THE INCIDENCEAND POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCEOF THE DRAWING

OF FEMALEFIGURES BY SIXTH-GRADE BOYS IN RESPONSE

TO THE DRAW-A-PERSON TEST"~
BY H~EL~N M. PIIELAN

INTRODUCTION
Statemen.t of the Problem
The purloose of this .s~tudy was to. inves,tigate the frequency of
occurrence of the drawing o~ female fi'gures by boys in response
to the Draw-A-Person (DAP) Test and to study the dynamics
involved. It was hyp,othesized that this resloonse reflects unhealthy
emoti,onal rela:tionships with pa.rents~particularly a lack of a
strong positive identificati.on with the father.
There is a ch,a.l~enge to education in the early detection of these
disturbances. A recent study in OMifornia (1959) re~cealed thar
seven o~t or 10 children who. are e~o~i,onally disturbed are not
recognized a:s such by seho,ol pe.r.s~onnel. Frequently, thos,e identi-
fied are the ones who ac;t out their ,~ggressio.n; the nonaggressive,
w~hose problems are at least equally in need o,f c.orrection, are gen-
er~ally neglected. There is a generally admitted need to. learn moce
albout the dynamics involved in the develo,lomer~t of emotional ill-
nesses and to devise techniques for mas,s screening for the early
de,tection .el tho.se who may b.e vulnerable.

Background of the Instrume.nt

The D A P is a projecti~e de,dee used by p syefhologis~ts to obtain
insights into personality structure. According to Ma~eho,ver (1949),
the le~din'g anthority and exponent of this technique, "the drawing
,o,f a person represents the expression of self OT the body image
in the envir~omnent.... when the drawing projection is markedly
different from the rac% age, a~d s.ex o.f t,he su~bjeot, some difficulty
in normal idenidficatio~n may be assumed." As is true o{ most losy-
cho,logical instruments, however, 'the validity of some o.f the in-
terp,retations made on the basis .of the human drawin.g has been
challenged. The research reveals conflictinEg evidence 'as to. the
"~From the psychological s,ervlces of the Syracuse (N.Y.) City S.ch(~ol District. The
writer wishes to thank 1Vs Eleanor C. Hughes and 3/[iss The]~uu A.. Lars~en~ seho~ol
psychologist co]leagues, Dr. W. A. Bel:g, alld the principals ~.nd teachers of ~he par-
tlc;il?xting schools for ra,nking this study po,ssible.
 I-IELEN IV[. PHELAN 489

dncidence as well as the signifie.a~ee .of the oppo~sRe,-sex .(O-S)

drawing in resp,onse to the DAP.

Backgr,oun,d of the Study

T~hi,s investigation aimed to exp~o.re one facet o~f the DAP--4he
drawing of the oplo.osite-~sex figure by a ,boy. The writer',s clinical
experiene,e with the D A P seemed :t.o.s~ggest that ~i,s. reslo.onse re-
veals a. f.~ilure o.n the loa.rt o.f the b,o,y to identify his p,roo,er ro~l,e
in our' ,eultare. I t wo~uld appear that the boy who makes .an O-,S
d r a ~ i n g ia ~r'es~ponse to tSe D A P kas .failed :to make: ~he nor~n.al
shift from the initial infantile identificatio.n with the mother to
M,entifieation with the father because o.f an imbatar~ee o,f pa.rental
influ.enees in the home. Such an i~r~b.Manee tends to sm,o.the.r the
developing ,self-concept, causing feelings o.f helplessnes,s and in-
a,dequaey and atti'tudes off overdelo,endency.
I t was fel:t th,at this stt~dy would make a eontr}biu.tion to the.
ae.etmmlated body o.f knoavledge regarding the interlo.ret,~tion of
~he DAP. In addition~ if there is validity in ~the fo,regoing o,bserva-
rio,n, this .one facet of the. D'A~P wo.tdd be useful in se.reening oust
a gro~lo o,f children who. are .lO.o~t.entially vulnerable to emo,tio~al
diso,rders. It ~a.s hoped that in,formation gained from this study
might also. suggest the direction that. therapy might take in s.ueh
case,s. Finally, it i:s conceivable that, with this unde,r~standing o~
the dynamics o,f parental roles in the .develo~pment .o.f the .&ild's
self-eoneelot, educators can guide parents and lo.r:o,spe,etive parents
toavard too,re effective parentho,o,d.

