relationships with later representations
of family relationships were in accord with the conception that avoidant attachment
strategies de-emphasize intimate relationships, while resistant attachment strategies
are preoccupied with close relationships. These links are most evident in global inter-
pretive strategies rather than those that rely on specific markers.

KEYWORDS: family drawings – infant attachment – drawing interpretation

When asked to draw their families, some school-aged children draw bold, colourful
figures with exaggerated features, while others prefer enclosed, cramped figures
constrained to a small portion of the page. These different drawing styles are thought
to reflect general personality traits and to provide a non-intrusive tool for exploring
the child’s inner world. There has been recent interest in exploring children’s family
drawings as an explicit way in which individual differences in child functioning are
revealed (Pianta, Longmaid, & Ferguson, 1999). Research further indicates that
children’s family drawings may successfully capture attachment representations

Correspondence to: Susan Goldberg, Psychiatric Research Unit, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University
Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada. Telephone: 416-813-6563. Email: sueg@sickkids.ca

Attachment & Human Development ISSN 1461-6734 print/1469-2988 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/1461673031000078652
20 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

(Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1997; Pianta et al., 1999) with particular elements
systematically linked to infant attachment patterns.
It has long been believed that early relationships with parents play an important
role in subsequent social development, an essential tenet of attachment theory (e.g.,
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). Three primary patterns of
attachment relationships were described by Ainsworth et al. (1978) based on a
standardized procedure (the Strange Situation). These patterns (secure (B), avoidant
(A), and resistant (C)) are believed to reflect the infant’s expectation regarding the
caregiver’s response to attachment needs, one aspect of the developing representation
(or working model) of the relationship. Eventually this working model includes
representations of the caregiver (and the family) and the self and contributes to a
generalized model of interpersonal relationships.
Longitudinal data on the sequelae of infant attachment patterns are voluminous,
extending now into late adolescence. Children who were securely attached as infants
are found to be more competent with peers (e.g., Lieberman, 1977), more self-
confident (e.g., Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985), more competent problem solvers
(e.g., Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979), and less vulnerable to behaviour problems (e.g.,
Lyons-Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993) than children who were insecurely attached.
Although internal representations are thought to be a primary vehicle for carrying
early attachment experiences forward, children’s representations of relationships,
whether in projectives (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), doll play stories (e.g.,
Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990), or drawings (e.g. Fury et al., 1997), have
received considerably less attention than the domains above as outcomes of early
attachment.
Several previous studies investigated this topic using drawings of 5 – 9-year-olds.
The earliest work was conducted by Kaplan and Main (1986) based on a system of
signs incorporating constructs such as the size, location, degree of movement,
individuation, and completeness of figures, quality of smiles, and impressions of
vulnerability. Drawings of children who had been avoidant were described as
including smiling, non-individuated family members that were distant from each
other, often without arms, and ‘floating’; children who had been resistant infants
drew either very large or very small figures unusually close together, often
emphasizing vulnerable or intimate body parts.
Pianta et al. (1999) examined the properties of the Kaplan and Main (1986) system
with drawings of 200 kindergarten children. There was no direct measure of child
attachment in this study. Rather, the data showed that the signs designated by Kaplan
& Main (1986) as markers of different attachment categories were reliably used by
coders in assigning the drawings to attachment groups. Furthermore, drawing
classifications were related to concurrent teacher reports of child socioemotional
development.
Another study, mentioned only briefly in a book chapter (Grossmann &
Grossmann, 1991) provided descriptive data. Drawings were coded with a scheme
that measured ‘individualization of figures, lack of repetitiveness, well-grounded and
complete figures, and details marking the setting or activity of the family figures.’ The
total score, particularly the subscale for individualization, discriminated 6-year-olds
who had been secure vs. insecure as infants. Those who had been securely attached as
infants drew more individualized figures than those who had been insecure.
In the most detailed and comprehensive report, Fury et al. (1997) scored
drawings of 171 8-year-olds from the Minnesota longitudinal study (a high risk
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 21

sample) in three ways: (1) noting presence and absence of specific markers for
attachment groups (2) global rating scales and (3) attachment classification.
Although only a few individual markers successfully distinguished specific
attachment groups, the global rating scales did so and drawing classifications were
significantly concordant with classifications from infancy. The authors concluded
that the more global the approach to appraising the drawings, the more evident
were the links to early attachment. In addition, Fury and her colleagues found that
attachment did make a significant contribution to drawing quality after accounting
for the influence of other factors (life stress, child socioemotional functioning and
child IQ score).
Clinicians have also used family drawings as a window into the child’s inner
world. Features which have been of interest to clinicians may also be relevant to
discriminating the drawings of children with different attachment histories and
could be combined with systems developed by attachment researchers. Generally,
clinicians rely on impressionistic interpretation of drawings in conjunction with
other knowledge of the child’s history and therapeutic course. The most
common and currently used projective drawing technique is the Kinetic Family
Drawing (Burns & Kaufman, 1972) in which the child is asked to portray the
family doing something. Although several objective scoring schemes have been
developed, there has been little detailed analysis of the validity of specific
objective features. We undertook such a process with drawings of 4-year-olds
(Janus, Middlebrook, & Simmons, 1993). In that study, few of the measures of
family relationship could be used, because many family members were missing.
However, 4-year-olds who had been securely attached as infants drew themselves
closer to their mothers than those who had been insecure. In the present study,
we sought to replicate and extend previous work by analysing the drawings of 7-
year-olds of known infant attachment status by examining both measures derived
from the Kinetic Family Drawing manual and previously developed attachment
measures.
Analysis of drawings by clinicians is usually based upon clinical judgment,
influenced to some extent by familiarity with the literature on specific features. Like
Fury et al. (1997), we also had independent coders classify attachment from the
drawings, using specific and global markers from the study. This process was an effort
to model the procedure by which a clinician might use our schemes, given familiarity
with the literature on specific features.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Our general goal was to see whether the Fury et al. (1997) findings would generalize
to a low-to-moderate risk sample. There were four primary objectives. First, we
examined the construct validity of Fury et al.’s (1997) attachment-based markers by
replicating the Fury et al. (1997) study in a low-to-moderate (rather than high) risk
sample of 7-year-olds. Our second objective was to expand the existing literature
linking infant attachment to children’s family drawings, using a non-attachment,
clinically based approach (Janus et al., 1993). Though we made no specific
predictions, we wanted to explore whether markers used by clinicians could
differentiate attachment groups. Our third objective was to examine whether
aggregated and global measures were more effective at discriminating attachment
22 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

