This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 11 June 2015, At: 00:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Personality
Assessment
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

House-Tree-Person Drawings
and Personality Traits
a b
Stanley S. Marzolf & John H. Kirchner
a
Illinois State University , USA
b
Wood County Mental Health Clinic , USA
Published online: 16 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Stanley S. Marzolf & John H. Kirchner (1972) House-Tree-Person
Drawings and Personality Traits, Journal of Personality Assessment, 36:2, 148-165,
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1972.10119740

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1972.10119740

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
STANLEY S. MARZOLF JOHN H. KIRCHNER'
Illinois State University and Wood County Mental Health Clinic
SummTy: House-Tree-Person (HTP) drawings and Sixteen Personality Factor Question-
naire (16PF) scores were obtained from 760 college men and women. Presence or absence of
108 drawing Characteristics was compared with 16PF scores. Drawings judged indicative of
personality disturbance were compared with the remainder. A number of significant but low
correlations were found between characteristics and traits but little difference was found
between the drawings supposedly indicative of disturbance and the remaining drawings.
Marked sex differences in characteristic-trait relationships was the most notable finding.
The House-Tree-Person (HTP) projec- cludes an experimental scale, Motivation-
tive test, one of the most commonly used al Deviation (MD), which is intended to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

diagnostic instruments (Lubin, Wallis, &
Paine, 1971), presumably reveals aspects
of personality either through specific
drawing characteristics, overall appear-
ance of the drawings, or both (Buck,
1948). Principal support for the validity
of this assumption has been almost exclu-
sively based on clinical data. In a college
population Johnson's (1971) study corre-
lating upper left-hand placement of the
human figure in the Draw-a-Person with
the IPAT anxiety scale was the only re-
lated research found in the literature. The
p a u c i t y o f psychometric evidence
prompted this investigation of the rela-
tionship between HTP characteristics and
measured personality traits.
Method
HTP drawings were obtained from 306
men and 454 women enrolled in under-
graduate psychology courses, none of
which courses was required. On the same
day or within a few weeks thereafter
these students were given the Sixteen Per-
sonality Factor Questionnaire, Form C
(16PF) (Cattell, 1962). This form in-
1 The data were obtained through the coopera-
tion of our colleagues Drs. Valjean Cashen,
William Gnagey, Robert Hogan, Frank Holmes,
Irving Jacks, Stanley Murrell, and Walter
Vernon. The hospital data were gathered with
the assistance of the following members of the
Peoria State Hospital Psychology Department:
Jerome Yalowitz, Dr. Howard Birkey, Glen
Gerber, Robert Lane, Mrs. Kit Lowder, James
Mezzelle, Mrs. Susie Welch, Richard Wolff, and
Arthur Zetterberg. Drs. Murrell and Hogan were
especially helpful in assisting Dr. Kirchner in
judging the drawings for manifestation of per-
sonality disturbance.
indicate the degree to which respondents
seek to protect their self-concept. Thus a
total of 17 traits was included. The Form
C vocabulary is such as to permit use of
the questionnaire at a wide range of edu-
cational levels; replication in other sam-
ples is thus facilitated.
From the publications of Buck (1948,
1950, 1964) and Jolles (1964) and our
inspection of HTP drawings for additional
characteristics, a list of 108 characteris-
tics was prepared. This list included 73
characteristics used in previous studies
(Marzolf & Kirchner, 1970, 1971), and
consisted of 33 house, 28 tree, and 47
person items. To facilitate reading the
tables each characteristic was numbered
and the number, in parentheses, accompa-
nies each reference to it. All drawings
were inspected for the presence or ab-
sence of the characteristics. As had previ-
ously been done for the first 73 charac-
teristics, the objectivity of the 35 addi-
tional ones was evaluated by observing
the degree to which two assistants agreed
in their judgments of 50 drawings chosen
at random. The two judges agreed com-
pletely in their judgment of 20 character-
istics but in one, House above the hori-
zontal midline (77) there was only 86%
agreement; the 14% difference was reli-
able at the .004 level. Nude person (102)
produced a difference of 10% between
the two. All other characteristics were
agreed upon in better than 90% of the
drawings; the median percent was 98.2.
In addition to the data regarding the
presence or absence of drawing character-
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER
istics, judgments of the significance of the
drawing as a whole were obtained from
three experienced clinicians who selected
those drawings which they considered in-
dicative of some degree of personality dis-
turbance. Inspection of the drawings by
these judges took place on several occa-
sions so that only about 100 drawings
were viewed on any one occasion.
The extent to which drawing features
are related to personality traits was in-
vestigated by computing the point biserial
r between each of the 108 characteristics
and each of the 16PF traits, computing
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
discriminant functions relating combina-
tions of 16PF traits to the presence or
absence of a drawing characteristic, calcu-
lating the difference in incidence of HTP
characteristics among those in the low,
middle, and high portions of each of the
16PF distributions, and by searching for
canonical variates consisting of HTP items
related to the low, middle, and high 16PF
categories. The effectiveness of overall
judgments was tested by evaluating the
differences between 16PF means of those
judged disturbed and those judged not
disturbed, by deriving a discriminant
function, and by comparing each of the
two groups with neurotic and psychotic
profiles.
Results
Incidence of the Characteristics
Of the 108 HTP characteristics, none
was present in all drawings nor was any
absent in all. The incidence varied from
0.1% (four times) to 99.5%; five occurred
in more than 95% of the drawings and the
median was 5.6%. Thus the majority of
characteristics which have been thought
relevant to personality evaluation are
those which occurred rather infrequently
in this sample. Presence of a rare feature
seems to have been noted more fre-
quently than the absence of a common
one. For example, it is difficult to draw a
tree without a trunk; to do so would be
considered a sign of serious import (Buck,
1966, p. 81). The number of characteris-
tics present in any one set of drawings
varied from 2 to 36. The mean number
was 23.0 (k 5.04) and the median 23.3.
Forty percent of the first 7 3 items
149
showed reliable sex differences and 28.5%
of the additional 35 did so. Thus 36.1%
of the 108 drawing characteristics showed
reliable sex differences in incidence (p <
.05).
Predicting Traits
From Characteristics
The hypothesis that presence or ab-
sence of drawing characteristics is related
to 16PF scores was first tested by com-
puting the point biserial r between each
of the 108 drawing attributes and each of
the 17 16PF scores, separately by sex.
For men there were 135 correlations sig-
nificantly greater than zero at the .05
level or better, involving 73 different at-
tributes. For women there were 212 such
relationships involving 9 1 different draw-
ing features. Only the results significant
at least at the .02 level are shown in Table
1.
All of the 16PF traits were associated
with at least a few drawing characteris-
tics. Only three were related to B Less
intelligent - More intelligent while, for
women alone, there were 13 related to
Q1 Conservative - Experimenting.
Though reliably greater than zero, the rs
were nevertheless small; the largest was
only 0.20.
For men all but 34 characteristics had
correlations significantly greater than
zero 0, < .05) with at least one 16PF
trait, while Tree branches droop (44) was
correlated with six; Profile facing left
(67) and Person is the same sex (70) with
five each. For women all but 17 were cor-
related with at least one trait. Person’s
hands behind back (52) was correlated
with six traits and four other characteris-
tics with five each. Characteristic 52,
which was not correlated significantly
with any traits for men, had the highest
number of correlations among women
(six) while 44, which had six correlations
for men, had only two for women. In
only 12 instances were the same pairs of
characteristics and traits correlated for
both men and women. In one such in-
stance the relationship for men was oppo-
site that obtained for women: men who
drew a Special kind of house (31) were
Tense while the women who did so were
Relaxed.
 150 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
There were 75 different characteristics cant relationships, it is most probable
involved in the 134 rs shown in Table 1? that there are differences in which charac-
Of the available characteristics in the teristics are correlated.
house, tree, person categories the percent- Several drawing characteristics were
ages represented in the table were 9 1,50, noteworthy because of the number of dif-
and 69.5 respectively. ferent 16PF traits with which they were
The table shows that MD Not defen- related. Tree branches droop (44) is more
sive - Defensive had, for women, point likely to be found in the drawings of
biserial rs greater than zero with charac- those men who were Outgoing, Assertive,
teristics 2 , 4 , 6 , 4 0 , and 89. Large tree (2) Imaginative, or Tender-minded. Women
occurred in 51 .l% of the women’s draw- who were Tender-minded, Conservative,
ings. The r is negative, indicating that the Uncontrolled, or Tense were more likely
mean MD score of those who drew a large t o draw persons with eyes (49) and those
tree was lower than the mean of those who were Mature, Imaginative, Apprehen-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