RESEARC~ D~sm~
Procedure
The stt~dy wa~s divided into five main lohases :
1. Desisning and esta,bli~s~hing the reliability o,f father and mother
attitudes-inventories ;
2. Sereeni~ng os the to,ta~l s~ixth-grade population o~ boys in 15
city .setmols ;
3. Testing o.f ~study g'roulo:s with s~tandardized personality tests;
4. Analyzing and comparing data on study groulos;
5. Analyzing drawings .o.f study groups.
Dpon eomplet}on of the ne,ees~sary preliminary pre~paxations--
o~btain.i,ng permission o.f each pr teacher, and child involved~
~9'0 DRAWING OF FE1ViALE FIGURES BY SIXTI-I-GRADE BOYS

establishing reliability of attitude inventories, etc.--the investiga-

tion proceeded as folio.w s:
1. Each ehild was given a packet w ~ e h included a sheet o,f
81/~ by 11I' drawing paper, Oll the r'everse side of whiah
pertinent information was r equ~ested. ~Aso included v~als an
inventory of attitudes to,card the mother, ,an invento~ry of
attitudes toward the father, and a 3 by 5" card on which
information as to age, re]~gion, place of birth, etc. was to
be r~eeorded.
2. Eaeh sr~bject was asked to he~p in the research by making
a dra~ving of a person on the p a~,er which he had received.
All were reque~sted n,ot to look at or copy anyone e~se's
drawing. When the drawin~gs had been completed, the sub,-
jeets suiop~ied personal data necessary for mate~hing pur-
poses, and then complected the mother and father a~5tude
inventories.
3. The investigator read aloud to the groulo~s all directions,
written questions or statements to eliminate irraccuracies
cau,sed by faulty reading.
6. The .screening pha'.se was 'terminated when 50 drawings of
the .o.pposite sex had been obtained.
5. I_ntelligen,ee quotients were obtained from the s~eho,ol rec-
o~r:ds. Also, in eases in which d.ata were incomplete, fo,r ex-
ample, .date of birth, religion, o.eculoation of parent, this
info~rma.tion w,a,s obtained fro~m reco.rds, from the teaeher,
the city dire,etory, or other soiree.
6. Ea.eh boy of the total p,op~l~tion was classified on the basis
of the oeeapation of the prineilo,al wage-earner aee,o.rding
to the Minnesota Scale fo~r Paternal Oeetlp~tioas.
7. Each of the 50 boys ~ho drew the opp:o,site-.sex was mat 'eLhed
- - a s t.o. religion (Pr'ot.es• o,r Catabolic), oeeu~.ati.o.nal level
o,f p.rineip,al wage-e.a~rner, intelligence, a,nd age in year~s and
months--with a boy who drew his self-sex.
8. TIhe California Test o,f Per;s:onality and R~o.gers' Test No..
6 of A Test o.f Personality Adjustment were administered
in gr'ot~ps to the experimental a~d eo.r~trol subjects in eaeh
:se'hool.
9. Teaclle~s of the b.o.ys in Ne study gr:o~loS evaluated them
on the I-Iaggerty-Olson-Wiekman Behavior Rating S&ed-
ules.
 H E L E N lVs PI~ELA:N 491

10. The investigator a~d two colleagues, acting independently,

analyzed the drawings o{ the boTs in the study gwoups.
11. The investigator eo~piled and ,analyzed MI data from the
tests.
Criteria for Selection of Subjects
Part fcipation was voluntary on the part, o~ the schools, teachers,
and pupils. One ~school and one pup~l in another s eho,ol declined
t,o participate.
To control as many variables as pessible, the study wa~s limited
to s~ixth-grade, white, A~lerican-born b,oTs of p redon~i~antly Chris-
finn, middle-class background. Schools serving the lo~vest ,soeio-
eco,no,mi!o ,areas were not inc~luded in this ~study.
T,o obtain the experimentM group of fifty boys who drew the
opp~o,s,ite sex, the DAP was administered to 493 bo:~s in 15 city
schools. Sixteen boys o,f this total group were eliminated as no*t
meeting the criteria.
Eaeh bo$ in the experimental group was match~ed w~th a con-
tvo,] as to religion, occupational level of principal wage-enrner,
chronological age and i~telligence o~ the s~bject. Since the Cali-
fornia Test of ?r M~turity had been administered city-wide
to all sixth-graders by the Researc~ Department jus4 before th~s
study, intelligence quotients were a~afl~ble from setho o] records.

Analyses of Data
Analyses of the data are sho,wn in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Table 1. Descriptive Data Pertaining to the Total Pepulatio~

~ean SD

Age 11.2 .74

IQ 107.84 16.23
OL 4.09 1.516

Table 2. Distribution o2 Drawings According to Religion

Per cent
O-S S-S o:~ O-S
ReKgion Total Drawings Drawings Drawings

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . 282 30 252 10.67

Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 5 0.0
Protestant . . . . . . . . 190 20 170 10.52

Totals ........ 477 50 427 10.48

492 DR.AWI!~G OF FE1ViALE FIGURES BY SIXTH-GRADE BOYS

Table 3. Distribution of Drawings According t~o Occupational Leve~ of Principal

Wage-Earner

P e r cent
Total O-S S-S O-S
OL Description Draw. Draw. Draw. Draw.

