digital.library.unt.edu/67531/metadc163871/m2/1/high_res_d/n_03207.pdfv Since tlit types and...
Transcript of digital.library.unt.edu/67531/metadc163871/m2/1/high_res_d/n_03207.pdfv Since tlit types and...
TEE EXPERIMENTAL DRAW-A-GROUP PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE
FOR MEASURING INTERPSRSGNAL RESPONSIVENESS
APPRO Vi® I
Major Professor
M - (J h Inor Professor
Director of th« Department of Peyohology
< / Dean bf the draduate School
THII* EXPERIMENTAL DHAV-A-GROUP PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE
FOE MEASURING INTERPERSONAL RSSPONSZVSNSSS
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Cosine il of the
North Texas Stats University In Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SOXSXGS
By
John Richard Cookerly, B. A.
Denton, Texas
Awglist| l%$
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
LIST OP TABLES . iv
Chapter
I, PRESENTATION OF TH& PROBLEM I Introduction Purpose of the Study Hypothesis and Assumptions
II. RELATED RESEARCH 8
III. METHODOLOGY 18
Subjeota Description of the Instruments and
Procedure The Evaluating Instrument, i.e. How
to Use the Experimental FDraw-a» Group" Projective Technique for Measuring Interpersonal Respon-siveness
Evaluation
IV. RESULTS AID DISCUSSION $2
Testing of the Hypothesis Further Findings
V. SUMMARY 67
APPbiVDIX 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY" 81
lii
LIST Of 3AB&&S
fatol® P«g#
I. Catagorleal Baaoriptloo of fch« Subjaata • • • « • 20
12. 0®aupatt©»# of Persons Satlag Interpersonal Haaponalvaaaaa of Sublets and Amount -of Cautaot with Subjoot# in Catagwy 0 • • • 33
III, Validity Corvalatlana oo the SxparlntotaX ttfiraw»a~§i?©u;j>B Projcotlto Teohniqu* for Interpsrisonal Hesponsivenaaa . . . . . . 5%
IT* Maaa 0orr«latlo»a toy Ago Group# aa CompiUd twm Oatogwrlaa A aod C * • • • « • • • • « 59
V# Spraad of Moan Evaluation# Conparod with Mtnbar and Ptr Oaat of Evaluations Having Parfaot Agraavant 61
if
CHAPTER 1
PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to present an exploratory
[email protected] Into the possibility of developing a projective
teohnique for measuring interpersonal responsiveness. The
projective technique explored here is a form of drawing analy-
sis based on the drawing of a group m d e by each subject in
a tested population. Interpersonal responsiveness has to do
with how people respond to others and will be explained later#
Modern widespread use of drawing analysis can probably
be said to have originated with Goodenough's instructions for
approximating children's intelligence through their drawings
of the humao figure, published in 1926 (5). Maohover*s publi-
cation in can largely be oredited with beginning the
present trend to us® the human figure drawing as a projective
technique (9).
The basic theory of projective technique and its corol-
lary, free association, is quite simple, Mursell states it
succinctly when he writes;
The creative work of an artist is a projection and reve-lation of himself. So are the responses of a subject when he is asked to give free association® to a list of stimulus words, or to tell what story is suggested to him by a picture, or to say what he sees in cloud shapes or ink blots. This idea is the working basis of projec-tive testing ( 1 0 ) ,
Buoh also tuts It quit® simply when he explains:
The essenoe of projtotiva methods Is presenting the subject with stimulus situations whloh are "ambiguous" or neutral - that Is, they have no particular meaning except the special, private meaning whloh the individ-ual, toy virtue of'his ©»» needs, projects into them 111).
The systems of loglo supportlog the theory of projective
teohnlque ere found to be varied. It oan be viewed from the
psyohoanalytie depth approach, the learning theorists* atlm-
alas response studies, the life epaoe suppositions of the
field theorists, and the Gestalt laws of perception (6).
All of these and many more are by no means mutually exclusive j
rather* they oan all be useful in forming an understanding of
the phenomenon. However, for the purposes of this paper,
Hllgard*s rather pragmatic loglo is notedt
If there Is a unity of personality which expresses itself directly or indirectly through all that a person does, then there ought to be some way of characterizing this unity, this personality structure lying behind and giving direction to the individual aot. Because this Individual style of behavior ought to reveal itself mmt readily when expression is free, psychologists have selected imaginative productions as being perhaps the most revealing of personality. Zn Imagination the indi-vidual is free to build his own world and to make himself the hero in whatever drama he chooses to construct. Those Imaginative productions the psychologists obtain through projective tests. The personality inventories • • . have fixed alternatives, so that the subject roust reply by making a choice among ready-made answers. Pro-jective tests are more ambiguous and less highly struc-tured, and the answers the subject oan give are freer. Because the subject puts more of himself into the answers, he is said to project his personality through them, as the movie camera projects the image on the screen (?)•
Purpose of the Study
v Since tlit types and purposes of projective tests ar©
manf and varied, ranging froa Mirror drawing to ringer paint*
log analysis, It nay legitimately bo asked, why develop another?