who did not. In other words, those who sive, or Experimenting were each more
were not defensive were more likely to likely to show Person’s hands behind
draw a large tree. By contrast, women back (52). Happy-go-lucky, Venturesome,
who were defensive were more likely to Experimenting, or Relaxed men were
draw a small person. Men who were de- each more likely to show Profile faces left
fensive were more likely to draw a tree or (67). Finally, Sober, Practical, or Forth-
shrubs by the house. The other correla- right men and Conscientious women were
tions may be interpreted in a similar man- each more likely than not to have draw-
ner. ings in which Person is the same sex (70).
Notably more correlations between Accuracy of prediction of attributes
traits and characteristics are shown for from measurements depends not only on
women than for men. This does not jus- the magnitude of the point biserial r but
tify a conclusion that there are sex differ- also upon the incidence of the attribute,
ences in correlation between traits and i.e. the base rate. When rs are large, pre-
drawing characteristics. The number of diction is relatively more dependent upon
women was 48% greater than the number the value of the continuous variable, but
of men so that in case of Large tree (2), when rs are low, as was the case in these
cited above, all other things being equal, data, accuracy of prediction is more de-
the r for men would have had to be -.13 pendent upon the incidence of the attri-
rather than -.11 in order to be significant bute. Improvement in prediction over
at the .02 level. Since we do not know what would be possible on the basis of
that all things would have been equal had incidence alone will increase as the inci-
there been as many men as women, our dence approaches 0.5. Since many of the
data neither support nor deny the possi- drawing attributes were either rarely pres-
bility of sex differences in the number of ent or rarely absent, knowledge of 16PF
drawing features related t o 16PF traits. score would rarely have been helpful
However, if Table 1 had included all the (Guilford, 1965, pp. 380 ff).
rs for men significant at the .05 level,
only six of the additional ones would Trait Score
have involved characteristics already in- and Differential Incidence
cluded for women. Though there may be The possibility that the presence of a
no sex difference in the number of signifi- drawing characteristic is associated with
having either a high or low trait score
2 Tables corresponding to these but including rather than a moderate score or with hav-
data significant at least at the . 0 5 level have
been deposited with the National Auxiliary ing a moderate score rather than one at
Publication Service o f the American Society for either extreme was investigated by noting
Information Science. Order Document No.
01669 c/c CCM Information Sciences, Inc., 909 differential incidence associated with trait
3rd Avenue, New York, N. Y., 10022. Remit in scores. Each of the 16PF distributions
advance $5.00 for photocopies or $2.00 for
microfilm and make checks payable to: CCMIC was divided into low, middle, and high
NAPS. portions, as near thirds of the distribu-
 STANLEY S . MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER 151

Table 1
H-T-P Characteristics Correlated with 16 PF Traits
(Only relations shown are those wherep G.02)

Men Women
Characteristics and Traits
Pa P P r

-
MD Not defensive Defensivec
2 Large tree 55.1 -.11*
4 Small house 12.2 .11
6 Small person 16.4 .14**
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

27 House has tree or shrubs 31.4 .14*

40 Tree picture includes sun 1.3 .10
72 Male has two or more masculine sex characteristia 4.2 -.12
89 House paper based 3.3 .l 1
93 Tree paper topped 14.9 .14*
96 Curtained window 26.1 -.14
-
A Reserved Outgoing
4 Small house 12.2 -.13**
20 House has oval window 10.4 -.lo
42 Tree picture includes animal 1.8 -11"
44 Tree branches droop 4.6 -17"
65 Person is a child 3.3 -.14*
76 Person below horizontal midline 0.7 -.15
80 House l e f t of vertical midline 0.9 -.12*
82 Person l e f t of vertical midline 3.3 -.to
B Less intelligent - More intelligent
35 House picture includes animals 1.3 -.lo
82 Person left of vertical midline 3.3 .14**
106 Male person has fly area marked 3.5 .lo
-
C Affected by feelings Emotionally stable
7 Shading of house 71.0 .12**
16 House has ground line 20.6 -.12*
22 Door smaller than largest window 49.8 .ll
26 Walkway leading to the door 51.3 .15*
28 Flowers by house 5.9 .16**
52 Person's hands behind back 9.5 -13""
79 Person below horizontal midline 3.5 -12'"
83 House right of vertical midline 1.1 -.lo
-
E Humble Assertive
44 Tree branches droop 4.6 .20**
106 Male person has fly area marked 10.2 -.16
-
F Sober Happy-go-lucky
27 Tree or shrubs by house 31.4 -11 39.2 .14**
34 House picture includes people 1.3 .to
67 Profile facing left 19.9 .18**
70 Person is the same sex 84.3 -.13
85 Person right of vertical midline 4.0 -.12*
 152 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
Table 1 - Continued

