Children's drawings of topics differing in significance: Effects on size of drawing

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the effects of the significance given to a topic on the size it was drawn by children aged between 4 and 7 years. In Expt 1, children were asked to copy the outline of a man. Immediately afterwards, all the children were asked to make a second drawing of the outline, either imagining that the outline was of a nice person or a nasty person, or so that the second drawing was the same as their first. Compared with the control condition, drawings of the nasty man were made reliably smaller, and drawings of the nice man were made non‐reliably larger. In Expt 2, children were asked to make drawings of an apple which was then characterized as ‘nice’ or ‘nasty’ for different groups of children. The nice characterization reliably increased the size of apple drawings; however, nasty apples, unlike nasty men, were not drawn significantly smaller than in the control condition. We discuss the implications of these results for the hypothesis that the significance of a topic is reflected in the size of the drawings children make of that topic.

The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model

“…It seems that whether children are responding on the basis of an acquired pictorial convention, or on the basis of appetitive-affiliative mechanisms, the response is strong enough to override children's tendency to draw larger figures when they are permitted to include all the detail they wish. The findings are in line with researchers who maintain that topic significance can affect the size of children's drawings (Aronsson & Andersson, 1996;Burkitt et al, in press;Burns & Kaufman, 1972;Craddick, 1961Craddick, , 1963Cleeve & Bradbury, 1992;Fox & Thomas, 1990;Hulse, 1952;Sechrest & Wallace, 1964;Thomas, Chaigne & Fox, 1989), and suggest that size changes of positively characterised figures from baseline size are measurable and reasonably consistent. However, the findings of the present study also serve to cast some doubt on the generalisability of previous findings (Burkitt et al, in press a) that nasty or negative topics are consistently scaled down in size compared with baseline and nice/positive topics.…”

“…However, the existing literature (e.g. Jolley, 1995;Fox & Thomas, 1990;Thomas et al, 1989) provides two theoretical possibilities as to why drawing size may be affected by topic characterisation.…”

“…Although these broad stylistic differences were observed in the present study, they did not have any overall impact on drawing size; instead, older children produced larger drawings. Given the lack of developmental trends in this area of drawing production (Craddick, 1961(Craddick, , 1963Sechrest & Wallace, 1964;Solley & Haigh, 1957;Thomas, Chaigne & Fox, 1989), it seems that the provision of affective characterisations of the topics does genuinely interact with the typical use of drawing strategies, at least as far as the drawing strategy of scaling is concerned.…”

“…Barrett, Beaumont & Jennett, 1985;Barrett & Bridson, 1983;Barrett & Eames, 1996;Barrett & Light, 1976;Bremner & Moore, 1984;Cox, 1981Cox, , 1985Cox, , 1992Cox, , 1993Crook, 1984Crook, , 1985Davis, 1983Davis, , 1985aDavis, , 1985bFreeman, 1976Freeman, , 1977Freeman, , 1980Freeman, , 1987Gardner, 1980Gardner, , 1982Goodnow, 1977Goodnow, , 1978Kellogg, 1969;Light & McEwan, 1987;Sitton & Light, 1992;Winner, 1982). However, some researchers have also explored whether the contents of children's drawings can be used as a reliable index of children's feelings concerning the objects which are depicted in their drawings (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis , 2003; in press); Forrest & Thomas, 1991;Hammer, 1997;Joiner, Schmidt & Barnett, 1996;Jolley, 1995;Koppitz, 1968Koppitz, , 1969Thomas, Chaigne & Fox, 1989;Thomas & Jolley, 1998). Situated within the latter tradition, the present experiment was designed to assess whether the size of the objects which are depicted in children's drawings, and the colours which are chosen for drawing those objects, are influenced by the affective characterisations which have been given to those objects.…”

The impact of personality and gender on branding decisions

“…12 Additionally, where size is concerned, it has been observed that children use size to convey the emotional signifi cance of a topic with appealing fi gures shown in exaggerated size and potentially threatening fi gures shown in reduced size. 13 Moreover, temporal symbolism allows a picture to be read from left to right, from past to future with the present centrally placed. 14 Harris ' s study is similar to Wylie ' s insofar as it also examines the links between graphic expression and personality.…”