I Professionml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1 37 2.6
I I Semi-Professional and 1V~anagerial . . . . . . . 42 6 36 14.3
I I I Clerical~ Skflled~ Retail Business . . . . . . . . . 96 12 84 12.5
IV Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 3 0.0
V Senti-Skilled, Minor Clerigal and Business 221 23 198 10.4
VI Slightly Skilled, Little T r a i n i n g . . . . . . . . . 57 8 49 14.0
Unclassified. 1~.o Employment Indicated . . . . . . 20 0 20 0.0

Totals ............................... 477 50 427

T'able 4. Distribution of Drawings by P a r t i c i p a t i n g Schools

P e r cent
Total O-S S-S of O-S
School Drawings Drawings Drawings Drawings

A 25 4 21 16.0
B 45 5 40 11.1
C 57 5 52 8.8
D 39 1 38 2.6
E 29 2 27 6.9
F 26 2 24 7.7
G 14 2 12 14.3
H 43 2 41 4.7
I 28 2 26 7.1
J 17 0 17 0.0
K 25 2 23 8.0
L 28 9 19 32.1
M 31 5 26 16.1
N 29 6 23 20.7
O 41 3 38 7.3

Total 477 50 427

Table 5. Descriptive Data P e r t a i n i n g to the Study Groups

Experimental Control
Mean SD lV[ean SD

CA 11.5 .874 11.5 .888

IQ ]10.54 18.58 110.32 17.65
OL ~:.24 .96 4.24 .9,6.
 HELEN 1Yr. PHELAN 493

Furt,her analysis o.f info.rm,ation provided by the su~b.jects re-

ve,aled that 20 per cent o.f the experimer4al group retp,o,rted the
p~hysica] ab:sen,ce of the imtuF~l father froln the l~ome because of
his death, the separation o.f parents, or the subjecff~s p~acemer~t in
a fo.ster holm. Of the remaining 427 partial.pants in the study
(those wLho.made S-S drawin,gs), 13 p er cen~t repo,rted the physical
absence o~ ~ e natural father from the, home.
Additional info.rmation supplied by teacher.s revealed tha~ in at
least another 20 per cent o~ 'the homes o,f the experime,r4al s~b-
ject~s, fathers were either a.bse~t for e~te~ded perilods for business
reasons or were physically pce,sent ,but psycho,logically i.neffeciive
for vario;us reasons. Thus, at least 40 1o,er ce~t o.f the experimental
s ubjeots were knowJa to 1,~ck no,final opportunities to identify with
theD fathers.
Analyses of the statisti.cs pertaining to ~he total p,o,p~a,lation of
thi:s study seem t~o suggest that:
1. Memlbershfp in the Protestant or C~thotic c'hurah do.es n(~t
s~gnifieant~y affect the incidence o,f O-S drawings.
2. The OL len~el o.f the pr wage-earner may be a facto.r
in determimng incidence of O~S drawings.
3. Other ~sodal factors may be oloer,ating in pro.d~ch~g O-~S
drawings, for ~nstance, broken homes. (No,re in Table 4 that
32.1 per cent o,f the subjects in school L made O-S dravc-
ings. S ehoo] L selwes an area in which there are many
br,oken and unstable homes.)
4. The ab.seace, physical or p,syaho,logica], o.f the t~ather, totally
o,r fc~r prolonged per~o@s, mtay affect the inciden~ce o,f O-.S
drawings.
Testing of Hypotheses
In any projective technique a re,sp,ouse has particular psy 'c~bo.-
lo,g~ic~l significance only if i~ is relatively infrequent. Many in-
vestigators have reported ~hat the malting ,o,f the O-S drawing
~ resp,o,nse to. the DAI' is quite uncommon foe m~'les in general.
T~aere was s,o,me questioa~ as to whether it vcou]d be an unus~la]
~esponse ~or a boy of sckool age. The f~r,st hypothesis (H~) was
that:
Itl there is no significan't 6iffleren,ce between the frequency of
occurrence o~f the drawing of the female figure and *he
dr:awing of the male fi~gure by six,th-grade, wh~te, American-
born boys in response to the DAP test.
49:4c DBAWI~G OF FEMALE FIGURES BY SIXTIt-GRADE BOYS