groups than were individual markers. Our final objective was to test whether the
influence of infant attachment on drawing features is evident after controlling for
concurrent parental stress, child emotional functioning, and cognitive capacity, as was
found by Fury et al. (1997).

METHOD

Participants
Drawings of 123 7-year-olds (50 boys, 73 girls, Mage = 7.2) from a longitudinal study
were analysed. The longitudinal study was concerned with the impact of chronic
illness on child development and included three groups of children: those diagnosed
with cystic fibrosis in infancy, those diagnosed with (correctable) congenital heart
disease in infancy, and a healthy comparison group. Families were recruited through
the relevant hospital wards and clinics and paediatrician’s offices. Demographic data
by infant attachment group are provided in Table 1. The three attachment groups
were well matched with respect to parental age, education and occupation, health
status and gender.

Measures
Family Drawings At the 7-year assessment, the child performed a series of activities
with an experimenter while the parents were interviewed in another room. After the
child and experimenter had been engaged for approximately 30 minutes, a sheet of
paper (18’’ 6 24’’) and a set of eight coloured markers (Crayola originals no. 7908)
were provided and each child was given explicit instructions to ‘draw your family
doing something.’ Once the drawing was completed, the experimenter determined

Table 1 Sample demographics

Infant attachment status

Avoidant (N = 25) Secure (N = 80) Resistant (N = 18)

Mother
Age (years; M, SD) 28.1 (4.20) 29.4 (4.98) 30.7 (4.06)
Education (years) 13.9 (2.38) 14.1 (2.49) 13.6 (2.36)
Occupation* 7.28 7.01 5.83

Father
Age (years) 32.5 (6.8) 32.7 (5.9) 31.9 (3.6)
Education (years) 13.3 (3.0) 14.6 (2.8) 15.0 (2.6)
Occupation* 4.4 (2.9) 3.3 (2.6) 3.4 (2.3)

% Females 68.0 58.7 50.0

% Healthy 52.0 33.8 33.3
% Medically diagnosed 48.0 66.2 67.7

*1 = professional; 9 = service worker

 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 23

and recorded the identity and activity of each figure. All drawings were subsequently
reviewed by two coders who were blind to both demographic variables and infant
attachment classifications.
Each drawing was coded in three ways. First, the scheme adapted from the Kinetic
Family Drawings manual (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), hereafter called the ‘clinical
scheme’ (Janus et al., 1993) was applied.1 This scheme included three types of
measures: (1) those appropriate for the individual figures, with a total of 10 markers
scored for each figure present in the drawing (e.g., presence/absence of family
members, number of body parts, facial affect, location and size of figures); (2) three
markers concerned with relations between figures (e.g., presence/absence of barriers
between figures, relative orientation, encapsulation of figures); and (3) five markers
regarding the general context of the drawing (e.g., use of colour, space and
perspective). Two coders independently scored 29 drawings with a total of 81 figures.
Per cent agreement ranged from 79% (similarity of figures) to 100% (measured
distances).
Each of the remaining schemes incorporated findings from prior attachment
research. The first used three groups of specific markers predicted to characterize
drawings of avoidant, resistant, and insecurely attached children adapted by Fury et
al. (1997) from Kaplan & Main (1986, see Table 2). In the Table, footnotes indicate
which of the listed markers successfully discriminated the relevant attachment group
in the previous study (Fury et al., 1997). Some measures in this Table overlap with the
clinical scheme (e.g., barriers between figures). However, the clinical scheme makes
no predictions regarding the nature of group differences, whereas in Table 2 markers
are associated with particular attachment groups. Hence, each scheme implies
different questions and analyses.
Wherever possible, we quantified markers according to Fury’s criteria. For
example, ‘arms close to the body’ was scored if the angle between the arm and the
vertical axis of the body was less than 45 degrees. Though we attempted to duplicate
the original procedures as closely as possible, some specific markers may differ
slightly. Per cent agreement, based on 29 drawings scored by two coders, ranged from
80% (exaggerated facial features) to 100% (disguised family members, exaggerated
heads).