Men Women
CharacteristicSand Traits
Pa P P r

G Expedient - Comcientious
2 Large tree 33.0 .14*
12 Person sideways or upside down .7 -.12*
15 Person geometrically centered 3.3 -.lo
34 House picture includes people 1.3 -.lo
50 Person has cads) 35.6 -.18**
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

66 Person is an historical figure 1.5 -.13**

68 Profile facing right 5.5 -.lo
69 Person actively moving 8.6 -.lo
70 Person is the same sex 61.1 .14**
-
H Shy Venturesome
27 Tree or shrubs by house 39.2 .16**
57 Person is a stick figure 4.9 .11
58 Person has hair on head 95.4 .11
61 Hat on head 5.1 .12*
67 Profile facing left 19.9 .16**
71 Female breast area marked 4.2 -.12
73 Female has two or more feminine sex characteristi 11.5 .12*
76 Person below horizontal midline 0.7 -.14*
92 House paper topped 0.9 -.11
100 Tree has swing 2.4 -10
107 Seated person 3.5 .10
ITough-minded- Tender-minded
13 House geometrically centered .3 -14"
17 Tree has ground line 48.7 -.15**
23 Chimney present 71.0 -.11
40 Tree picture includes sun 1.3 -.lo
41 Tree picture includes bird 42 -10
44 Tree branches droop 4.6 .16**
46 Tree has branches 82.1 .11
49 Person has eye(s) 96.5 -10
74 House below horizontal n..Jline 1.1 -.ll*
77 House above horizontal midline 2.2 -.lo
91 Person paper based 7.6 .12
L Trusting - Suspicious
3 Large person 7.8 -.12
34 House picture includes people 1.3 .10
37 Tree has roots 17.0 -.15**
43 Tree has fruit 3.8 .14**
50 Person has ear(s1 73.2 -.18**
65 Person is a child 10.6 -.11
77 House above horizontal midline 3.6 -.13
82 Person l e f t of vertical midline 3.3 -.11
98 Flowers by tree 0.7 .16**
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER 153
Table 1 - Continued

Men Women
Characteristics and Traits
Pa rb P r

-
M Practical Imaginative
7 Shading of house 64.1 -12
44 Tree branches droop 4.6 -16""
52 Person's hands behind back 9.5 -.14**
59 Person has hair on face 3.1 .11
65 Person is a child 10.6 -.lo
70 Person is the same sex 84.3 -.14*
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

82 Person left of vertical midline 3.3 .10

85 Person right of vertical midline 6.3 .13
N Forthright - Shrewd
14 Tree geometrically centered 2.7 .13**
22 Door smaller than largest window 55.9 .14*
48 Person has body 77.1 -13
59 Person has hair on face 9.8 .15**
70 Person is the same sex 84.3 -.16**
71 Female breast area marked 4.2 .20**
-
0 Placid Apprehensive
15 Person geometricalty centered 2.3 .19**
16 House has ground line 20.6 .17**
52 Person's hands behind back 9.5 .13**
61 Hat on head 5.1 -11
63 Feet point in opposite direction 16.2 .10
85 Person right of vertical midline 4.0 -.12*
90 Tree paper based 6.8 -.11
-
Q1 Conservative Experimenting
11 Tree sideways or upside down A .10
19 Square window 97.1 .11*
20 Oval window 10.4 .12**
23 Chimney present 71.0 -.11
37 Tree has roots 11.7 -11"
49 Person has eye(s) 96.5 -.13**
52 Person's hands behind back 9.5 .10
54 Person has nose 96.5 -.lo
56 Person has mouth 96.0 -.12*
67 Profile facing left 19.9 -14"
95 Smoke from chimney 24.2 -.ll*
97 Evergreen tree 3.2 .19**
100 Tree has swing 2.4 .12**
-
Q2 Groupdependent Selfsufficient
12 Person sideways or upside down .7 -11
25 House has two or more stories 52.2 .15**
36 House picture includes sun 2.7 --.13**
51 Person has handk) 70.3 -.14*
53 Person has fingerk) 58.8 -.13
 154 House-Tree-Person Drawings and Personality Traits
Table 1 - Continued

Men Women
Characteristicsand Traits
F rb P r

56 Person has mouth

62 Person is smiling
73 Female has two or more feminine sex characteristii
I 96.0
35.4
11.5
-.12**
--.12*
.10
Q3 Undisciplined self-conflict - Controlled
2 Large tree 55.1 -.11
5 Small tree 2.0 -11"
30 Driveway present 13.3 .11*
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

37 Tree has roots 11.7 .12*

41 Tree picture includes bird 4.9 -.lo
49 Person has eye(s) 96.5 -.15**
77 House abop horizontal midline 2.2 .13**
97 Evergreen tree 1.8 .10
04 Relaxed - Tense
16 House has ground line 20.6 .11
49 Person has eye(s) 96.5 .11
67 Profile facing left
85 Person right of vertical midline
97 Evergreen tree 1.8 -.l 1
100 Tree has swing 2.4 -.16**
106 Male person has fly arm marked 3.5 -.lo
107 Seated person 3.5 -.11*

a Percent of all men or women whose drawings showed the characteristic.

b The point biserial r is positive when the mean score of those whose drawings showed the
characteristic was higher than the mean for those whose drawings did not show it.
c Name applied to the low end of the scale is a t the left, the high end a t the right.
* Point biserial r significant at the .01 level or better.
** Point biserial r significant a t the .005 level or better.

tions as the shape of the distributions and dle range on this trait; for women a Large
the fact of integer class intervals permit- person (3) was more likely to appear in
ted. C h squares were computed from the the drawings of those who were either
obtained and expected frequencies among Practical or Imaginative rather than in be-
the drawings of those in each of these tween. In some instances only those at
portions. In Table 2 results significant at one extreme showed the characteristic:
least at the .02 level are presented. only those who were Relaxed drew a
No characteristic showed a differential Special kind of house (31). No woman
incidence with respect t o the same 16PF who was Tense drew a swing attached to
trait for both men and women. It is es- the tree (100) and the rare feature, Tree
pecially noteworthy that the expectation in the upper left quadrant (87), was
that non-linear relationships existed was drawn only by those women who were in
borne out in several instances. For exam- the upper third of the Practical - Imagin-
ple both Sober and Happy-go-lucky men ative scale. Buck states (1966, p. 108)
were more likely to draw a Large house that this quadrant represents lack of con-
(1) than were those who were in the mid- ceptual maturation. Insofar as imagina-
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER 155
Table 2
Differential Incidence of H-T-P Characteristics in
Low, Middle, High Portions of 16PF Distributions
(Only relations shown are those wherep .02) <