Of the 477 boys participating in ths study, 50 (10.48 per cent)

made O~S drawings, and 4~27 (89.52 per cent) made same sex (,S-S)
&ra,win~s. D5sing the formula proposed by M clkTemax (1955) for
testing the s.i'gnificance of the difference bet)ween pr~o~,ort~:ons a
CI% o,f 17.3, significant beyond the .0001 level, was o~bCa~ned. On
the basis o,f this finding, hyp,othesis o~e was rejected, as it is an-
likely that a deviation a,s great as this woald occur by ahan,ce.
There is a stat&stically s~gnificant differ.ence between the frequency
(~f ocvurre~ce of the draCving o~f the female figure a~d the: draw-
ing of the male figure by si~th-igrade, white, Ameri~can-born boys
in r es@o~se to the DAP. This fir~ding a~rees rather clo!sety w4th
that reported for males in general by Levy (1950), wyho foand that
",of 5,000 adult subjects examined, 87% d r e ~ their own sex fir:st."
Brown and ToPoi" (1957), who had revie~ved the liters~tare and
combined the findings o,f four majo,r studies to reduce po,ssible
erroneous impressions that might ~result; fr,o,m the ~se os small
s~mples o~r particular geo,graph~cai gr~oups, reported 91 per cent
o,f the ma~e subjects drew the male figure fir:st in respo,nse to
the DAP.
Having establis'hed the statistical significance os the O~S draw-
ing in response to the DAP, it became meanings t~o,p r:oceed fe
the principal objective o.f the ,stndy, ~hic~h was to oh,rain some
insights as to ~he personality of s~bjects who make O-S draftings.
It h~d seemed likely that the C TP might provide this kind o.f
reformation. It had been hypothesized that:
H~ there is n~o s:ignificant difference between the mean total
adjlmtment .score,s os the experimental and control groups
on the CTP.
The mean to,tal ~dju, s,tmenr sco,re os the experimental group
w~as 109.78 (40th percentile) as .compared to a mean to,tal adju, s~-
me~.t score of 112.9 (50th percentile) for the control gr,oap. I t
was noted that, whereas the control gro.up .sh(~wed average adjust-
ment on the CTP, the experimental group scored belo~v the 50th
percentile. H:o~wever, whe~ the " t " test was applied to these ~ata
a " t " os .814 was obtained. On the basis o~ this test, it wo~ld
appear tha,t this deviation could occur by chance. Thus, hypothesi~s
tnvo was accepted.
An analysis was ms,de o~f t~he ,s~btests, a~d it was observed that
on 11 of the 12 :s,abtests, the mean :sc,Gres of the exper~nental
 ~ L ~ N ~. P~LA~ 495

group, suggested les,s satis~ctEory adjustment than t~e e,ontro,1

gr,oup, bat these differences also were. stat~stical~ly no,t significant.
Though the CTP did no.t differentiate signifie,antly between the
total scores o,f these two .s:tttdy grou,p,s, an an,a]ysis o.f t~e items
which, a eco.rding to the, key, had been .answered ineo~rrectly ,by
b,o,~h gr.ou.ps revea:led sovae st~atistieal differenee,s. These differ-
er~ces suggest where.in the dyna~i.cs o~ personality of ?~he experi-
mental ~sv~bjects are unlike tho~se o~ the controls.
Table 6. M a l a d j u s t m e n t Responses Giveu ~ o r e Frequently on the GT,f) by the
Experimental t h a n the Control Group

Item Level of
No. Question Ans. X2 Significaalee

6. W h e n yo~ have so,me free time, do you usually

ask your p a r e n t s or teacher what to do? . . . . Yes 5.20 .05
2]. Do your folks seem to think you are doing
well ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No 4.0 .05
105. I s someone at home so m e a n t h a t you often
have to quarrel? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes 4.32 .05
]28. Would you like to s t a y home f r o m school a
lot if it were right to do so? . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes 4.0 .05
141. Do you dislike m a n y of the people who live &pproach-
near your home? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes 3.5 ing.05
29. May you usually do what you w a n t to during Approach-
your spare time? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No 3.4 i n g .05

_&ltho,ugh not at statistically significant levels, more e:~peri-

men ta~ ,subj~ts than controls also reported that:
1. they have dizzy spells
2. they are no,t "as well and strong as too,st boys and gh'ls"
3. they wish they had other parents
4. schoo~l mates do no~ think st$,jects' ideas are good
5. svho~elmates do n:ot think subjects are nice to them.

I~nt,erests and Activities I~ventory--CTP

On the interests and activities inventory, :s,eoced by marking
what one likes to do regardless of whether he does St, and whas
one does, regardless of whether he likes to do it, the experimental
group snored a mean average of 41.3 "Likes" as olopo,sed to 39.3
for the co,ntro,ls. The exper~nentals marked a mean average o,f
40 "Do's" as o,pposed to 37 for the con,tro~s. The "t" test a l~plied
to the interests and activities showed significant differences as to
496 DgAWING OF FE1VLALE F I G U R E S BY SIXT-~-GRADE BOYS

Table 7. M e a n A v e r a g e N u m b e r of E x p r e s s e d Inte~'ests a n d A~tivs of

E x p e r i m e n t a l a ~ d Control G r o u p s

Exp. Con. Sig.