In this oaae the answer is* to add the baat advantages of
projective technique to an araa where measurements art increas-
ingly of uaa but are often laboriously made\ namely, as termed
in this paper, the area of interpersonal responsiveness (1, 3)«
Hypothesis and Assumptions
It was hypothesised that graphlo responses to the stim-
ulua, "draw a group of people", would yield valid and reliable
measurements of interpersonal responsiveness* Interpersonal
responsiveness was operationally defined and measured by (one)
soclonetrio measurements, (two) self ratings on the
Multlirihaslo Personality Inventory# Social Introversion astro*
version Seals. and (three) estimatlona of interpersonal respon-
siveness made by qualified observers along a five point rating
soale.
Interpersonal responslveneee is desoribed as the degree *
to which a person c m successfully respond to others in many
and varied situations, thus causing others to inorease their
positive responsiveness to, or aooeptanoe of, that person*
Interpersonal responsiveness oan also be thought of as involv-
ing a nustber of other faotora such as sensitivity to others j
a general tendonoy to interaot with people individually or in
groups| a person*® general choice-value among others| a lack
of interpersonal Isolation; an ability to interrelate Mean-
ingfully with numerous persons f and that which, is seas times
©ailed social maturity.
It was assumed that those things a person experiences or
those to which he responds, will somehow affect hi a psycho-
logical structure, and that the < ffect of these paat exper-
iences will be reflected in his responding to new stimuli.
In like manner it was assumed that a person*t past interper-
sonal experiences will be projected in his responses, espe-
cially If the stimuli concern interpersonal experiences.
For example: if a boy has a high choice-value among his
friend® and tends to successfully seek a high degree of social
contact with others, he should perceive and express his per-
ception of "a group of people" differently from a girl who
has always experienced isolation and rejection from her asso-
ciates, He should then draw a picture of a group differently
from the girl. To the degree that these kinds of differences
are measurable in a valid and reliable manner, will this
hypothesis be considered supported.
Validity and reliability are given emphasis, because
studies of projective techniques usually show rather low
measurements for these two factors. Bosney and Hampleoan
state{
Undoubtedly the strongest and most persistent erltlclon of ail forms of projective testing concerns the laok of conclusive data on validity and reliability.
a 1 though a large number ox"* research studies are avail-able . , • the overall picture is one of low reliability ana validity (3» PP» •
Sooioaetric data are used in the validity ter.i~ug, be*
cau;:e as Bonney states?
. . . wo can say that a soclometric test measures the choice-status that eaoh individual has In a testad popu-lation at a given time and in refarenee to a stated choice-criterion* It Is a measure of person-to-person responsiveness in which eac- group member renders a judgement in regard to the desirability or undealra-bility of certain other members for a specific purpose, activity, or relationship (2).
It was assumed that over a period of time a person will be
oummulatively affected by the general choice-status he exper-
iences, and these effects will be projected when the proper
stimuli are presented. Thus, it was reasoned that his exper-
iences and behavior patterns involving person-to-person
responsiveness should to some degree be reflected, both in
sociometric data and the "draw-a~groupn projective technique*
The Social 1» 1, Scale of the MMPI was used, because in
various descriptions of this seal© it has been defined at
measuring an essentially similar faotor to that which the
"draw-a-group" technique attempts to measure (6)* Good and
Brantner explain:
* • , the scale has been demonstrated by other studies to measure the tendency toward social introversion or extroversion, or avoidance or we looming of social con-tacts with others} lower scoros indicate a tendency toward extroversion or a preference for social activi-ties and associations with other people
A numerical rating scale has been included, partly be-
cause a testing of the technique «s application to the clinical
population was desired, and this was the only measure allow-
able in several situations* Concerning rating scale®, Bonoey
and fiaxnplenan say:
A rating soale Is a special kind of cheek list in which the item® or characteristics checked must he rated quantitatively or qualitatively according to the degree of presence or absence of a trait, the degree of per-fection ©f a skill, or the degree of completion of a task (3, p. 19).
The rating seal# was used by persons who were experienced in
observing olinioal groups. They rated certain of the ®ub»
jeets for interpersonal responsiveness, and th@«e ratings
were compared with evaluations of interpersonal responsiveness
as Judged from the pictures the subjects drew. In these
groups the validity of the "draw-a-group" technique was
checked against the observer's ratings.