Incidence

Trait and Characteristics Men Women

Low Middle High Low Middle High

Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

-
A Reserved Outgoing
6 Small person 8.4 15.4 25.8
44 Tree branches droop 0.0 3.0 9.8"
80 House left of vertical
midline 4.0 0.0 0.6"
C Affected by Feelings -
Emotionally stable
28 Flowers by house 1.5 3.0 16.9""
52 Person's hands behind back 10.4 0.6 8.5""
-
F Sober Happy-go-lucky
1 Large House 17.1 6.1 16.9
18 Person has ground line 5.7 5.1 13.3
34 House picture includes people 1.1 0.1 3.9 "
59 Person has hair on face 8.O 1.7 2.3
67 Profile facing left 7.9 22.4 27.7
G Expedient - Conscientious
44 Tree branches droop 11.4 3.2 0.0"
50 Person has ears 51.6 35.2 20.0
66 Person is an historical
figure 8.1 0.6 0.0""
H Shy - Venturesome
67 Profile facing left 11.7 19.0 36.6
83 House right of vertical
midline 4.3 0.6 0.0
92 House paper topped 4.3 0.3 0.0""
M Practical - Imaginative
3 Large person 19.7 10.1 28.0""
52 Person's hands
behind back 21.2 7.7 6.0""
59 Person has hair on face 16.8 4.3 9.5
87 Tree in upper left
quadrant 0.0 0.0 2.0
N Forthright - Shrewd
14 Tree geometrically centered 1.1 1.8 7.3
20 House has oval window 17.8 6.8 14.6"
71 Female breast area
marked 0.0 3.6 12.5"
91 Person paper based 11.1 3.9 11.0
 156 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
Table 2 - Continued
~~~

Incidence
I
Trait and Characteristics

0 Placid - Apprehensive
k High

15 Person geometrically
centered 1.1
16 House has ground line 23.1 **
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

61 Hat on head 11.0

Ql Conservative - Experimenting
42 Tree picture includes
animal 1 .l **
95 Smoke from chimney 21.6
101 Palm tree 1.2
03 Groupdependent -
Self-sufficient
42 Tree picture includes
animal 3.0
Q4 Relaxed - Tense
31 Special kind of house 0.0""
100 Tree has swing 0.0"

* Chi square significant at the .01 level or better.

** Chi square significant at the .005level or better.

Table 3
Functions Discriminating Those Whose Drawings Showed a Characteristic
from Those Whose Drawings Did Not
(Only relations shown are those wherep G.02)
I
Means
Characteristic and Traits ifferenci Rb

Men
15 Person geometrically centered (2.3)' .218**
0 Placid - Apprehensive 2.24 .792
Q2 Group dependent - Self-sufficient 1.08 .207
17 Tree has ground line (48.7) .180*
H Shy - Venturesome .51 -338
I Tough-minded - Tender-minded -.73 562
28 Flowers by house (5.9) .211*
MD Not defensive - Defensive 1.10 .130
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER 157
Table 3 - Continued

Means
Characteristic and Traits ifferenc Pa Rb
Absent Present
~ ~~

C Affected by Feelings - Emotionally

stable 6.96 8.33 1.37 501
H Shy - Venturesome 6.61 7.55 .94 .109
I -
Tough-minded Tender-minded 4.08 5.17 1.09 .259
44 Tree branches droop (4.6) -297""
A Reserved - Outgoing 7-20 9.oo 1.80 -200
E Humble - Assertive 5.81 8.OO 2.1 9 -316
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

G Expedient - Conscientious 5.20 3.64 -1.56 .135

I -
Tough-minded Tender-minded 4.05 5.93 1.88 .194
M Practical - Imaginative 6.31 7.78 1.47 .154
50 Person has aar(s) (73.2)
C -
Affected by Feelings Emotionally
stable 6.70 7.16 A6 .131
L -
Trusting Suspicious 6.56 5.67 --.89 .680
M -
Practical Imaginative 6.69 6.26 --A3 .188
59 Person has hair on face (9.8) ,147
I -
Tough-minded Tender-minded 4.22 3.33 --.89 .268
N Forthright - Shrewd 5.69 6.60 .91 .602
Ql Conservative- Experiment ing 6-28 5-60 --.68 ,130
67 Profile facing left (19.9) .243**
F -
Sober Happygo-lucky 7.10 8.23 1.13 .392
H Shy - Venturesome 6.47 7.44 .97 .159
Q1 Conservative - Experimenting 6.04 6.92 .88 .254
Q4 Relaxed - Tense 5.22 4.43 --.79 .195
70 Person is same sex (84.3)
C Affected by Feelings - Emotionally
stable 6.48 7.14 .66 -183
F Sober - Happygo-lucky 8.10 7.18 -.92 ,214
G Expedient - Conscientious 4.58 5.22 -64 -132
M Practical- Imaginative 7.02 6.26 --.76 ,238
N Forthright - Shrewd 6.44 5.66 -.78 ,233
71 Female breast area marked (4.2) ,240'"
H Shy - Venturesome 6.73 5.31 -1.42 .234
M -
Practical Imaginative 6.34 7.23 -89 ,104
N Forthright -Shrewd 5.70 7.46 1.76 ,662
72 Male has 2 or more mase. symbols (4 1 212
MD Not defensive - Defensive 7.25 5.85 -1.40 ,310
M -
Practical Imaginative 6.33 7.38 1.05 ,231
N Forthright - Shrewd 5.74 6.62 -88 ,161
0 Placid - Apprehensive 4.42 3.54 .88 ,297
85 Person right of vertical midline (6.3) .263**
MD Not defensive - Defensive 7.24 6.21 -1.03 ,095
B -
Less intelligent More intelligent 4.62 4.00 ---62 .168
I Tough-minded - Tender-minded 4.05 5.21 1.16 ,142
M Practical - Imaginative 6.29 7.37 1.08 .215
N -
Forthright Shrewd 5.82 5-00 ---82 ,197
Q4 Relaxed - Tense 4.99 6.21 1.22 .183
 158 House- Tree-Person Drawings and Personality Traits
Table 3 - Continued

Means
Characteristic and Traits
Absent Present

96 Curtained window (26.1) -213"

MD Not defensive - Defensive 7 -38 6.60
I Tough-minded - Tender-minded 4.29 3.65
Q2 Group dependent - Self-sufficient 7.75 7-38
04 Relaxed - Tense 4.92 5 -4%
106 Male person has fly area marked
(10.2)
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

-182"
MD Not defensive - Defensive 7.10 7.87 .77 .237
E Humble - Assertive 6.02 4.77 -1.25 .763
-
Women
4 Small house(l2.2) .215""
MD Not defensive - Defensive 6.54 7.29 .75 ,177
A Reserved - Outgoing 7.71 6.86 ---85 .381
B Less intelligent - More intelligent 4.82 4.53 ---29 .113
E Humble - Assertive 4.42 3.73 -.69 ,120
N Forthright -Shrewd 5.01 4.62 --.39 .047
Q3 Undisciplined self-conflict - Controlled 6.22 6.86 .64 ,162
7 Shading of house (71.0) -205""
C Affected by feelings - Emotionally
stable 6.21 6.80 -59 .451
L Trusting - Suspicious 5.60 5.93 .33 ,174
N Forthright - Shrewd 5.21 4.87 --.34 .175
03 Undisciplined self-conflict - Controlled 6.59 6.18 --.41 .200
14 Tree geometrically centered (2.7) .153
N Forthright - Shrewd 4.92 6.33 1A1 .693
Q4 Relaxed - Tense 6.14 7.42 1.28 .307
49 Person has eye(s) (96.5) .199"
I Tough-minded - Tender-minded 6.75 7.98 1.23 .257
Q1 Conservative - Experimenting 7.06 5.4% -1.58 A26
03 Undisciplined self -co nflic t - Controlled 7.56 6.25 1.31 .146
04 Relaxed - Tense 4.87 6.22 1.35 .170
50 Person has ear(s) (35.6) .208*"
C Affected by feelings - Emotionally
stable 6.91 6-47 .44 .225
G Expedient - Conscientious 6.27 5.40 --.87 .775
73 Female has 2 or more feminine sex ( iracteris 5
(11.5) .204""
B Less intelligent - More intelligent 4.82 4.52 --.30 .153
E Humble - Assertive 4.26 4.92 .66 .195
H Shy - Venturesome 5.68 6.50 -82 .253
M Practical - Imaginative 6.10 6.62 -52 .187
a2 Group dependent - Self-sufficient 6.61 7.15 -54 .211
77 House above horizontal midline (2.2 .160"
MD Not defensive - Defensive 6.59 8.OO 1.41 .342