Like ........... 41.3 39.3 .02

Do . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 37.0 .001

the frequeneie,s with whi,& these activities were liked and in

~vhieh they were engaged.
Experimenta~l su,bject.s i.ndicated ~hat they like t;o co.H.e,et co,ins
significantly more often than c.ontrols (X~ 10.37--almost at the .001
level).
Approadfillg ~statistieal signifiGance, the experLmen~tat subjects
indicated more o,/ten that they like to.:
Play the radio X~ 3.79
Play with p eJts X~ 3.40
Go to church X~ 3.67
Also approaching statistical si'gnificanee, the experiraentals re-
po,rt.ed that they do me.re o.ften:
I{~ad stories 3.04
Draw or paint 3.16
Use a caanera 3.35
A pat, tern tended to emerge frmn bhe manner in vchich experi-
mental s,u,bje.ets s,eored like's aa~d do's. F o r exa~llple:, the experi-
mental subjectrs indicated t1~at they do work p rv,blems hie.re fre-
quently tha.n the eo.rJ:trols. Yet~ they marked this ite,m less o,f'ten
than the controls as so,mething that they lik,e *o do. C,o,nver:sely,
although they reported more ogten tha~ Uhe co,ntx'ols that ~hey
iik.e to go to dmre.h, they marked this less frequently a.s so.mething
they actaalty do. They also marked more frequently tham ~he con-
trois that they like ,to play base,ball, but marked it le~s.s frequently
as something they do. There seems t,o be a sn.ggeJs~ion here o,f a l~ek
Table 8. Activities in W h i c h ExpeTimental S u b j e c t s Do P a r t i c i p a t e More
F r e q u e n t l y t h a n Controls

Do X2 Sig.

W o r k problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.46 .02

l~idc a horse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.88 .05
B e l o n g to Y M C A . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.86 .02
S i n g in glee club . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.84 .05
 IKELEIq 1~r I~t-IELAlq 497

o~ self-direction and a feeling (d being coerced on the part of the,

experimental ,subjects.
An in,terestmg finding on this t~artieutar inventory was tha.t,
tho.ugh fewer experimental s~bjec~s indicated that they liked be-
longing to the u a si'gnfficantly Larger number o~ the e~peri-
mental ;su~bjec,ts repo,rted t~.at they do belong.
A n .a~,h~abet.ical list was meade o.f all boys in b,oth group.s who,
had noted that they belonged to the "Y." The direc~o.r o~f the YMCA
checked this list with the rotsrter of "Y" membe~rship, and it was
disco.vered that 60 per cent o.f ~ e expe,rimental subjects who h,ad
c~am~ed membership actually were ~o;t members. One-third of the
contrels who. said they were members did not belong. Aatv~a~ly
the proportions of the t~vo gro,ups who were mem,b e,rs were ~bo,t~t
the same.
Most of the activities hn which the experimer~tat subjects ex-
pressed greater intere~st Khan the aontro,ls or in wkich they re-
ported more participation were tho,se in v~hich they n~ght take
p a r t without the consent o,f their peer group. They were als:o
acli~vi~es which may app.ear to have ,status o.r meet with the
appro,va~l o,f adults.
Thus, though the results frown the CTP were not c o.nclusive, it
is noted that the mean tetal adjustment sc~re, the mean per.s,on-
ality and social adjustment scores, and the means of 11 of the
12 st~b,section scores o,f the experimental gro,ap are s't~ggestive
o,f less satisfactory adjustment than those of the con tr:o.1 group.
I.t is observed also that the mean total adjustment sc,ere o,f the
centro,1 group ~s at the fiftieth percentile of the no r~ns fo.r the CTP
whereas the mean total adjustment .score .o.f the experimental
grou~p is at the fo~rtieth pe,rcentfle. Item ~nalys,is .su~gges,ted ~hat
the expeiGr~tental subjects felt less self-directive ,and les's accept~ed
by pareni,s and. peers. Tiheir r ep,orted interests and activities
tended to be tho,se in which they might participate without the
consent af their peers.
As it is reco,gnized that canny te,achers are very sensitive to the
emo~ti,ona'l problems o~ the children in .their classes, it h~d s e e ~ e d
that this study should include ~e.a~hers' ratings of the study groups.
It h,ad been hypothesized that:
H~ there is no significant ,4iff,eren.ce between the ~nea.n total
adjustment scores o,f the experimental a~d ,~ontrol gro.ups on
498 DRAWING OF FE1VIALE FIGURES BY SIXTH-GRADE BOYS