These three meaauremint®, correlated with independent
evaluations of the drawings and lntercorrelations among the
Independent evaluations, constituted the test of the hypo-
thesis*
CHAPTER BIBLIOGMPBY
1. Abt , Lawrence E . a ad Leopold BeXXak, e d i t o r s , P r o m o t i v e Payohology* TTew York, Grove P r e s s , I n c . , 1950#
2 . Sonney, Merl £* , Men ta l Hea l th i n E d u c a t i o n * Boston , Ally® and Baeen* l a c . , 196c , 2&i#
3 . Bonn®j, MerX 1 . and Richard S* HaxnpXeaan, P e r s o n a l - S e e l a l Evaluat ioo Technique», Washington D . C . , The Center £ o r A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h i n Educat ion , I n c . , 1962.
k . Good, P a t r i o i a King-KXlison and John P. Brantner , Tha Physio lap * a Guide t o t h e MMP1. Minneapol i s , u5W«r*> i i t y s t i i n e a o t a P r e a a , T95T, 31$«
5 , Goodenough, FXorenoe L . , The M e a e y e y e n t of InteXXlftenoe bTf Drawings. Yonkers, "i ©rid Book, "1921.
6* Hathaway, S* R. and J , C« MoKinXey, Mlnoesot a Mul t lphas lo Pa r e o a a l i t y Inventory Manual* New York. The jpsycko-logioaX Corporat ion , 195X*
7 , HiXgard, Ernest R*, I n t e o d i y t l o n t o Psycho logy , New York, Haroourt , Braee and Co*, 19577 4 0 1 ,
8 , HiXgard, Brneat R . , T h e o r i e s of Lea rn ing* lew York, A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , i n c * , 195&*
9 , Wachover, Karan, Per f o o t e r | S 2 i | £ M 2 E T M - I M M t i M of t h e Human F igu re» g i r l n g f i e X d * I l l i n o i s * C h a r l e a <57 fSSnas , ' 1 9 W .
10 . Mursa l l , Jaaea L*, P a j o h o l o g i o a l T e s t i n g , New York, Longmans, Green and C o . , X9l*9# 'tylb#
XX* Ruch, PXoyd L«, PsyohoXogy and Lit** DaXXas, T e x a s , S c o t t , Foraaman and c o * , 1953# 3 6 .
CHAFTKR II
RELATED RESEARCH
The acceptance of drawing analysis among the projective
techniques has long bean established. Articles were being
written concerning the psychological, interpretation of
drawing® in the nineteenth, century (lit)• One of theas.
Children«s Expression Through Drawing published in lQ9kt wac
a remarkable forerunner of today*a procedurea in drawing
analysis although it was by no means a research study as
judged by today *a atandarda (2).
The uses of projective techniques involving drawing
analysis are quite varied. On one end of the oontinuum,
there is the Bender Visual-Motor tfeatalt test. This is a
rather structured teat which is used widely in preliminary
testing for organic neurological disturbances# although it
has a number of other uses (16)« At the other end of the
continuum is the much less structured finger painting tech-
nique which is not only a diagnostic tool but also a thera-
peutic and educational device (^)« Three ©f the most popular
graphic projectIves are those commonly called the Draw-*-Man.
the Human-fflgura-Drawing. and the House-free-Person tests.
The first of these has been applied largely to the estimation
of children's intelligence; the second is used primarily in
8
p@rsooaiity diagnosisj and the third Is sometimes used for
both purposes (3),
Lawton and Sachrest (5) state that the Draw»a»gamlly
teat is u common variant of the Draw-a-Person tost, and that
it is thought to be especially useful in understanding the
family backgrounds of clinioal oubjects. However, their
study of this hypothesis found it to be insufficiently *»up-
ported. Another variant of the Draw-a-Peraon Is what Levy
(7) oalls the Praw-and^tEsll*a»Stor?/ technique* In this
procedure the subject is asked to draw two human figures of
his own sex and one of the opposite sex using only one side
of an ordinary piece ©f paper# fh® subject is then asked to
give names to the three figures and to tell & story about
them. The similarity between this technique and the one
explored by this paper is evident in Levy's comment!
This technique sets up a triangular situation, and the story that is told will frequently be illum-inating with respect to the interpersonal attitudes of the subject, who will impose his Idiosyncratic interpretation of the situation (7)#
Praw-and-Tell-a»3tory and the "draw-a-group* techniques
both involve groups of people, possible interpersonal inter-
action, and interpersonal attitudes. However, the differ-
ences are a® apparent as the similarities-, that is, the
Bdraw-a-group" has no limit set on the number or sex of the
figures| it can be administered in group as well as individ-
ual form| it is evaluated without the addition of verbal con-
tent | and it aims at measuring interpersonal responsiveness,
10
while the Draw-and~fe11-a-Story technique attempts to discover
interpersonal conflicts.