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER 159
Table 3 - Continued

Means
Characteristic and Traits ifference pa Rb
Absent Present

I Tough-minded - Tender-minded 7.97 6.40 -1.57 .342

Q3 Undisciplined self-conflict - Controlled 6.26 8.20 1.94 .469
82 Person left of vertical midline (3.3) .243**
A Reserved - Outgoing 7 -65 6.47 -1.17 -132
B -
Less intelligent More intelligent 4.76 5.73 .97 .323
I Tough-minded - Tender-minded 7 -97 6.93 -1.04 .129
L Trusting - Suspicious 5-89 4.60 -1.29 -202
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015

M -
Practical Imaginative 6.52 7.60 1.08 .214
85 Person right of vertical midline (4.0) .156**
F Sober - Happy-go-lucky 6.94 5.44 -1.50 .489
0 Placid - Apprehensive 4.69 5-89 1.20 511
90 Tree paper based (6.8) .140
0 Placid - Apprehensive 4.80 3.94 --.86 .588
a3 Undisciplinedself-conflict - Controlled 6.27 7.54 1.27 .035
a4 Relaxed - Tense 6.23 3.82 -2.41 .460
.135
B 5.44 .67 .495
a4 4.94 -1.27 .505
I

a Relative contribution of the variable to the discrimination.

b Multiple point biserial R .
c Incidence of the characteristic in all drawings of the sex.
* F ratio significant at the .01 level or better.
** F ratio significant at the .005 level or better.
 160 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
tion or bohemian unconcern demon-
strates such conceptual deficiency, our
data support Buck‘s statement.
Person in the upper left quadrant (88)
appeared in 0.7% of the men’s drawings
and correlated + .10 (p < .05) with MD
Defensive - Not defensive. If defensive-
ness is a manifestation of anxiety then
our results were at least consistent with
those of Johnson (1971) previously cited.
However traits 0 Placid - Apprehensive
and 44 Relaxed - Tense did not yield
correlations significantly different from
zero at even the .05 level.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
Discriminant Functions
The hypothesis that the presence or
absence of a drawing characteristic is a
function of scores on combinations of
16PF traits was tested by computing dis-
criminant functions for each characteris-
tic correlated with more than one 16PF
trait. A significant (p < .05) discriminant
function was not found in every instance
in which two or more traits were corre-
lated with a single HTP characteristic. For
men there were 30 and for women 33
functions yielding F ratios significant at
the .05 level. The number of traits enter-
ing into a single function vaned from two
to six. Those functions significant at least
at the .02 level are shown in Table 3.
The 24 functions, 13 for men and 11
for women, involved 21 different drawing
characteristics. Only three of these char-
acteristics were present in the data for
both men and women, namely Person has
ear(s) (50), Person right of vertical mid-
line (85), and Male person has fly area
marked (106). Ten functions involved
drawing features that were either present
or absent in less than 5% of the drawings,
i.e. they were either rarely present or
rarely absent. The magnitude of the rela-
tionship in each function is represented
by the multiple point biserial R , the
largest of which was 0.297.
The predictive value of the discrimin-
ant function may be expressed in terms
of the extent to which it improves predic-
tion over what could have been done
without it. For example, since Person has
ear(s) (50) was present in 73.2% of the
men’s drawings, our best guess would
have been that any man’s drawing would
show this feature and we would have
been right 73.2% of the time. By substi-
tuting 16PF scores in the function we
could have been right, with these data,
99% of the time, a gain of 25.8%. For
women the function involving these same
variables would permit a probable gain of
27%. The largest gain, 42.8%, was pro-
vided by the function related to Tree has
ground line (17). In only one other in-
stance, Shading of house (7), for women,
was there a gain and this was only 7.5%.
As with point biserial IS, so it is with mul-
tiple point biserial Rs; when they are low,
effectiveness of prediction is more de-
pendent upon the incidence of the char-
acteristic, the base rate, than upon the
discriminant function. The amount of
gain will vary depending upon the meth-
od used to determine the critical score.
We have followed the procedure recom-
mended b y Morrison (1967, pp.
131-13 2).
The principal value of these discrimin-
ant functions is showing the combina-
tions of traits which were related to inci-
dence of a characteristic and the relative
contribution of each trait to the discrim-
ination. For example, according to our
data, the college man who was both Ap-
prehensive and Self-sufficient was more
likely to geometrically center his drawing
of the house. This result may be con-
strued as supporting the contention that
such drawings indicate rigidity, anxiety,
and insecurity (Buck, 1966, p. 108). Cer-
tain of the functions presented in Table 3
merit special comment.
The Tough-minded person, according
to Cattell (1962, p. 15), functions on a
practical and realistic basis. Those of our
male sample who were Tough-minded and
Venturesome rather than Tender-minded
and Shy were more likely to draw a
ground line under the tree. According to
Buck (1964, pp. 65; 79) a ground line
may signify a need to tie things down; to
establish stability. This is in accord with
our finding relative to Tough-mindedness
but not with respect to being Venture-
some; unless, having tied something
down, one is free to venture.
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER
Males who were Assertive, Outgoing,
Tender-minded, Imaginative, and Expedi-
ent, rather than Humble, Reserved,
Tough-minded, Practical, and Conscienti-
ous were more likely to draw drooping
tree branches. Ordinarily one would ex-
pect those scoring low on F Sober -
Happy-go-lucky to be those who would
draw downcast branches. Some of the
trees appeared to be weeping willows,
some evergreens, and some just ordinary
trees with downward-turning branches. It
may be that different kinds of drooping
are represented and that it is on this ac-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
count that Tree branches droop (44) en-
ters into more relationships with 16PF
traits than does any other drawing fea-
ture.
Person has ear(s) (50) occurred in
nearly three-fourths of the men’s draw-
ings and was more likely to appear when
the men were Trusting, Imaginative, and
Emotionally stable rather than Suspi-
cious, Practical, and Affected by feelings.
Approximately 20% of the men drew
women and thus their drawings would
have been less likely to show ears. There