Table 2 Checklist of signs for the attachment-based scheme

Predicted avoidant markers Predicted resistant markers Predicted insecure markers

Lack of colour Figure separated by barriersa,c Lack of background detail

Child positioned far apart
from mother
Omission of mother or child
Lack of individuation
Arms downward, close to
bodyb
Disguised family memberc
Exaggerated headsc
Crowded or overlapping
figuresb,c
Unusually large figures
Unusually small figuresa,c
Exaggeration of hands/arms
Exaggeration of soft body
partsb,c
Exaggeration of facial features
Figures on corner of page
Figures not grounded
(floating)
Omission of mother or child
Mother not feminized
No gender differentiation
Neutral/negative facial affect
Incomplete figures

Key: aSignificant at 12 months; bSignificant at 18 months; cSignificant for stable attachment group.
24 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

The third coding approach utilized the global rating scales developed by Fury et al.
(1997) to integrate the specified markers with theoretical knowledge regarding
attachment relationships. These 7-point rating scales, intended to differentiate
between secure, avoidant, and resistant attachment groups, allow the coder to
consider each drawing as a whole and in an integrative manner (see Table 3). Scores
on the vitality/creativity scale and family pride were expected to be highest in the
securely attached group; high scores on vulnerability and role-reversal were expected
to characterize drawings in the resistant group and high scores for emotional distance
and tension/anger were predicted in the avoidant group. Scores on the last scale,
global pathology, were expected to be lowest in the secure group and high in both
insecure groups. The original scheme included a rating for ‘bizarreness’ predicted to
identify the disorganized/disoriented attachment group. Since none of the other
predictors in the present study pertained to this group, and we only examined the
three primary attachment groups, we omitted this scale from analyses.
Global ratings were made by a primary coder (SM) who was blind to the child’s
attachment status. Twenty per cent of the drawings (26) were scored by a second
coder. Agreement using Pearson product-moment correlations ranged from 0.54 for
the tension/anger scale, to 0.85 for the global pathology scale (Table 3). In all cases
where discrepancies occurred, the primary coder’s scores were used. The tension/
anger scale was omitted from analyses because of its low reliability.

Table 3 Global ratings scales

Inter-rater
Scale Description reliability Prediction

Vitality/creativity Emotional investment in the drawing, 0.84 Secure 4 Others

based on embellishment, detail and
creativity

Family pride Sense of belonging, and happiness in 0.68 Secure 4 Others

the family

Vulnerability Based on size distortions, placement of 0.77 Resistant 4 Others

figures exaggeration of soft body parts

Role-reversal Based on relations of size or roles of 0.75 Resistant 4 Others

figures

Emotional distance Based on disguised expressions of 0.74 Avoidant 4 Others

anger, neutral/ negative affect and
mother-child distance

Tension/anger Based on figures that are constricted, 0.54 Avoidant 4 Others

closed, without colour or detail,
careless in appearance

Global pathology Degree of negativity, based on 0.85 Secure 5 Others

organization, completeness of figures,
colour, detail, affect and background
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 25

Finally, to evaluate the extent to which a clinician familiar with attachment

literature might succeed in identifying attachment history from drawings, each
drawing was examined by a coder blind to attachment information to assign an
attachment group classification (secure, avoidant, resistant). Judgments were based on
the coder’s understanding of attachment patterns along with familiarity with the
attachment and clinical markers and global ratings. Two clinicians (both graduate
students), familiar with attachment theory and the markers used in our attachment
scheme, assigned a classification to each drawing. Like the Fury study, classifications
were not based on explicit algorithms, but rather clinical impression combined with
objective ratings of the drawings based on the significance of specific markers. The
coders also used their knowledge of the global rating scales to render a decision for
ambiguous drawings, where markers associated with different classifications (e.g.,
both secure and avoidant signs) were evident.
Based on 50 drawings which were double coded, the overall agreement in assigning
attachment classifications was 84% (k = 0.64). When the insecure groups were
combined, the overall kappa increased slightly (k = 0.70). Agreement was highest for
the secure classifications (27 out of 28 matches) but much less impressive for the
insecure classifications (6 out of 12 matches).
In order to perform regression analyses for objective 4, a dependent measure was
derived from the rating scales, based on the work of Fury et al. (1997). After factor
analysing the rating scales using principal components analysis with Varimax
rotation, Fury and her colleagues created a composite variable (interpreted as an index
of the most negative elements of the drawings) by summing scores on the global
pathology and emotional distance scales and subtracting the score on the family pride
scale. Discriminant validity was assessed by including measures of child’s socio-
emotional and cognitive functioning and the mother’s life stress in the regression
model.

Infant attachment Infant-mother attachment was assessed between 12 and 18

months using the Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978). The Strange
Situation is a semi-structured laboratory paradigm involving separations and reunions
of the child, mother, and a friendly, but unfamiliar female stranger. The procedure is
videotaped and attachment classifications are determined upon review of the tapes.
Infants are classified into one of the three attachment categories outlined by
Ainsworth et al. (1978): secure (B), avoidant (A), or resistant (C). All infants were
classified by two coders. The primary coder (SG) had passed the standard reliability
test. Agreement with the second coder for the three-category scheme was 80%. A
fourth attachment classification outlined by Main & Solomon (1990) known as
disorganized attachment, was coded but not used for the purpose of this paper since
existing coding schemes for drawings focus mainly on differences between the three
primary attachment groups and this treatment is most consistent with the Fury et al.
(1997) approach.2

Other measures
Child behaviour checklist (CBCL) Parents were asked to complete the CBCL for
4 – 16-year-olds (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL is a well-standardized measure
containing 118 descriptions of problematic behaviours rated on a three-point scale
(not true, somewhat true, and often true). It yields standardized scores for
26 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

internalizing and externalizing problems as well as a total problem score. For the
present analyses we used only the total standardized score on the mother’s 7-year
CBCL report.