Another graphic technique which is similar to the "draw-
a-£,roupn projective is proceduref but not purpose, is the
Praw»a-Scene test* West explains the development and inves-
tigation of this test by stating!
The purpose of this study is to test the hypothe-sis that a test which requires the subject to draw a seen# (D-A-S) will correlate higher with a "standard" intelligence scale like the Stanford-Bluet and with academic grades than doe® Good®sough*s Draw-a-Man (D-A-M) test (IS).
litsahe and Them (10) discus® a study which they title,
"Children*8 Like and Dislike drawings". Children were asked
to draw pictures of things they liked or didn't like in hopes
that this would provide insight® into their personalities.
However, their findings were inconclusive.
In surveying the literature, very few studies are found
to have a direct bearing on both the technique and the pur-
pose of this exploratory research. Machover disousses sev-
eral factors which relate to interpersonal responsiveness In
the drawing of a human figure. One of her findings was,
"Subjects who draw the head as the last feature of their
figure usually show disturbance in interpersonal relation*
ships" (f). Statements such a® this could very easily be
helpful in expanding the use of the "draw-a-group" technique
if It were thought to be worthy of further effort. However,
Machover*s work appears to be aore of a system of classifying
11
than one of Measuring degress of phenomena, which was the
purpose of the "draw-a-group" projective.
In investigation which is more directly related to the
"draw-a-group" study was done by Pflaum (11), In his work
subjects ware asked to draw a geometric type figure with
straight lines connecting dots. Each figure was to be drawn
immediately after a stimulus word was spoken, and was also
to be abstractly representative of the stimulus word. The
subjects were given the Guilford Zimmerman feaperaeot Survey.
This test yields sociability and frleadllneis scores, de-
scribed in terras of introversion and extroversion tendencies.
Among Pflaum * a findings was the following:
Those Ss CsubjectqJ who had a high so ore on the Soc la-bility factor of the Guilford Zimmerman Tempermant Survey or a low aoore on the Friendliness factor showed a greater use of Symmetry in their drawings than those who had a low Sociability or a high Friendliness score on the Survey (11, p. 285).
A further analysis of figures led him to conclude:
Those S® who drew many syasaMitrieal figures can b© said to be socially bold and have a desire to dominate. They are "extroverted" in that they seek the company of others with a motive to control rather than to reciprocate. On the other hand, the S who makes much use of Perspective tends toward "introversion". Such Ss are shy but can reciprocate friendship if approached
(11, p. 285).
Pflaum»a findings indicate some attention should be given to
symmetry and perspective in examining the "draw-a-group" pic-
tures, This might eapeoially be so when considering the
pictures matched with the MMPI scores for social Introversion
and extroversion, since Pflaum used a measure of these factors.
12
The study deemed moat related to the "tlraw-a-group"
protective is part of Libo *s (8) investigation of group
cohesiveness which involves a projective technique, Libo
desoribes this instrument in the following manner:
The Group-Picture-Impressions (G-P-I) consists of three pictures, line drawings of people in three dif-ferent group or crowd situations, about which short original stories are to be written by the subject, fwo forma were oonstruoted, one for each sex* At pre* Bent, the measure is designed for use with homogeneous sex gt»o«p«s only. fhe major use of the G-F-I has been with groups consisting of from three'to twelve m#»b@i»sj the useful age range ha® been from If to 30 year® (8. P. St*).
In describing the G-P-I pictures Libo says, "All the figures
drawn appear similar in fuse, physique, age, and dress, to
suoh an extent that subjects often point out the nebulous
character of the persons protrayed" (8, p. % ) m
The G-P-I is group administered and is presented to the
subjeots in a well struotured form. It takes approximately
twenty-five Minutes to complete, fhe pictures ar# each
presented opposite an answer sheet in & booklet which contains
the following questional "What is happening? Who is Involved?
What led up to this? What happened before? What is being
thought and felt? What is wanted? What will happen? What
will be done?" (8, p. 55) •
•fhe seoring systero is by coding, involving six oat®-
gories, the basis of which is, "Locomotion, physical or psycho-
logical, toward or away from one or more other Individuals or
a group" (8, p. 60)» In surveying these categories it was
13
seen that the G-P-I apparently measures something different
from, but definitely involving, interpersonal responsiveness
ma described in chapter one.