the Itaggerty-Olson-Wicl~man B e h a v i o r R a t i n g Schedules

(~0W).
On t h e H O W , high ~score~s r e p r e s e n t undes'irab~e d e v i a t i o n s a n d
lo~r162s c o r e s r ep.resent t y p i c a l befhavior. I n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n re-
p,or~ted in this p a p e r , the e x p e r i m e n t a l grot~p h~d a m e a n score
o,f 70.48 a n d the co~tro~l g r o u p h a d a score o,f 67.77. T h o u g h t h e
r a t i n g s w e r e s u g g e s t i v e of less d e s i r a b l e adjus,t~nent f o r the ex-
perimenta~s t h a n the controls, w h e n the " t " test w a s a p p l i e d to
the d a t a a " t " of .849 ~ a s obtained. As it w o ~ d gpl3ear t h a t this
d i f f e r e n c e could occur b y shan~ce, h y p o t h e s i s t~hree w,a:s a~ccep,ted.
T h e i n v e n t o r i e s of a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d p a r e n t s , d e s i g n e d especially
f o r this .s~udy, w e r e p r e p a r e d to as se,ss a t t i t u d e s to.ward mother;s
a a d f a t h e r s . T h e y w e r e p a r a l l e l in struct~ure; each c o~mp,olsed o~
25 s t a t e m e n t s , p h r a s e d to e x p r e s s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s t o , y a r d the
p a r e n t . The child r e s p o n d e d b y che~ckin~g " y e s " or "no." T h e s e
invento.ries w e r e r e v i e w e d b y pro.fe~slsio~ral r a~d r e v i s e d
up o~n t h e i r reeommenda~4o~ns.
The a t t i t u d e s i n v e n t o r i e s u s e d in this s t u d y a r e as follows:
Attitudes Toward Father
This is part of a research project. It will be meaningful only to the extent
that you answer as truthfully and accurately as possible. Mark every sts/ce-
ment. Mark X after the Yes if the statemen~ is true usually; mark X after
the No if it is not usually true. Your narne will n~t appear on this paper.
Your answers will be used only for the purpose of this research.
1. 1V[yfather is usually good to me. Yes. . .No .....

2. I like to help my father. No. ..Yes...

3. My f.ather will usually help me if I want him to. Yes. .No . . . . .
4. My father is usually easy to please. No. ..Yes...
5. My father likes me. Yes. .No . . . . .
6. I :always know how my father expects me to behave. No. ..Yes...
7. I like to be with my father. Yes. .No . . . . .
8. I love my father very much. No . . . . Yes...
9. 1VIyfather and I like many of the same things. Yes.. .No . . . . .
10. iV[y father and I get along fine together. No. ..Yes...
] 1. I try to do what my father wants me to do. Yes. .No . . . . .
12. My father and I do marly things together. No. ..Yes...
13. My father is usually fair with me. Yes...No .....
14. My father usually likes the way I do things. No . . . . Yes...
15. My father is the boss in our family. Yes...No .....
16. I hope to be like my father in many ways. No . . . . Yes...
 ~ELE~ ~. P~ELA~ 499

17. I can talk with my father about ,anything that

worries me. Yes. .No . . . . .
18. i~r father is a wonderful person. No.. .Yes . . . .
19. My father is usually right about most things. Yes. .No . . . . .
20. My father trus,ts me. No.. .Yes . . . .
21. Of m y family, I think I like m y father best. Yes. .No . . . . .
22. I respeet m y father. No.. .Yes . . . .
23. My father seems to know how I feel about most things. Yes. .No .....

24. 5Iy father is usually t r u t h f u l with me. No.. .Yes . . . .

25. My father and I usnally feel the same about things. Yes. .l~N-O . . . . .

Attitudes Toward Mother

This is p a r t of a research project. I t will be meaningful only to the ~xeent
tl~at you answer as t r u t h f u l l y and accurately as possible. Mark every state-
meat. Mark X after the Yes if the statement is true usually; mark X after
the No if it is not usually true. Your name will not appear on this paper.
Your answers will be. used only for the purpose of this research.
1. ~,Iy mother is usually good to me. Yes. .No..
2. I like to help m y mother. No.. .Yes.
3. My mother will usually help me if I ~vaat her to. Yes. .No..
4. My mother ~s usually easy t.~ please. No.. .Yes.
5. My mother likes me. Yes. .No..
6. I always know how m y mother expects me to behave. No.. .Yes.
7. I like to be with m y mother. Yes. .No..
8. I love m y mother very mueh. No.. .Yes.
9. My mother and I like many of the same things. Yes . . . . No..
10. My mother and I get along fine together. No . . . . . Yes.
II. I try to do what my mother wants me to do. Yes .... No .....
]2. My mother and I do many things together. No ..... Yes ....
13. My mother is usually fair with me. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
14. My mother usually likes the way I do things. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
15. My mother is the boss in our family. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
16. I hope to be like m y mother in m a n y ways. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
17. I can talk with my mother about anything that
worries me. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
18. My mother is a wonderful person. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
19. My me~her is usually right about most things. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
20. My mother trusts me. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
21. Of m y family, I think I like m y mother best. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
22. I respect m y mother. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
23. My mother seems to know how I feel about most things. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
24. My mother is usually t r u t h f u l with me. No . . . . . Yes . . . .
25. My mother and I usually feel the same about things. Yes . . . . No . . . . .
500 DR&WI~G OF FEMALE FIGURES B)/ SIXTL~I-GICADE BOYS

