Children's diachronic thinking in relation to developmental changes in their drawings of the human figure

Abstract

The current human figure drawings of 40 5‐year‐olds and 40 7‐year‐olds were compared with their figures drawn as if they were 3 and 9 years old. The figures were examined for changes in height, detail and schema complexity. When projecting backwards in time, 5‐year‐olds made quantitative and some made qualitative changes. When projecting forwards in time, however, they made only quantitative changes and it is only at age 7 that children begin to make qualitative changes. In a second task, the children were asked to allocate drawings of varying complexity to artists of different ages. Whereas most 5‐year‐olds allocated a ready‐drawn tadpole figure to an appropriately aged drawer, they were not able to allocate more complex figures appropriately. In contrast, 7‐year‐olds were quite adept at this task.

Deterioration and recovery of DAP IQ scores in the repeated assessment of the Naglieri Draw-A-Person (DAP) test in 6- to 12-year-old children.

“…In contrast, the structural regression from depicting an adult to depicting a child in the drawing series of a 12-year-old boy may rather be evaluated as a variation in content than in drawing stage, as children at this age can intentionally draw the way they were drawing at earlier stages of their drawing development (Tryphon & Montangero, 1992). Younger children only know how an advanced or an immature drawing looks while lacking the ability to actually carry out the plan for a drawing that is different to their own style (Cox, 2000;Kosslyn, Heldmeyer, & Locklear, 1977). Last but not least, the study showed significantly higher level DAP IQ scores in girls than in boys at all ages, except at age 12.…”

A cross-continental study on children's drawings of football players: Implications for understanding key issues and controversies in human figure drawings

“…facing the viewer rather than in profile ( Dziurawiec & Deregowski, 1992 ). According to Cox and Lambon Ralph (1996) , Cox and Hodsoll (2000) with the increase in age between 5-10 years there is also an increase (nearly double) in the number of children who draw the profile of a human figure rather than full face. In particular this increase is greater if the children are asked to put action (e.g.…”

“…Two factors, however, should also be taken into account here; first when children are asked to draw in a context of someone doing something or to draw themselves and their family e.g. Kinetic Family Drawings ( Burns & Kaufman, 1970 ) there is a significant shift in children portraying more valid and dynamic material than static pictures, moreover evidence of cultural differences emerge ( Cox & Hodsoll, 2000 ). In a recent study Gernhardt, Rübeling, and Keller (2013) examined the family drawings of preschool-aged children from Western middle-class families from Osnabruck, Germany; from rural Cameroon and children from urban middle-class families from Ankara, Turkey.…”

“…In particular, interest concerns children’s depictions of human figures and especially drawings of themselves and others. It has been argued that this is due to the extent of importance of human beings to the child from a very young age and the most frequently drawn topic by children, thus a better index for understanding the child's cognitive (intellectual) and emotional development ( Cox & Hodsoll, 2000 ). One significant and consistently observed aspect of children's drawings is that with increasing age there is an increase in the addition of realistic portions of the human figure.…”

Children’s Judgments and Feelings about Their Own Drawings

“…Only a limited body of research has attempted to investigate children's understanding of the developmental changes that emerge in their drawings (Cox & Hodsoll, 2000;Thyphon & Montagnero, 1992). In this research tradition emphasis was placed on children's 'diachronic thinking', that is children's understanding about the way their drawings change as the drawer gets older.…”