The procedure for Libo's investigation Involved the
setting up and testing of voluntary experimental groups.
Group ooheaivenes® was iueasured by the tendency of subjects
to leave or stay in their group. Several measurements in-
cluding the G-P-I were used in attempting to predict these
tendencies. Results indicated that the G-P-I technique was
acceptably predictive, and therefore validity was established,
while other findings provided evidence of sufficient relia-
bility (8, pp. 19-51).
Libo*s study and the Bdraw-a-grouptt investigation are
similar in that they use both organized groups and several
measurements to cross check the projective technique involved.
Libo draws several conclusions from his findings which have
direct bearing on the ndraw-a~group" technique. He statest
In demonstrating that a projective technique can be used to measure the characteristics of an object in the social psychological field, in addition to its usual application as a measure of enduring character-istics of the person, we can see an enlargement of th-s potential measursuent applications of projective approaches (0, p. $ 0 ) .
He further points out that there are advantages to measuring
factors in the positive as well as the negative, instead of
just the latter, which is often the case in scales involving
psychological phenomena.
Libo formulates several requirements for projective
techniques attempting to measure social, group, and interper-
sonal factors* SOTO of these criteria seem more applicable
than others. Those having a definite bearing on the possible
value of the "draw-a-group" investigation are repeated her®*
(a) The subject fs task should be interesting and of short duration (15> to 20 minutes) .
(b) The purpose of the measure should not be apparent to the subjeot.
(o) The stimuli presented should evoke a wide range of responses,
(d) The stimuli presented should evoke cod©able responses relevant to the concept being measured.
(e) The . . . scoring of a subject »s productions should be simple and objective.
(f) Controlled studies should demonstrate the validity of the measure in discriminating members known to differ, on the basis of independent criteria, in attraction to theIr group (8, pp. $3-5^)•
A review of the literature concerning drawing analysis
exposes considerable disagreement over Its status a® a reli-
able and valid technique. The following is a sa»all sample
of the numerous articles devoted to this problem.
Sllverstein and Robinson (12) obtained self figure and
other drawings from a group of paralytic and normal children.
They found that judges were unable to distinguish between the
drawings of the two groups, even as to body treatment, which
was thought to be the roost significant indicator studied.
In partial contradiction to these findings, Barman and
Laffal (1) discovered a mildly positive correlation between
psychiatric patients1 real body types and the judged body
types of their human figure drawings.
1$
An attempt to objectify human figure drawings by assigning
numerical scores to graphic traits was made by Lehner and
Ganderson (6). Their results indicated that numerically
treated, the technique did raise its reliability.
Stonesifer (13) attempted to apply a similar objective
scoring system in Measuring personality variables of schizo-
phrenic and non-psychotic subjects with the Goodenough scale»
His results indicated that there was no significant differ-
ence found between the two groups.
These findings are but a few of the many which justifi-
ably obscure the answers to the questions of accuracy and
value, intrinsic to the use of projective techniques.
Two things are concluded from surveying the literature
related to the "draw-a-group" projective technique: First,
there is a marked lack of research directly related to this
investigation, although more remotely similar studies are
numerous. Second, reliability and validity measures should
be a very strong concern when working with drawing analysis
techniques.
CHAPTER 01 BLIOfiMPHX
1» Barman, Sidney and Julius Laffa l , "Body Type and Figure Drawing, n Journal of Clinical Psychology, IX (October, 19^35, 3 ^ 3 7 ^ 7
2, Calverton, Samuel Bertrand. Children/a Expreaslon Through Drawing. BaitImore. Maryland. willlams S n r m k l M S a t t 1 8 * .
3# Greene, Edward B«, Measurements of Huoan Behavior. New York, The Odyssey Press, l'9lJT* '
Ij. Kadis, A ay a L«, "Finger-Painting as a Projective Tech-nique," Projective Psychology. edited by Lawrence £. Abt and Leopold l i f f f i j w f York, Grove Press, Inc . , 1950, 1*03-1*30.
5 . L&wton, Iters la J . mod Lee 3eohrest, "Figure Drawing® by Young Boy# Fro® Father-Present and Father-Absent Boats. B Journal of Clinical Psychology* XVIII (July! l W I , loit=3Sg:
6 . Lehner , George and Er ic K. Gunderson, " R e l i a b i l i t y of
7. Levy, Sidney, "Figure Drawing as a Projective Test," P r o j e c t i v e Psychology, e d i t e d by Lawrence I . Abt ana Leopold Beilalc, lew York, Orove Press. Inc . , 1950, 285.
S« Llbo. Leeter M«. Measuring Group Cohesiveaess. Ann Arbor. Michigan, University o T ^ f c h l g « n , l i > 3 .
