The body image of pregnant women as reflected in their human figure drawings

Tolor, Alexander; DiGrazia, Paul V.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197704)33:2<566::aid-jclp2270330251>3.0.co;2-9

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, studies yielded mixed and largely negative findings concerning Machover's body-image hypothesis. For example, Viney, Aitken, and Floyd (1974) reported no significant differences in height, waist width, or breast width between pregnant and non-pregnant women (but see Tolor & Digrazia, 1977), and Thomas, Jones, and Ross (1968) reported no significant correlations between figure size and the height, weight, or girth of the drawer. Broadly similar conclusions regarding Machover's hypotheses were reached in box score reviews of the earlier literature [e.g., Roback, 1968; Swenson, 1968; see also Handler & Habenicht, 1994, for a review of the validity of the Kinetic Family Drawing Test (KFD); Burns & Kaufman, 1970].…”

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

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

show abstract

“…Despite the inevitable challenges related to establishing validity and reliability, the HFD is still useful and not without meaning. Tolor and Digrazia (1977) compared HFDs of pregnant women in various trimesters and found that psychological and somatic changes associated with pregnancy were reflected through such details as drawing size, nudity, and emphasized genitals. Most recently, Clark (2001) noticed that a significant number of 'Draw a Person' drawings by women in their third trimester did not include the physical signs of pregnancy, suggesting a lack of integration regarding body image.…”

Section: Prenatal Depression Human Figure Drawing and Art Therapymentioning

confidence: 66%

The use of the human figure drawing with pregnant women

Swan–Foster¹,

Foster²,

Dorsey

2003

Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human figure drawings (HFDs) taken from the Prenatal Art Therapy Intervention and Inventory (PATII) were scored in exploratory research using the adapted Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale (FEATS) and Content Tally Sheet [L. Gantt & C. Tabone (1998) Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale: the rating manual, Morgantown, WV:Gargoyle Press] to observe structural elements of the drawings. Out of three groups of 20 high risk outpatient (HRO), 20 high risk inpatient (HRI), and 20 low risk outpatient (LR) prenatal women (60 drawings), 10 HFDs from each group (30 drawings) were randomly selected and scored. Preliminary statistical analysis focused on five adapted FEATS scales scoring for visual structural elements assessing colour, space, detail, person, and implied energy. The structural elements of the drawings scored with the FEATS indicated that the two high risk groups consistently scored low, suggesting a tendency for depression, while the LR group scored high, suggesting an absence of this tendency. In addition, visual observations noted differences between the groups for transparencies, visibility of foetus, and colour usage. These data give a preliminary indication for future research using a nonverbal tool, like the HFD, to investigate prenatal emotions or psychological distress (such as depression or anxiety).

show abstract

“…A major aspect of the self restructuring during pregnancy is the working through of body image [1]. Based at the Drawing a Person Test [2], research underlined projective drawings of body image during pregnancy [3] and of the projection of the imaginary baby in the sequence of the theoretical work of Lebovici [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing of pregnancy: contributions about the development of the pregnant woman?s body image

Carvalho¹,

Jm²

2018

Obstet Gynecol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific literature underlines the pregnant woman's body image as an important variable for psychological organization during pregnancy. Projective drawings enable the assessement to body image. However, studies using drawings of pregnancy (DP) are missing in recent literature. The aim of this paper is to assess differences of the evolution of body image between the second and the third trimesters using DP and also to observe relationships between DP and sociodemographic and clinical factors. Participants were pregnant women (202 at the second and 159 at the third trimesters) while waiting for sonograms. After filling a Sociodemographic and Clinical Questionnaire, participants were asked to draw themselfs as pregnant. Data of the DP at the second trimester were submitted to a principal components analysis, yelding four factors: F1-General Representation of the Imaginary Baby (α = 0.966), F2-Representation of the Maternal Image (α = 0.888), F3-Detailed Representation of the Imaginary Baby (α = 0.846) and F4-Recognition of Pregnancy (α = 0.588). Between the two moments, only F2 presented a significant difference while F1 and F4 did not. Opposed to predictions, F3 did not presented significant changes. Significant correlations were observed between data of DP and clinical variables as parity, spontaneous abortions, total of abortions and the beginning of maternal perception about fetal movements. In a healthy population, DP seem to be specifically sensitive to changes in maternal image representation. Once that the representation of the imaginary baby and the recognition of pregnancy do not present significant changes, this reinforces the theory about the psychological development during pregnancy.

show abstract

The body image of pregnant women as reflected in their human figure drawings

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

The use of the human figure drawing with pregnant women

Drawing of pregnancy: contributions about the development of the pregnant woman?s body image

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About