were few drawings which appeared to be
long-haired males. According to Buck
(1964, p. 88) omission of ears may indi-
cate presence of auditory hallucinations
or low level of intelligence.
Hair on the face (59), possibly a phal-
lic substitute (Buck, 1966, p. 95), was
drawn more often by those who were
Shrewd, Tough-minded, and Conservative
rather than Forthright, Tender-minded,
and Experimenting.
The relatively few males, (4.2%), who
drew females with the breast area marked
were Shrewd, Imaginative, and Shy rather
than Forthright, Practical, and Venture-
some. The supposed connection between
these traits and oral eroticism or maternal
dependence (Buck, 1966, p. 96) does not
seem t o apply t o our data.
Women who were Defensive, Reserved,
Less intelligent, Humble, Forthright, and
Controlled were more likely to draw a
small house. The Reserved - Outgoing di-
mension contributed most to the discrim-
ination. These findings seem to support
Buck’s statement (1964, p. 34) that a
small drawing indicates inadequacy and
161
withdrawal.
Women who were Emotionally stable,
Suspicious, Forthright, and troubled by
Undisciplined self-conflict were more
likely to show Shading of house (7). The
rather peculiar mixture of characteristics
associated with this drawing feature may
be a consequence of the fact that we
noted only the presence of shading and
not the quantity and quality of shading,
as suggested by Buck (1966, p. 83).
A paper-based tree was more com-
monly drawn by those women who were
Placid but experiencing Undisciplined
self-conflict. Buck‘s hypothesis (1966, p.
109) that this feature denotes generalized
insecurity does not seem to have been
confirmed.
The data in this table raise many ques-
tions which cannot be explored here in
limited space; we have noted those rela-
tionships which relate to more common
clinically-based hypotheses.
Drawings Judged “Disturbed”
There were 11 drawings which all
three judges agreed showed evidence of
disturbance. There were 38 more on
whose drawings two of the three judges
agreed. Since these numbers were small
all 49, 2 0 men and 29 women, consti-
tuted the “disturbed” individuals group
(D). All the remaining individuals were
considered not disturbed (ND).
It is noteworthy that 8.5% of the
men’s drawings were judged to be Ds
while only 3.9% of the women’s drawings
were so classified. This difference of 4.6%
is significant at the .01 level. The judges
based their decisions on the drawings as a
whole rather than upon supposed signifi-
cance of specific characteristics. Two of
the judges did not know what characteris-
tics were included in the list.
Of the 108 characteristics, 30 occurred
in n o more than 2% of the drawings and
one, Head present (47), occurred in
99.5%. These 31 features, 28.7% of the
108, were considered rare occurrences.
They were almost equally divided be-
tween house, tree, and person items and
16 were related to the position of the
drawings.
 162 House-Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
There were 21 significant (p Q .02)
differences in the incidence between Ds
and NDs and nine of these were among
the rare occurrences. Head present (47),
Person has eye(s) (49), Person has nose
(54), and Person has mouth (56) were less
frequent among the Ds. Person paper top-
ped (94), Tree has swing (1 00), Nude per-
son (102), Black person (drawn by white
(103), and Person has weapon (105) were
all more frequent among the Ds. Other
features, not rare occurrences, found less
frequently among the Ds were: Person
has ear(s) (50), Person has hand(s) (51),
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
Person has feet ( 5 9 , Person has hair on
head (58), Person is smiling (62), Person
is same sex (70), and Person has buttons
(104). Those found more frequently
among the Ds were: Small tree (9,Fe-
male breast area marked (7 l), House
above horizontal midline (77), Person
above horizontal midline (79), and Tree
paper topped (93). Very few additional
features even approached the .02 level
and thus the above list is a good descrip-
tion of the characteristics which influ-
enced the judges' decisions.
Regardless of the bases on which the
judges categorized the drawings as D or
ND it is important to know whether
those in the D group had 16PF scores
that differed significantly from those in
the ND group. Comparison of the two
groups separately by sex yielded no dif-
ferences that were significant at the .02
level but there were five that were signifi-
cant at the .05 level. The D men were less
Defensive and were Shrewd rather than
Forthright. The D women were more Re-
served, Experimenting, and given to Un-
disciplined self-conflict than were the ND
women.
When D men and women together
were compared with ND men and women
the Ds were, in order of magnitude of the
difference, more Tender-minded, Self-suf-
ficient, Experimenting, Shrewd, Imagina-
tive and Assertive and the NDs more
'Tough-minded, Group-dependent, Con-
servative, Forthright, Practical, and
Humble. Probabilities of chance differ-
ences varied from .005 to .049.
A function discriminating between
those judged disturbed and those judged
not disturbed was derived from the data.
This function, where the degree of judged
disturbance is JD, was as follows: JD =
-.151A +.078F -.1971 +.223M +.181N
+.151Q1 +.166Q2 +.095Q3
The higher the value of JD the more
likely was the judgment of disturbance.
The letters representing the variables are
the trait designations as shown in Tables
2 and 3. Substituting the means of each
group for each of the relevant traits, the
mean for the Ds was 3.78 and the NDs,
3.06. The multiple point biserial R was
0.173 and the F ratio was significant at
the .0035 level. In summary, there was a
low correlation between a combination of
eight 16PF traits and a concensus of judg-
ments of disturbance based upon viewing
the drawings as a whole.
Cattell has developed discriminant
functions yielding neuroticism and
psychoticism scores and has provided
tentative typical neurotic and psychotic
profiles (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970,
pp. 264-277). When mean stens are sub-
stituted in the profiles neuroticism and
psychoticism scores of 8.96 and 6.39 are
obtained.
The relevant stens of the Ds and NDs
were substituted in the neuroticism func-
tion. The resulting mean for the Ds was
5.26 and for the NDs, 5.83. The differ-
ence of .57 was significant at the .02 level
and thus, since the higher the score the
more neurotic, the advantage lay with the
Ds. However, the difference, though reli-
able, was quite small. The range of scores
for both groups was from 0.54 to 11.23.
The highest score in the D group was