9* Machover. Karen. Personality Projection In the Drawing o£ the H«ron*Tpiuri7^rIngj'teI'd l i l i e s ; l a r f e s C7 Tbmm§ 191*9, If©.
10* Nitsohe, Carl J, and William Thon, "Children*a Like and Dislike Drawings," Journal of Projective Tsoh-niques. XXIII (lfereh, 1959), ?Z*' "
11* Pflavaa, John, "Restricted Figure Drawing as a Projective Measure of Personality." Journal of Social Psy-chology. LVTII (1962), 2Qj=mi
16
I?
12, Silver stain. A, B. and it* A« Robinson, "The Represen-tation o f Orthopedic Disability ID Children's Figure Drawings." Journal of Consulting Psychology. XX (October, i^6)7T33=3fci:
13* S t o o # # l f « r , Fred A . , "A GoodeBough Scale Evaluation o f Human Figures Drawn by Schizophrenics and I®n« fsyehetic A d u l t s , " J o u r n a l o f S l i a l e a l P w o h o l o g y . V (October, 19^9), """
1U# Stuart, Gilbert, Understanding Children In School, Syracuse, lew York'; C. wT lara^eo"Co7,~TB^7
15* W e s t , John Hamilton, "Correlates of the Draw«*a-Scene Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XVI (Janu-ary, i ^ S f f T T W - 5 ? . —
16* woltiuaon, Adolf Or., "The Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test,* Projective Psychology. edited by Lawrence £• Abt arid Leopold BeXlalls, »ew York, Grove Press. Inc., 1950, 322-35U.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
There were 102 subjects to this investigation# 10? of
them being male nod 75 female# The age® ranged from seven
to eighty-tight, the mean age being thirty-four years and
two months. The subjects all belonged In one of three cate-
gories.
Category A consisted of seventy-eight subjects who were
members of various organised groups which had engaged In at
least two social activities and met on at least a weekly
basis during the two months prior to their completing th«
"draw-a-group" projective technique and a soolometrio q ies-
tlonalre. One group was made up of children# another of
adolescents# a third of young adults# the fourth of middle
aged adults and the fifth consisted of older adults.
Category B contained thirty six subjects who had com-
pleted the "draw-a-group" projective and who had taken the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. This yielded
a score on the Soclal Introversion gxtroveraioa Scale of the
iMMPI for each subject in this category.
Category C consisted of sixty eight subjects who com-
pleted the "draw-a-group" projective# and who could be
18
19
divided Into five classifications or clients commonly tested
by psychologist®. For each of these subjects an estimation
of their interpersonal responsiveness was made along a five
point seal®. These estimations were made by qualified people
who had gathered social histories oi* the individuals and who
had dealt with then in group situations for one or more months,
The numerical data concerning all 182 subjects is pre- *
seated in Table I for easy comparison among the three cate-
gories and their subdivisions. The following gives a descrip-
tion of the groups listed under the category headings. The
descriptive name of etch group is given In the table*© left
hand oolumn. This is followed, from left to right, by the
number of subjeots in the group who were present and partici-
pated in the investigation; the number of male subjeots; the
number of female subjeots; the lower and upper limits of the
age range given in years, the months being rounded off; and
finally in the right hand column the approximate mean age of
the subjects, given in years and months. In the last row of
each category are listed the totals for each of the columns
just described,
Ths left hand column of Category A in Table I begins
with the Preteen Club* Eleven subjeots made up the active
membership of the Carswell Air Force Base Preteen Club.
These children were dependents of active or retired military
personnel. At the time that they became part of this investi-
gation, their club had been meeting once a week for four
20
fABLS I
CATEGORICAL DSSGBIFA'IOI OF M l SUBJECTS
Category A, Subjects Belonging to Organlted Group® ivbir 1 1 Am Emm 1' H®tn "&m Jn
Group la Group Male Female Wm ««* All
Yr». & Moa.
Preteen Club 11 6 5 9 11 11.9 Civ 11 Air Patrol 19 12 7 13 1? 15.0
Social an# Career Club 8 )4 k 18 20 19.2
Couples church school olaae pj| 13 11 26 k3 32.1»
Golden pj| k3 32.1»
Fellowahlp 16 2 lli 86 7k.7 Category A
,r8 , J&ULM*. ,.21 17, m i_ ,r8 , J&ULM*.
Category B« St&bjeots with Soolal I.E. Sooree Isabtr ' Wm§ laol© "Heari "Age""la
Group in Group Hal® F&awti® Wm ; TO Yrs. & Mos.
