Conception and Representation of Space in Human Figure Drawings by Schizophrenic and Normal Subjects

Cvetkovic, Radmilo

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4303_4

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…John (1974) found that recently hospitalized schizophrenics had much less symmetrical drawings than normal controls on four measures of symmetry. By contrast, schizophrenics and normals did not vary in Cvetkovic's (1979) study.…”

Section: Symmetrycontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…Kokonis (1972a) reported that male schizophrenics omitted limbs more than normal controls. By contrast, Cvetkovic (1979) found no differences in omissions between schizophrenics and normals. Dudley et al (1973; reported no differences between schizophrenics and other diagnostic groups, nor between subjects high on Sc on the MMPI and those scoring low.…”

Section: Omissioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Again, subtype may be important: Kay (1978) found that paranoid schizophrenics drew more bizarre figures than non-paranoids. Disembodied heads, an extreme distortion, were in fact less commonly drawn by schizophrenics than by normals in Cvetkovic's (1979) study; and they were likewise too frequent among normal subjects (18-49%) to be indicative of severe pathology in studies by Marzolf and Kirchner (1977) and Doubros and Mascarenhas (1967). Cognitive maturity may also be important, as bizarre features have been found more often in retarded schizophrenics than in ones with normal IQ (Kay, 1978).…”

Section: Distortionmentioning

confidence: 63%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982.

Kahill¹

1984

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Figure drawing tests continue to be popular with clinicians despite the relatively unfavourable conclusions of a number of published literature reviews. The current paper examines the empirical literature on the reliability and validity of human figure drawing tests, used as a projective device with adult subjects, covering the period between January 1967 and June 1982. The areas surveyed include reliability estimates, evidence relevant to the body-image hypothesis, the validity of hypotheses concerning structural and formal drawing variables and the content of figure drawings, the performance of global measures, and the influence of confounding factors.

show abstract

Section: Symmetrycontrasting

confidence: 58%

Section: Omissioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Distortionmentioning

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982.

Kahill¹

1984

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Dudley, Craig, Mason, and Hirsch (1976) found that depressed individuals were less likely than nondepressed individuals to draw faces in profile, directly contradicting one of Machover's hypotheses. Again contra Machover, Cvetkovic (1979) reported that schizophrenics were less likely than normals to draw disembodied heads. Moreover, in a review of research on human figure drawing signs and anxiety, Handler and Reyher (1965) found that 30 of 255 findings were statistically significant in the direction opposite from those predicted (see Riethmiller & Handler, 1997a, for discussions of these negative findings).…”

Section: Human Figure Drawing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

605

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

“…With time, more empirical studies appeared that tentatively pointed to possible correlations of spatial attributes of drawings with measures of personality and psychopathology (e.g., Buck, 1966;Jolles & Beck, 1953;Koppitz, 1968;Marzolf & Kirchner, 1972). However, early overviews of the validity of such findings were really not very reassuring (e.g., Cvetkovic, 1979;Ogdon, 1967;Roback, 1968). Little consistent data could be mustered to support clear-cut statements about the meanings of various spatial asymmetries in drawings.…”

Section: Motoric Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychodynamics of spatial experience: Role in localization of somatic discomfort.

Fisher¹,

Greenberg²

Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Psychopathology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ven a cursory survey of the clinical literature dealing with psy-E chopathology reveals a variety of reports concerning experiences of spatial distortion. Persons in the throes of psychological disturbance are said to be subject to such diverse distortions in spatial experience as seeing "things closing in on me," feeling that certain locales "out there" are unaccountably dangerous, perceiving other persons as somehow "too close," fearing ascent or elevation above the ground, and feeling any of a spectrum of alterations in the spatial properties (e.g., sensations of body shrinkage or enlargement) of one's own body (e.g.,

show abstract

Conception and Representation of Space in Human Figure Drawings by Schizophrenic and Normal Subjects

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982.

Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982.

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Psychodynamics of spatial experience: Role in localization of somatic discomfort.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About