Parenting stress index (PSI) The PSI is a 120-item clinical and research
questionnaire designed to identify parent-child systems which are under stress and
at risk for the development of dysfunctional parenting behaviours or behaviour
problems in the child involved (Abidin, 1986). Respondents mark on a 5-point scale
the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements like ‘There are quite a few
things which bother me about my life,’ yielding an overall score for stress in the
parent and child domains (each comprised of several subscales) and a summed score,
which we used for the present analyses. Higher scores are associated with greater
stress and may be indicative of family dysfunction.

Cognitive ability Since some features of children’s drawings are known to be related
to cognitive ability (Pianta et al., 1999), we also used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) as a potential control for cognitive status. The PPVT
measures receptive language skills for standard American English, and estimates
verbal ability and scholastic aptitude. Children point to the picture which
corresponds to the stimulus word among plates of four pictures. Standardized scores
were used for the analyses in this study.

RESULTS

The results are organized under the four main objectives of the study. Although
attachment groups did not differ in distribution of gender or health status, all analyses
designed to detect attachment group differences were preceded by tests for gender,
health status and cognitive ability (PPVT score) effects. Six comparisons in the set of
47 (12%) were significant and there was no clear pattern to the significant findings.
Therefore, we concluded that attachment group differences were not confounded by
differential gender, health status or cognitive capacity. Degrees of freedom differ in
the analyses because some drawings did not contain particular features (e.g., if the
child drew no siblings, sibling measures could not be obtained).

Objective 1: validity of specific markers

The scheme of markers identified with specific attachment histories (Table 2) can be
considered a set of predictions concerning features that distinguish drawings of each
attachment group from the other two. Therefore, all comparisons were between two
groups using chi-square tests for presence/absence of each sign or marker (e.g.,
avoidant vs. secure and resistant combined). This enabled us to see (1) whether each
set of signs was associated with the form of attachment it was expected to distinguish
and (2) whether any signs thought to be associated with one group served to
distinguish other groups. Findings detailed below are summarized in Table 4.

Avoidance markers Of seven signs outlined by Fury et al. (1997) as characteristic

avoidant markers, only one was associated with avoidance. As predicted, children
who had been avoidant as infants were more likely to exaggerate heads (w2 (1df,
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 27

Table 4 Significant markers: attachment and clinical schemes

Markers Direction Markers Direction

Attachment scheme Clinical scheme

a
Exaggerated heads* A 4 B, C Area used in drawings C 4 B, A
a
Disguised family members + A 4 B, C Drawing the self last** C 4 B, A
Neutral or negative facial affect* A 4 B, C Drawing mother first + C 4 B, A
b
Exaggerated facial affect* A 4 B, C Overlapping figures* C 4 B, A
Lack of background detail + C 4 B, A Figure encapsulation** C 4 B, A
Floating figures** C 4 B, A Encapsulation together** C 4 B, A
Elevation of the self + C 4 B, A

Key: aConsistent with Fury et al. (1997); bA significant resistant sign in Fury et al. (1997).
+ p 5 0.10; *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01

N = 122) = 5.93, p 5 0.05). In addition, two markers from other categories distin-
guished the avoidant group in our sample. Children who had been avoidant were
more likely than the others to draw figures with neutral or negative facial affect (listed
as a general sign of insecurity, w2 (1df, N = 119) = 5.32, p 5 0.05), and to draw figures
with exaggerated facial features (a resistant sign, w2 (1, N = 121) = 4.62, p 5 0.05).

Resistant markers None of the eight resistant markers but one sign of general
insecurity distinguished the resistant group from the others. The resistant group was
more likely than the others to draw floating figures (w2 (1df, N = 122) = 7.51,
p 5 0.01).

Insecure markers None of the listed insecure signs differentiated the insecure and
secure groups, but the insecure group drew exaggerated heads (an avoidant sign) more
often than the secure group (w2 (1df, N = 122) = 5.77, p 5 0.05).
In summary, few of the markers discriminated between attachment groups as
predicted when used individually.

Objective 2: potential markers from a clinical scheme

Since the clinical scheme made no specific predictions regarding attachment groups,
all quantitative comparisons were based on one-way ANOVAs with the three
attachment groups: secure, avoidant, resistant. In certain cases, more than one figure
(i.e., self, mother, father, sibling) was examined for the same marker (e.g., size of
figure, encapsulation). Significant differences on these markers are reported only
when they occurred for more than one figure.
Similar comparisons for qualitative measures were made by means of chi square
tests. These analyses showed that children who had been resistant as infants were
more likely than those in the other groups to draw themselves last (w2 (2df,
N = 113) = 10.3, p 5 0.01). In addition, they were more likely to draw themselves
overlapping or in direct physical contact with the father, (w2 (2df, 101) = 6.1, p 5 0.05)
and siblings (w2 (2df, N = 100) = 8.0, p 5 0.05).
The most discriminating feature in this scheme was that of encapsulation. ‘Figure
encapsulation’ is defined as completely surrounding a figure with a border (whether
28 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

the border represents a realistic object such as a door, or not) and ‘encapsulation
together’ refers to two or more figures surrounded by a common border. Of 15
measures involving encapsulation, 13 significantly differentiated the resistant
attachment group from the others. Five of these measures involved encapsulation
of single figures (p’s ranging from 5 0.05 to 5 0.001) and eight involved
encapsulation of figures together (p’s ranging from 5 0.05 to 5 0.001).
In summary, few of the clinical markers distinguished the attachment groups but
those that did primarily identified drawings from the resistant group (Table 4). The
most notable and consistent of these was figure encapsulation.