MHPI Teated 36 26 10 17 .,s., 1|>0*1
Category 0* Subjects with EstlamtIons of
NUBlDer Af?e Racine Ifeaa '&g«' lis Group. Id Group Male ftaal# Wca Trs# .& Misa#i
ProbleiB ' children 1? 10 7 7 12 9.8
Juvenile offendera 20 15 5 13 17 15.1
Dnemployed 18 2l| 21.8 adults 10 6 U 18 2l| 21.8
Payohlaferls 8 18
2l|
patients 12 8 18 55 33.1 Gerlatrlo
65 counsslees 9 J? 65 88 79.7 Category C
68 2k 88 totals, r 68 2k 88 3i«?
I®* of Asa Range. Mean Age In All Subjeota Subjects Male Female Worn To Yra. & Mos.
Total % £)<•* 1©« m 11 7, 0| J M ,
21
mouths. A© ©an be seen in the table, the mx ratio was fair*
ly balanced but their mean age skewed upward approaching
twelve year®# All vera enrolled In the publlo school system#
Prom all that oould be discovered from the adult leadership
of this club, these ohlldren were apparently quite normal.
The seoond group in Category A consisted of nineteen
teenagers who were all members of the Carawell Air Force Base
Civil Air Patrol Squadron, This squadron had been In exist-
ence five years, meeting twice each week. Seven of the mem-
bers were military dependents and the other twelve came from
the civilian population. All were enrolled In Fort Worth
junior or senior high schools, and from all evidence obtained
were representative of normal adolescent®. As can be seen in
Table I boys outnumbered girls In the squadron, but the girls
appeared to be a very active part of the group.
Eight unmarried young adults made up the third group In
Category A and were members of the Social and Career Club, an
Independent group formed primarily to further the social life
of its members. This group had been in existence only two
and one-half month®, meeting once a week. Therefore, only
eight of its members qualified to take part in this study.
From nil appearances its members seemed to be healthy, normal,
young adults.
The twenty four subjects of the adult couples class of «
the First Kethodist Church in Arlington, Texas were all
married. This group had been in existence eight years,
22
aeeting five to six times a month. Proa observation and th«
Information offtred by the ministerial assistant, these cou-
ples oould all be described as normal adults* Some of th«
couples were not represented by both partners due to their
working in other sections of the church school. Thus, the
uneven sex ratio.
Sixteen older adult members of the Golden Fellowship of
Arlington, Texas participated in the investigation, making
up the last group la Category A, Table I shows that only two
of these were ®ales, causing the sex ratio to be inbalaoced.
The group consisted of elderly retired people who met twice
a week for recreational and inspirational purposes, under the
sponsorship of the First Methodist Church in Arlington, Texas,
Frcrn all appearances this was an active* perhaps above average,
group of elderly people.
Surveying these five groups, it can 'be said that Cate-
gory A consisted of normal subjects who by all appearances
are acceptable representatives of the general populace. The
organized groups had all been in existence for at least two
and one-half months. The total number, the totals by sex,
the expanse of the age range, and the total »®an age of all
the subjects are given in the last row of Category A in
Table I,
To obtain the subjects listed in Categories B and C, as
well a© the cooperation needed for testing these subject®,,
complete anonymity for agencies as well as subjects had to be
23
guaranteed in several situations. This provision is complied
with throughout the two categories# The name and, location
of the source fro® which the subjects came will not be given.
Category B consisted of thirty-six subjects who had been
rec omniancled for psychological testing from several sources
due to a wide variety of reasons. Some of the subjects were
being tested for vocational placement or advancement, others
for general personality assessments, and still others for
clinical type evaluations. Because of this diversification
the category is termed i-ixeu. All wero given the MM PI and
the Wdraw-a-group" projective in individual testing situa-
tions. Table I shows that these subjects can be classified
as adults, the youngest of which was seventeen years of age.
There were more than twice as r.any males as females, and
consequently this could bias the sample .for this category.
The "draw-a-group" pictures from the subjects in Cate-
gory C were all obtained in psychological testing situations.
The first subdivision of this category is problem children.
These children were referred for psychological evaluation by
a county child welfare worker, all having manifested symptom©
of abnormal behavior. None of these children were living
with both biological parents, and all had been declared de-
pendent and neglected by a county court. Table I shows that
their mean age was slightly over nine and one-half and that
there were slightly more males than females.
2i|
Tm second group in Category C consisted of twenty
juveniles who were being dealt with by a county juvenile
division for repeated offancas against the law. Jot all of
these juvenilis had been judged delinquent^ hence the tern
juvenile offenders is used to describe them. All were recom-
mended for psychological testing in preparation for their
upcoming hearings or trials. It is to be noted in Taole I
that the ratio of males over females is quite pronounced in
this group.