8.96. In the ND group 3.9% had scores of
8.96 or more. The variance of the ND
group was reliably greater than that of
the D group. While a critical score for the
function is not available it is safe to as-
sume that, according to the function, the
3.9% with scores of 8.96 or more are
probably neurotic. Such a possibility is
not implausible. However, our main inter-
est is in the fact that there were little
differences between the Ds and the NDs
revealed by the neuroticism function.
The incidence of HTP characteristics
among those whose neuroticism scores
were more than one standard deviation
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER
above the mean neuroticism score was
compared with the incidence among
those whose scores were more than one
standard deviation below the mean. For
men and women together there were 18
differences significant at the .05 level or
better, involving 18 different characteris-
tics. At the .02 level there were three dif-
ferences for men and four for women.
Two, Shading of tree (8) and Profile fat-
ing left (67), had lower incidence among
the highly neurotic men while Hat on
head (61) had higher incidence in this
group. For women, the high neuroticism
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
group showed lower incidence of Drive-
way present (30) and seated person
(107); higher incidence of Person's hands
behind back (52) and Person right of ver-
tical midline (85).
Substituting stens in the psychoticism
function produced means as follows: D,
5.63; ND, 5.98, both below the psychoti-
cism profile mean. Once again the better
adjustment level seems to have been with
the Ds. However, this difference was not
reliable. The scores for the Ds ranged
from 1.20 to 12.70; for the NDs from -
2.30 to 13.0.
Scores on the 16PF obtained from 66
hospitalized men and women, mostly
schizophrenics, were available to us. Sub-
stituting these scores in the psychoticism
function yielded a mean of 8.33. Scores
ranged from 3.30 to 12.09. The differ-
ence between this mean and the mean of
our total sample was significant as well
beyond the -01 level.
Canonical Variates
Maxwell (1961) has developed a pro-
cedure for finding canonical variates
when the data are categortcal. Each HTP
characteristic is a categorical variable;
either present or absent, and the low,
middle, and high levels of the 16PF traits
constituted the trait categories. Drawing
features which had significant point biser-
ial IS with a 16PF trait were used as ele-
ments for computing the canonical vari-
ate related to that trait.
For men, one eigen value reliably
greater than zero (p < .02) was found for
each of 14 of the 17 16PF traits. In one
of these instances a second eigen value,
163
significant at the .041 level, was obtained.
Detailed report on the traits and HTP
characteristics producing these eigen val-
ues is not made since it is the discriminat-
ing power of the associated vectors, the
canonical variates, that is important.
From each canonical variate, made up
of certain HTP characteristics, it is pos-
sible to calculate the mean score of those
in each of the low, middle, and high cate-
gories of the associated 16PF trait. The
reliability of the differences between
these means may then be computed. In
only a few cases were these differences
reliable at the .05 level or better. For
men, a canonical variate consisting of
Square window (19), Walkway leading to
the door (26), and Flowers by the house
(28) produced a canonical correlation of
.32 with the three categories of C Affect-
ed by feelings - Emotionally stable. The
mean scores on the variate were: low,
.164; middle, .167; and high, .223. The
difference between the first two means
was not significant but the difference be-
tween the means of the middle and high
groups was significant at the .054 level.
Those whose drawings showed all three of
the characteristics were very likely to be
in the high (that is, the emotionally
stable) group. Only one other relationship
deserves note. Location in the three cate-
gories, low, middle, and high, of N Forth-
right - Shrewd was correlated to the ex-
tent of .377 with a variate consisting of
eight drawing characteristics of which
two contributed about 74% to the deter-
mination, namely Female breast area
marked (71) and Female has two or more
feminine sex symbols (73). If both of
these characteristics were present the man
was more likely to be Shrewd rather than
Forthright. These findings are in accord-
ance with those .shown in Table 3 with
respect to males drawing females with the
breast area marked. The difference be-
tween the means of the low and middle
groups was not reliable but that between
the middle and high group was reliable at
the .034 level.
The data for the women yielded eigen
values reliably greater than zero at the .02
level for all but one of the 16PF traits
and for three traits there was a second
 164 House- Tree-PersonDrawings and Personality Traits
eigen value reliable at the same .02 level.
However, in only one instance did the as-
sociated canonical variates reliably dis-
criminate between mean scores in the
three 16PF categories to a degree that
was reliable at even the .05 level.
The one exception to non-discrimina-
tion just mentioned occurred with respect
to the three categories of Q1 Conservative
- Experimenting, where two significant
eigen values were discovered. The associ-
ated canonical variates consisted of differ-
ent weights attached to Oval window
(20), Chimney present (23), Driveway
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
present (30), Tree has roots (37), Person
has eye(s) (40), Person has ear(s) (50),
Person actively moving (69), Tree paper
based (90), and Smoke from chimney
(95). The first variate scores depended
most on the presence of eyes, the absence
of an oval window, and movement in the
person. This variate discriminated be-
tween the middle and the high group at
only the .07 level. However the second
variate, which depended most on the
presence of a driveway and movement in
the person, discriminated between the
low and middle groups at the .0015 level.
Psychological meaning may be attached
to each of these variates but doing so
would entail a considerable amount of
speculation.
Various .alterations in the combina-
tions of HTP characteristics used with
each of the 16PF traits were made in the
hope that more significant variates would
emerge; we are confident that n o signifi-
cant variate has been undiscovered.
Summary and Conclusions
Of the 3,672 point biserial rs obtained,
for men and women separately, between
each of the 108 drawing characteristics