Objective 3: aggregated and global measures as discriminators of attachment

history
Aggregation of markers We next considered whether the number of markers from a
given category would distinguish attachment groups. Thus, we predicted that the
drawings from the avoidant group would have more avoidant markers than the
others; that the resistant group would have more resistant markers and that the
avoidant and resistant group combined would have more insecure markers than the
secure group.
The avoidant group did not have more theoretically predicted avoidant markers
than the resistant and secure groups, nor did the resistant group have more resistant
markers than the avoidant and secure groups. However, drawings of children with a
history of insecure attachment had more insecure markers (M = 2.3, SD = 1.4) than
those from the secure group (M = 1.8, SD = 1.5); t (120) = 7 1.8, p 5 0.05) (one-
tailed). Since all of the markers were indicators of insecurity, we also predicted that
the total number of markers would distinguish drawings from secure and insecure
groups. The drawings of the combined insecure group (avoidant + resistant) did have
more total markers (avoidant + resistant + general insecure) than did those from the
secure group (M = 6.0, SD = 2.4 vs. M = 5.1, SD = 2.3); (t (122) = 7 1.9, p 5 0.05) (one-
tailed). These findings are summarised in Table 5.

Global rating scales The global rating scales were designed to capture and
differentiate early attachment strategies. We found, as did Fury et al. (1997), that

Table 5 Mean scores on global rating scales

Attachment classifications

Scale Avoidant Secure Resistant

Vitality/creativity 4.65 (0.98)a 4.92 (1.57) 4.94 (1.46)

Family pride/happiness 3.87 (1.49) 4.63 (1.39)** 4.06 (1.11)
Vulnerability 3.57 (1.08) 3.61 (1.64) 4.28 (1.27)*
Emotional distance 4.00 (1.86)* 3.03 (1.40) 3.24 (1.25)
Role-Reversal 3.26 (0.96) 2.94 (1.22) 3.94 (1.24)**
Global pathology 4.26 (1.39) 3.53 (1.54)** 4.33 (1.14)

Key: aFigures in parentheses are standard deviations.

*p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 29

the global rating scales were highly intercorrelated, which reflects their theoretical
interdependence (see Appendix A). In the Fury et al. (1997) study, predictions
concerning infant attachment history and global ratings were tested by computing
correlations between global ratings and scores for avoidance, resistance and security
based on two attachment assessments. In the present study, because only one
attachment assessment was available, a multivariate ANOVA was performed in order
to identify attachment group differences.
In order to determine whether the ratings scales were related to infant attachment
classifications, a 3 (attachment group) 6 6 (rating scale) MANOVA was conducted,
with attachment as the between subject variable and scores on the rating scales as the
dependent variables. The analysis revealed a significant effect (F (12, 192) = 2.90,
p 5 0.001). Follow-up t-tests were used to compare the identified group against all
others.

AVOIDANT GROUP Drawings from the avoidant group were expected to be rated
higher than the others on emotional distance and tension/anger. The latter was
omitted from analysis because of low reliability but drawings of the avoidant group
received significantly higher ratings on emotional distance than the others (M = 4.00,
SD = 1.86 vs. M = 3.07, SD = 1.37); t (102) = 2.22, p 5 0.05) (one-tailed).

RESISTANT GROUP Drawings from the resistant group were predicted to be rated
higher than the others for vulnerability and role reversal. Both of these predictions
were confirmed: vulnerability (M = 4.28, SD = 1.27 vs. M = 3.60, SD = 1.52); t
(110) = 1.79, p 5 0.05 (one-tailed); role reversal (M = 3.94, SD = 1.24 vs. M = 3.02,
SD = 1.16); t (101) = 2.86, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed).

SECURE GROUP Drawings from the secure group were expected to receive higher
ratings for vitality/creativity and family pride than the others and lower ratings for
global pathology. Two of these predictions were confirmed. The drawings of the
secure group were rated higher than the others on family pride (M = 4.63, SD = 1.32
vs. M = 3.95, SD = 1.39; t (111) = 7 2.52, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed) and lower on global
pathology (M = 3.53, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 4.29 (t (116) = 2.70, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed).
Thus, five of the six scales entered in the analyses revealed significant differences in
the predicted direction.

Drawing classifications Chi-square analysis was conducted on early attachment

classification and independent family drawing classifications, based on the integration
of signs present in the drawings and subjective appraisal of the drawings. Since
Kaplan and Main (1986) and Fury et al. (1997) assigned avoidant, secure, and resistant
classifications regardless of the presence of signs of disorganization, we did likewise
to cross-validate their work. In our sample, 80.5% of the drawings were assigned to
the correct attachment group (see Table 6). The resulting chi-square was significant
(w2, 4df, N = 118) = 82.12, p 5 0.001). The ability to make successful predictions
differed by attachment classification. For the secure group, 96.1% of the drawings
were assigned to the correct attachment classification, with 1.3% assigned to resistant
and 2.6% assigned to avoidant. For the avoidant group, only 40.9% were labelled
correctly, with most (54.5%) misclassified as secure and 4.5% assigned a resistant
label. For the resistant group, 61.1% were assigned the correct label, while 27.8%
were misclassified secure and 11.1% avoidant.
30 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

Table 6 Association between family drawing classifications and infant attachment status at 12
months (ABC)

Attachment classifications

Drawing category Secure (B) Avoidant (A) Resistant (C) Total

Secure (B) 75 12 5 92
Avoidant (A) 2 9 2 13
Resistant (C) 1 1 11 13
Total 78 22 18 118

w2 (4, N = 118) = 82.12, p 5 0.001; k = 0.56

In summary, most of the global approaches to analysng the drawings (aggregation

of signs, use of global ratings and efforts to classify the drawings into attachment
groups) were more successful in distinguishing attachment groups than the use of
individual markers.