Reliability was es,ta,blished by the test-rztest method, u:sing 80

st~bjects tot this purpo~se. A reliability coefficient of .78 w,as o~b-
taJn,ed on the inventory of attitades toward flath,e,r and a reliability
coefficient of .82 on the inventory o,f a ~ t u d e s toward mot'~er.
It had been hypothesized that:
H, there ~s no M.gnifieant ,difference between the mean fre-
quenoy o,f yes ress of the experimental and control
gronps on the inven~o,ry of attitudes to,ward ~athers.
Table 9. Mean and Standard Deviation of Inventory of Attitudes TOward
Fathers of Experimental and Control Groups

Exp. Control

SD 3,32 2.31
~s 21.56 22.8,6

'T~he "t" test~ was applied to th}s data and a "t" of 2.06 was
abtained which ~s significaa~t at the .05 leve~l. There~o,r.e, hypothesis
four was rejected as it is ~.ot likely t h a t this d~iffe,ren~e between
these two groups wouM o~aur by chance.
In 're slo,o,nse to"
"23. My father ,seems to know how I feel abeu,t moist t~ngs,'~'
almost three thnes as m a n y of the subjects of the experimentM
group as of the control g r o u p responded "no.." A X~ of 3.84 estab-
l~s,hed this as a ,4ifference significant s t the .05 level.
Tending to,v~ard s~tatistical s4gnificanee (X~ 2.68) was the "no"
response ~o~ twice as m a n y of the expe,rimenta~ gro,up as o~f t~l.e
eo,ntr'o~s to:
"15. My f,ather is the boss ~n our family."
As tra,dit~orrally the mother-child relationshi~p h,as been con-
side red o,f prime importance in child development, it s e e ~ e d a
neeessa.ry p a r t of this study to assay the attitnde,s and feelings
o,f ~hese i~vo groups toward ,their mother~s,. It had ,been hy-
po,theMzed that:
I-I~ there 4's n,o, sSgnificant .diffe~renee between the mean fre-
qaeney .of yes responses of the experimen,tal aa,d control
gro~ups on the inventozy o,f attitudes toward mothers.
The "'t" ~es,t was applied to the d a t a and a "t" o,f .983 ~was
otbta,ined. As such a difference could have ocet~rred ~by ~hance,
hypothesis five was aeceloted.
 I:IELE1W M. t~I=IELAlq 501
Table 10. ~lean a~d Standa~'d Deviation of Inventory of Attitudes Toward
Mothers of Experimental and ~ont~ol Groups

Exp. C~ntrol

~i 20.84 21.46
SD 2.89 2.80

The item analysis revealed t h a t twice ~s many af the e~peri-

mental gro,up as of the control grou~p respor~ded "no," to, item 4.
TLhis gave a X2 o~ 5.2 which is significant at ~a]mo~s~tfile .0,2 ]e~e,1.
'%. My mo~ttter is usually easy ~o ~ol~se."
~ s a~other approach to ~ e f~ather-son relationship, the Rogers'
T es~t of Personality Adjustment, Test No. 6 wa~s administered.
It had been hyloo,thesized that:
H6 thece is no significant difference between the mean scores
(~f ~he experimental a~d control gro,ups on the rat'mg of the
father on t~e RTPA-6.
A r a ~ e r u,nexpected reaction to this test prevented the handling
of ~ e data in the s tatisticM m a n n e r planned. I t will be noted
in Table 11 t,hat sixteen subjects (32 loer cent) o~ the experimental
gro~up refused to differentiate amon,g the I0e~sons l~s~ted by ~ e m
as member:s o,f their families and closest flriends as to which o n e
yeas ~liked best, whereas this reaetio,n ~ a s found ~ en]y seven
(14 per cent) of the r This di~erence in maturer of re-
sponse t~(>this test gave a X~ o~ 4.57, significant a t tl~e .05 l e v e l
TaMe 1L Distribution of F i r s t Place Ratings in Affeetional Attitudes T~)ward
Others on Test ~o. 6 of Roger,s' Test of Personality A d j u s t m e n t

Liked Best Exp. Control

Father .......... .......... 8 13

~other .................... 22 29
Others ...................... 4 1
!Vlother and f a t h e r
undifferentiated . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7

Thus, is would .ap.pear that the tCTPA did diffe:rentia~e between

these two. group,s through the m a n n e r in which the two group,s re-
ae.ted to. th,e test situation. Tlhe experimental subjects h~d differenr
relatio~s~ps with their parents ~than the co~trols.
502 DRAWING OF FEMALE FIGURES BY SIXTH-GRADE BOYS