and each of the 1 7 16PF traits, 347
(9.4%) were significantly greater than
zero at the .05 level. Of these, 134 (3.6%)
were significantly greater than zero at the
.05 level. Of these, 134 (3.6%) were sig-
nificant at the .02 level. All but five were
included, namely House paper-sided left
(32), Head present (47), Person has feet
( 5 9 Person has teeth (60), and Black
person (drawn by a white) (103). Person
has feet (55) was present in roughly 75%
of the men’s and women’s drawings but
the remaining four were either rarely
present or rarely absent. The highest cor-
relation, 0.20, appeared twice in Table 1.
Though highly significant an r of this
magnitude and with these data brought a
maximum probable improvement of pre-
dictive efficiency of only 5%.
From the point of view of the clini-
cians there is little value in knowing what
combinations of 16PF traits is likely to
be associated with the presence or ab-
sence of a particular drawing characteris-
tic. However, such data may suggest
hypotheses concerning the relationship
between drawings and patterns of person-
ality organization. A total of 63 discrim-
inant functions, reliable at least at the .05
level, was obtained; 30 for men and 33
for women. Table 3 shows 24 of these
functions significant at least at the .02
level. The highest multiple point biserial
R , 0.297, was between Tree branches
droop (44) and five 16PF traits. In rela-
tively few instances was the R of suffi-
cient magnitude to permit an appreciable
improvement in predictive efficiency over
what would have been achieved simply by
relying upon the incidence of the charac-
teristic. In general, the data show that
rarely occurring presence or absence of an
item is likely to be significantly related to
a number of traits but that relationship is
not high enough to be very useful for pre-
dictive purposes.
Differential incidence related to low,
middle, and high portions of the 16PF
distributions, significant at least at the
.05 level, were found in 83 drawing char-
acteristics, 36 among the men and 47
among women. Only three were common
to both men and women. Especially note-
worthy is the fact that in a number of
instances the relationships were non-lin-
ear; presence or absence of a drawing fea-
ture was associated with being at the ex-
tremes of the trait rather than in the
middle.
The pooled judgment of experienced
clinicians whether drawings were indica-
tive of personality disturbance resulted in
49 men and women being placed in the
disturbed category. The absence of com-
mon features or the presence of rare ones
 STANLEY S. MARZOLF and JOHN H. KIRCHNER
was clearly the basis on which the judg-
ments were made. A low but reliable R
was obtained between category member-
ship and eight 16PF traits. There was no
reliable difference between those judged
disturbed and the others with respect to
neuroticism and psychoticism profiles.
There were a number of canonical vari-
ates consisting of combinations of HTP
characteristics differentiating those in the
low, middle, and high portions of 16PF
traits. Here, once more, we found that
the relationships, though significant, were
of limited value for predictive purposes.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 00:25 11 June 2015
Nevertheless further investigation along
these lines seems desirable.
The findings confirm the existence of
low but reliable relationships between
HTP characteristics and measured person-
ality traits. In addition, our results show
very clearly that the meaning of a charac-
teristic varies with sex, and that such
meaning may be associated with a person-
ality trait in a non-linear fashion. Atten-
tion is also called to the lack of objectiv-
ity associated with some drawing fea-
tures.
Buck (1966, p. 80) stated that no HTP
sign has a fixed or absolute meaning and
our results certainly demonstrate this.
However, they do not necessarily derog-
ate the HTP as a clinical device. Proper
use of technique includes the inquiry as
an essential, and probably most signifi-
cant, part of the procedure. Our results
underscore the importance of the inquiry
and provide hypotheses for use in it.
REFERENCES
Buck, J. N. The H-T-P technique, a qualitative
and quantitative scoring manual. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1948, 4. (Monos.
Suppl. 5).
Buck, J. N. Richmond workshop materials on
the House-Tree-Person (H-T-P). Beverly
Hills, Ca.: Western Psychological Services,
1950.
Buck, J. N. The House-Tree-Person (H-T-P)
Manual Supplement. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services, 1964.
165
Buck, J. N. The House-Tree-Person Technique,
Revised Manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services, 1966.
Buck, J. N., & Hammer, E. F. (Eds.), Advances
in the House-Tree-Person Technique: Varia-
tions and Applications. Los Angeles: West-
ern Psychological Services, 1969.
Cattell, R. B. Handbook supplement for Form
C of the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques-
tionnaire. Champaign, 11: Institute for Per-
sonality and Ability Testing, 1962.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M.
Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Fac-
tor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, 11: In-
stitute for Personality and Ability Testing,
1970.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics for
psychology and education, (4th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Johnson, J. H. Upper left hand placement of
human figure drawings as an indicator of
anxiety. fournal o f Pzrsonality Assessment,
1971,35, 336-337.
Jolles, I. A catalogue for the interpretation o f
the House-Tree-Person (H-T-P): Revised.
Beverly Hills, Ca.: Western Psychological
Services, 1964.
Lubin, B., Wallis, R. R., & Paine, C. Patterns of
psychological test usage in the United States;
1945-1969. Journal of Professional Psychol-
ogy, 1971,2,10-74.
Marzolf, S. S., & Kirchner, J. H. Characteristics
of House-Tree-Person drawings by college
men and women. Journal of Projective Tech-
niques and Personality Assessment, 1970,34,
138-145.
Marzolf, S. S., & Kirchner, J. H. Color in
House-Tree-Person drawings by college men
and women. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1971,27 (4), 504-509.
Maxwell, A. E. Canonical variate analysis when
the variables are dichotomous. Educational
& Psychological Measurement, 1961,Zl (4),
259-271.
Morrison, D. F. Multivariate statistical methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Stanley S. Marzolf
Dept. of Psychology
Illinois State University
Normal, Illinois 61761
Received: September 18,1971
Revised: November 16, 1971