Objective 4: Relative influence of infant attachment on drawing characteristics

The fourth goal was to ascertain whether the influence of infant attachment on
drawing features is evident after controlling for concurrent parental stress, child
emotional functioning, and cognitive capacity, as was found by Fury et al. (1997). For
this purpose, we conducted two hierarchical regression analyses, each with a different
outcome measure. The first used the composite score of drawing negativity developed
by Fury et al. (1997) and described above. The second used the total number of
attachment markers coded for each drawing. Each analysis controlled for concurrent
contextual measures of child cognitive functioning (PPVT), child socioemotional
functioning (CBCL), and parental stress (PSI). In order to create a continuous
variable for use in the regression analyses, an attachment security score was
calculated, based on how close the coded attachment classification was to the
maximally secure classification of B3 (B3 = 3; B1, B2, B4 = 2; A1, A2, C1, C2 = 1).
In the first analysis, child IQ score was not significantly associated with the
composite variable score, while maternal life stress (r = 0.16, p 5 0.06) was marginally
correlated with drawing negativity, consistent with Fury et al. (1997). However,
unlike Fury and her colleagues, we did not find child socioemotional functioning or
attachment security significantly correlated with drawing quality, nor did we find
early attachment to significantly predict drawing quality after controlling for variance
from the other factors.
In the second analysis using total number of insecurity markers, neither child IQ
score nor maternal stress was significantly associated with the dependent measure.
However, total number of markers was predicted significantly by child socio-
emotional functioning (R2 change = 0.05, F change = 4.82, p 5 0.05) and attachment
security made only a marginal addition to this prediction (R2 change = 0.03,
F change = 2.96, p 5 0.10). Therefore, attachment did not make a significant
contribution to drawing quality once other factors were accounted for (see Table
7). Overall, child cognitive and socioemotional functioning, concurrent contextual
variables and early infant-mother attachment accounted for only 8% of the variance
in overall drawing quality when number of markers was used as the dependent
measure (F(4, 99) = 2.03, p 5 0.10).
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 31

Table 7 Hierarchical regression predicting total number of markers from measures of early
attachment, controlling for child cognitive functioning and concurrent life stress and emotional
health (N = 104)

Overall

Independent variable R2 Change Beta T R2 F df

1 PPVT 7 0.045 7 0.45

PSI (Maternal stress) 0.002 7 0.021 7 0.21 0.002 0.12 2,101
2 PPVT 7 0.032 7 0.33
PSI 7 0.168 7 1.42
CBCL Total (7 years) 0.046 0.260 2.20** 0.048 1.69 3,100
3 PPVT 7 0.014 7 0.15
PSI 7 0.190 7 1.70
CBCL 0.257 2.19**
Attachment (12 months) 0.028 0.169 1.72* 0.076 2.03* 4,99

Key: I. Predicting number of markers from attachment controlling for concurrent cognitive functioning,
maternal stress and child socioemotional health.
*p 5 0.10; **p 5 0.05

DISCUSSION

This study had four objectives: (1) to assess the validity of discrete signs for
identifying attachment history in drawings; (2) to investigate the possibility that
markers drawn from clinical practice might also reflect attachment history; (3) to test
the prediction that global interpretation of drawing signs would be more effective in
identifying attachment history than individual signs and (4) to evaluate the
independent contributions of attachment history to drawing style above the effects
of current functioning and family stress. Findings relevant to each are discussed in
turn.

Validity of specific markers

The first objective of this study was to assess the validity of specific markers in
children’s drawings that have been proposed as indicators of early attachment history.
We found that only one (of seven) markers of avoidance (which had been a significant
marker in the Fury et al. (1997) study), discriminated attachment groups as expected.
No markers of resistance differentiated the appropriate attachment group from the
others. Two additional markers of general insecurity differentiated drawings from the
avoidant group and one insecure marker differentiated those from the resistant group.
Thus, although some individual markers distinguished attachment groups, they were
not necessarily the same ones that were discriminating in the previous study.
When we aggregated signs by adding the number of markers in each category,
drawings of securely attached children were characterized by fewer markers than
those of children with a history of insecurity. Thus, like Fury et al. (1997) we did not
find that individual markers were very successful in distinguishing attachment groups.
Some markers that were previously associated with a particular attachment group
failed to identify that group but instead distinguished another. For example, two
32 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

markers that distinguished drawings from the avoidant group in our study had been
considered markers of general insecurity (neutral or negative facial affect) or
resistance (exaggerated facial features). Fury et al. (1997) had a similar experience with
the original scheme of markers by Kaplan and Main (1986) and made appropriate
adjustments by moving markers from one category to another. For example, in the
original Kaplan & Main (1986) report, floating figures characterized the avoidant
group, but in Fury et al. (1997) this is listed as a general insecurity marker. In our
study, this was a marker of resistance. Although we could continue to shift these
markers from one category to another in line with the most recent data, it seems more
prudent to think of the full list of markers as potential indicators of insecurity rather
than of specific forms of insecurity.