Drawings
A study o,f the drawings wa,s made to, deternfine if there were
any other features of the drawings themselves which tended to
differentiate between the boys of the two study groups.
One obje,et~ve measure of the drawings was a~ailable in the
ages assigned by subjects to the persons drawn. The mean age
of persons drachm by the experimentM subjects was 26 yea r~s. The
mean age of person.s drawn by the con trMs was 17 yearls.
To reduce the s~bjecLive element of drawing ana lysi~s to a mini-
inure, two colleagues agreed to act as jwdges in e:o~njunction with
the investigator to examine the .drawings for further dues to the
pers ormlity Jstrueture of the boys partieilo.ating in this study.
In eo~paring" the two s e~s of drawings, jugges were in agree-
merit, o~t s tati~stieaily significant levels, on three features of the
&rawings xwhi,eti distinguish the, experimental group, from the
control gro,up.
Trhe sho~atders in tlle drav~ings of the expe,ri~nental subjects
tended to be narrow and in many eases eompletely ~bsent whereas
eo.ntro.ls tended to draw no,r~nal ~shou,lders for the most part.
Trite experimental subjects also tended to place an over'e,mphasis
ep,on ~m,o,uthswhich distinguished their drawing~s f,r:om those of the
emitrols.
The third fe,ature of the drawirtgs ef ~ e experimentals whidt
disting'n~shed them from the drawings of the Gonirols was the
weakness ;and frailty of the arms.
T'able 12. ]~requemcy of Features Which DifferenLiated Drawings of Study qrot~ps

Feature Exp. Con. X2 Sig.

N~rrow shoulders . . . . . . . . . . 28 14 8.04 .01

Overemphasis of mouth . . . . 22 10 6.62 .02
Frail, weak arms . . . . . . . . . . 25 11 8.50 .01

The interpretation~s of the symbo~lie significance ,of ~,e differ-

ent~al treatment of these features by the experimental su~bjects
tend to confirn~_ the impressions gained from the other instruments
u!sed in t~Ms stady.

On the basis of evidence collected in this ,study, it is concluded

that:
 ~ E L E N M. P H E L A N 503

1. A sigmficant]y larger pro,poction of the s~x~-grade boss

e f tMs sample drew their self-sex th,an ~ e i r opposite sex, a find-
iI~g in agreement wit~ me st res.eareh s.tudies dealing with the first
response o,f male subjects ~o the DAP.
2. T.he occupational level o.f the prineipM wage-earner may be
a factor related to the irmSdenee of O,S dr.awings.
3. Influence on the per:sona]ity develolmaent of the .subject os
~b.senee or weakne,ss of the father may be, refle.eted by the O-S
d.rawing in response to the DAP.
4. A sense o~ dependency o.r a feeling of beir~g dominated see~s
to eocrelat..e with the O-S drawing.
5. A sense os physical and/or psychic inadequacy seeaa~,s to
eo,rr:elate w}th the O-S drawing.
6. L,ess po.si~ti.ve a.ttitu.des to~vard fathers ,correlate with 'O-~S
dr axcing,s than is true of makers of S-.S drawing.s.
7. Motlhers appear to dominate more in the fan,tiles o.f boys
who make O-S drawings than in the families of boys who make
S-S drawings.
8. Teachers, as .a group, ,do not rec,o.gnize any ~ffer,enee;s be-
tween these two grou~p,s of subjeetds.

Psycholo,gdcal Services
Board of Education
220 West Kennedy Street
Syracuse, N. u
BIBLIOGRAPtt~
Brown, Daniel G., and T~)lor, Alexander: I-Iuman Figure Drawings as Indicators of
Sexual Identification and Inversion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, l~onograph
Supplement 3. Southelm U]~verslties Press~ Grand Forks, N. D. 1957.
Califomi:~ State Department of Education: The EImotionally I-Iandieapped Child and
the School. 1959.
Levy, S.: Figure drawings as a projective test. Pp. 257-297. I n : Projective Psychology:
Clinical Approaches to the Total Personality. L. E. 2~bt axed L. Bellak, editors.
Knopf. New York. 1950.
: Projective figure drawing. I n : Clinioal Appliaation of Projeatlve Techniques.
E. F. ttammer editor. Thomas. ~pringfield, Ill. 1958.
1Y[achover, Karen: Personality Projection in the Drawing of the ]ilm]an Figure. Thomas.
Springfield, Ill. 1949.
: Drawing' of the human figure. Pp. 341-369. I n : ,Am Introdnction to t*roject~ve
Techniques. tI. I-I. and G. L. Anderson~ editors. Prentice-l=lall. l~ew York.
1951.
- - - - - : Kuman figure dra~vings of children. & Proj. T~ch., 17: 85-91, 1953.
~cNemar, Qulnn: Psychological Statistics. Wiley. New York. 1955.