Clinical scheme markers

Our second objective was to ascertain whether markers derived from a clinical tool
might also reflect attachment history. Again there were few markers that did so.
However, all of the ‘‘successful’’ markers discriminated the resistant group from the
others. This was particularly true for encapsulation of figures with 13 of 15 possible
comparisons involving encapsulation significant. These observations are particularly
notable because substantive findings regarding resistant attachment are rare in the
literature (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). One reason is that the resistant pattern itself is
relatively rare, comprising only 10 – 15% of most normative samples (Ainsworth et
al., 1978; van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988). Because of this low rate of
occurrence, the resistant group is often combined with the avoidant group to make a
secure – insecure comparison (e.g., Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985) or is eliminated
from analyses (e.g., Lyons-Ruth et al., 1993; Main et al., 1985).
Furthermore, studies that include a distinct resistant group rarely find them to
differ significantly from the other groups. For example, a review of studies of infant
attachment and subsequent behaviour problems revealed that significant differences
were primarily between avoidant and secure groups (Goldberg, Gotowiec, &
Simmons, 1995). A direct test of this with a sample of 145 children followed
longitudinally found that avoidant attachment accounted for all significant secure –
insecure differences. Consistent with this observation, the attachment markers
originally proposed by Kaplan and Main (1986) and adapted by Fury et al. (1997),
either singly or as aggregates were most successful in identifying the avoidant group.
Thus, markers that identify the resistant group may be a useful addition to future
schemes for scoring children’s drawings. We propose encapsulation of figures as the
most robust of the resistant markers identified in the present study.

Global vs. individual markers

The third objective was to test the prediction from prior work that more global
interpretation of drawing signs would be more successful at identifying attachment
history than individual signs. Five of the six rating scales we were able to use from
Fury et al. (1997) discriminated the predicted attachment groups.
Given the popularity of family drawings in the clinical tradition, we questioned
whether knowledge of attachment-relevant markers would aid clinicians in evaluation
of drawings. Thus, coders steeped in attachment research and armed with knowledge
of specific distinguishing markers, were able to significantly predict attachment
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 33

classification. Global classifications of drawings were highly concordant with the

infant attachment classification in the strange situation. As is typical for attachment
concordance statistics, agreement was highest for drawings in the secure group
(96.2%) and lower for the insecure groups (61.1% and 40.9% for the resistant and
avoidant groups respectively). Thus, our findings are largely consistent with those of
the earlier study (Fury et al., 1997) with individual markers being least successful, and
aggregation, global ratings and classifications more successful.
Characteristics of drawings that distinguished attachment groups were consistent
with theory and empirical findings regarding patterns of attachment. Ainsworth
characterized the resistant infant as one who is preoccupied with the caregiver as a
result of a history of inconsistent caregiver response to signals (Ainsworth et al.,
1978). A review of empirical findings regarding resistant attachment indicated that
resistance is associated with low maternal availability in the home (Cassidy &
Berlin, 1994). For example, Lyons-Ruth, Connell, & Zoll (1989) found this group
characterized by less verbal communication, less contact, and less overall interaction
than others. Our drawings of 7-year-olds who had been resistantly attached as
infants reflect this low availability by encapsulating the mother figure, placing a
barrier between the mother and the child figure. At the same time, preoccupation
with the mother figure is evident as those with a resistant attachment history drew
the mother figure first and themselves later more often than children in the other
groups. Preoccupation with relationships in general may be inferred from the
repeated encapsulation of groups of family members. In addition, the global
qualities of vulnerability and role reversal theorized to characterize resistant (or
preoccupied) relationships were rated high in drawings by children who had been
resistant infants.
Avoidant infants are assumed to de-emphasize intimate relationships in order to
avoid rejection. As a result of their inhibition of expression of attachment needs,
avoidant infants show little affective expression in the strange situation. Generally the
child displays flattened affect, while the mother displays exaggerated affect (Cassidy
& Marvin, 1992). Later attachment assessments reveal a similar pattern of emotional
expression. For example, in adolescence, episodes involving reunion behaviours are
marked by neutral/negative facial affect on the part of the avoidant (also called
‘limited’) adolescent (Hillburn-Cobb, 1996). In our study, the drawings of 7-year-
olds who had been avoidantly attached as infants were rated as displaying emotional
distance/isolation more than those from the other groups.

Relative influence of attachment history

The fourth objective was to evaluate whether attachment status makes a unique
contribution to drawing style after controlling for the effects of current child
functioning, cognitive capacity, and family stress. We tested this with two different
global outcome measures one developed by Fury et al. (1997) as a summary of the
global ratings (drawing negativity score) and one which reflected the total number of
(insecure) attachment markers. In the first analysis only maternal life stress was
marginally related to the drawing negativity composite. Unlike Fury and her
colleagues, we did not find child socioemotional functioning or attachment security
significantly correlated with drawing quality, nor did we find early attachment to
significantly predict drawing quality after controlling for variance from the other
factors.
34 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

In the second analysis using total number of markers, child socioemotional

functioning but not attachment made a significant contribution after other factors
were controlled. The failure to find an effect of attachment on global negativity
scores may reflect the sample-dependent nature of this score (it was based on
factor analysis of the original sample data). In addition, the two studies used
somewhat different attachment measures. In the prior study, the attachment
measure was based on number of times the child had been classified into each
attachment category based on two separate assessments. We had only measured
attachment on one occasion and therefore were unable to replicate this aspect of
Fury et al. (1997). Thus, we represented early attachment on a constructed
security scale. Furthermore, Fury et al. (1997) worked with a high risk sample,
whereas ours was low to moderate risk, the risk factor being compromised
physical health. This makes ours a somewhat unusual sample for this kind of
research. Nevertheless, most of our findings are consistent with those of the
earlier study.
Although only the three organized attachment classifications were used for the
analysis of the Fury et al. (1997) study, it is now known that this sample included
many disorganized cases (e.g., Carlson, 1998). It is possible that differences in the
frequency of disorganized cases accounts for differences in study findings. It is also
possible that there were fewer extreme scores in the present sample, thus attenuating
the potential link with attachment.
When we used total number of markers as an outcome measure, our findings
suggest that contemporary socioemotional functioning makes a more important
contribution to drawing features than early attachment. Pianta et al. (1999) also
established a link between drawing features and concurrent socio-emotional
functioning. Our data suggest that the contribution of early attachment to later
family representations may be indirect, rather than direct.
No study, including our own, provided data linking concurrent measures of
attachment to measures derived from family drawings. Although a scheme exists for
coding of concurrent (7 year) attachment (Main et al., 1985), it has not been widely
used outside of the laboratory of origin. Although we were unable to include this
information in the present analyses, this is certainly one important direction for
future research. In the absence of such data, it would be inappropriate to yield to the
temptation to use drawing measures as indicators of current attachment per se. The
data on continuity of attachment are mixed (Grossmann, Grossmann, & Zimmerman,
1999). Even if we could assume strong continuity from infancy, the links between
infant attachment and most specific measures taken from family drawings are
relatively weak.
Data from both Fury et al. (1997) and the present study indicate that early
attachment experiences are linked to representations of family relationships in school
age children. This is consistent with the premise of attachment theory that early
experiences are carried forward in internal representations (working models).
If attachment history can be revealed through interpretation of family drawings,
how important is that knowledge to the clinician? The present data indicate that
global ratings and global clinical impressions are more likely to be useful to the
clinician than specific individual markers. Although researchers are careful to note
that insecure attachment does not predetermine later psychopathology or a poor
developmental outcome, insecure attachment is a risk factor in the development of
behavioural and social difficulties (Greenberg, 1999). A window into the attachment
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 35

experience of a child may provide the clinician additional insight into the etiology of
problems and their likely trajectory, while revealing opportunities for intervention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The longitudinal study on which this paper is based was supported by grants from the
Medical Research Council of Canada, Ontario Medical Health Foundation, the
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundtion, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Ontario to Susan Goldberg.

NOTES

1 A detailed manual is available from the investigators.

2 Twenty-three per cent of this sample evidenced disorganized attachment and analyses
conducted with the fourfold classification scheme yielded results that did not differ from
those for the 3-category scheme which we report.

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1986). Parenting Stress Index (2nd edn). Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology
Press.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and 1991 Child Behavior
Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arend, R., Gove, F., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual adaptations from infancy
to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers. Child
Development, 50, 950 – 959.
Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment and the development of behavior
problems. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds), Growing points of attachment theory and
research, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No.
209, 167 – 193.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the
attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M.T.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E.M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the preschool years
(pp. 273 – 310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-
F-D): An interpretive manual. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Carlson, E. A. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/
disorientation. Child Development, 69, 1107 – 1129.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure-ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and
research. Child Development, 65, 971 – 991.
Cassidy, J., Marvin, R. S.with the Macarthur Working Group (1992). Attachment organization
in preschool children: Procedures coding manual, unpublished document. University of
Virginia.
36 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test: Revised. Circle Pines,
MN. American Guidance Service.
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of
attachment and behavior problems in a preschool high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton &
E. Waters (Eds) Growing points of attachment theory and research, Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No. 209, 147 – 166.
Fury, G., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Children’s representation of attachment
relationship in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 1154 – 1164.
Goldberg, S., Gotowiec, A., & Simmons, R. J. (1995). Infant-mother attachment and behavior
problems in healthy and chronically ill preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
267 – 282.
Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy &
P.R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook of attachment. (pp. 469 – 496). New York: Guilford Press.
Grossmann, K. E., & Grossmann, K. (1991). Attachment quality as an organizer of emotional
and behavioral responses in a longitudinal perspective. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde,
& P. Marris (Eds), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 93 – 114). London: Tavistock/
Routledge.
Grossman, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Zimmerman, P. (1999). A wider view of attachment
exploration. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook of attachment. (pp. 760 – 786).
New York: Guilford.
Hillburn-Cobb, C. (1996). Adolescent-parent attachments and family problem-solving styles.
Family Process, 35, 57 – 82.
Janus, M., Middlebrook, S., & Simmons, R. J. (1993, March). Attachments of healthy medically
compromised 4-year-olds: Observations, questions and family drawings. Presented at
Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Internal representations of attachment at six years as indicated
by family drawings and verbal responses to imagined separations. In M. Main (Chair),
Attachment: A move to the level of representation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1986). A system for the analysis of children’s drawings in terms of
attachment. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Lieberman, A. (1977). Preschooler’s competence with a peer: Relations with attachment and
peer experience. Child Development, 48, 1277 – 1287.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment
classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive
behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572 – 585.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Connell, D., & Zoll, D. (1989). Finding organization in disorganization:
Lessons from research on maltreated infants’ attachments to their caregivers. In D.
Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds) Child maltreatment (pp. 464 – 493). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A
move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds) Growing points of
attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No. 209, 66 – 104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/ disoriented
during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & Cummings E.
M. (Eds), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 121 – 160). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Pianta, R. C., Longmaid, K., & Ferguson, J. E. (1999). Attachment based classifications of
children’s drawings: psychometric properties relations with children’s adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 244 – 255.
 M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 37

van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: a

meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 58, 147 – 156.

Appendix A Intercorrelations among global rating scales (N = 123)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Vitality – 0.56* 7 0.48* 7 0.45* 7 0.30* 7 0.60*

2 Family pride – 7 0.68* 7 0.71* 7 0.40* 7 0.84*
3 Vulnerability – 7 0.43* 7 0.40* 0.80*
4 Emotional distance – 0.32* 0.65*
5 Role reversal – 0.48*
6 Global pathology –

*p 5 0.01