Tea youn^ adults who had sat with chronic unemployment
difficulties and who had besa referred for psychological
evaluation by a welfare agency, read a up the third group in
Category C, All of these subjects had been dismissed or had
resigned from a large number of jobs. Three of the four
females had also been in difficulty with the law on numerous
occasions, and each of the six males had been arrested for
an occasional disturbance.
The fourth subdivision listed under Category C was made
up of twelve subjects who were patients on the psychiatric
ward of a fairly largo general hospital. Each of these pa-
tients had been hospitalized for at least a month. They
represented a wide variety of psychiatric diagnoses, ranging
from alcoholism with anxiety neurosis to schizophrenic re-
action of the mild catatonic typa. Table I shows there to be
twice as many men as women in this group. The wide spread
age range is also to be noted.
25
The last group in Category G consisted of nine elderly
counseleas Mho were beginning members of a community center's
geriatric program. They were referred for psychological
testing as part of the center*s attempt to survey their needs,
For the most part, their situations were those of the usual
older person who seeks generalized aid from an agency. On
the whole, their problems were not considered acute.
In the last row of Category C it should be noted that
the total number of males for this division is close to being
twice that of females.
At the bottom of Table I the totals for the entire 182
subjects are given. Since there are thirty-two more males
than females* a considerable bias for the males may exist,
particularly when considering some of the subdivisions in the
table. Thia distribution is especially weighted toward the
males in the adolescent groups, the HMFI tested subjects,
and the psychiatric patients. However, in considering the
older adults, the females are predominant.
Table I makes possible an easy comparison of the sub-
jects by categories. It can be seen that Categories A and C
are both divided into five groups, while Category B remains
undivided. A comparison of the mean ages shows that the five
groups in Category A correspond closely with the five groups
in Category C. A survey of the age ranges also demonstrates
the corresponding nature of the several age levels in the two
categories. In the same manner, it can be seen that since
26
Category B consists ©f adults, It doea not lead itself to agt
©©taparisoi with the other two categories. Dim to tins slal*
larlty exietlog among the too aubdlviaiona ia Categories A
* D d ^ *• felt that they can bo grouped together when
considering til# results by. ago groupa* fhaa, the eleven
ehildron in Category A and tha eeventeen children in Category
® mako up a group ©f tventy-eight aubjeota repreaenting chil-
dren* It ahould bo noted that thia aggrogato group ia not
representative of ohildron ia the normal population, but
rath®* tha Mixture of normal and abnormal children, who are
more likely to be aoea by oouaaelora and psyohologiats la
professional situations* In thia nanner adolescents, young
adults, adults, and older adulta of both oatogorioa are
grouped for osnparison aaoag age levela* The procedure and
reaulting findinga for age ooaparison are given later*
Is Table I the subjects ia Category A wore all termed
normal and subjects in Category C clinical* Xa viewing tha
table a ooaparison can be nada between the five normal groupa
Itt Category A and tha five olinioal groupa in Category C aa
*• total nuaber, and their totala for sax* In oon-
aidering these factors, a very similar oonfiguration of
totala exists between the two adoleacent groupa and the two
young adult groupa* Slightly leaa elailarlty la obaerved
between the two children*# groupa. The two adult and the
two older adult groupa vary even aore, but still the differ-
onooa are not great.
2?
The totals for Categories 4 and C show that there are
ten mora subjeote in Category A, htid more males In Cats gory
Cf and seventeen more females la Category A* The age rang* .
for Category A U approximately aeveoty-eoven years* while
for Category C it is approxlaately elghty»one years, The dif-
ference between tha mean agea of the subjects In Categories
A and 0 la only years*
However* la considering Category B# Table 1 shows that
it la essentially different lit most reapeots twm Categories
A and C. Therefore, it will be considered separately and
without comparison to then*
In sanation* the comparisons between the normal groups
and the ollnloal groups shows in Table I demonstrate that
Category A is roughly comparable to Category 0 except with
regard to tha normal - ollnloal factor* Therefore* for the
purposes of this exploratory study* differences as to how
the pictures were drawn may be noted la comparing the normal
groups with tha ollnloal ones.
Description of the Instruments and Procedure
The following baaio procedure was used in administering
the "draw-a-group" projective technique. .
Eaoh subject waa presented an ordinary sheet of blank
white paper* approximately eight and one*half by eleven
Inches* and a sharpened pencil* usually of number two hardness*
with an eraser. The following sentence was then stated to
28
tha aubjaet, "Flaasa draw a group of paopla"• Quaationa
aakad fey tha aubjaot, £.a,, how *any psopla should b@ drawn,
should thay bs doing aoaathlng, ate.. wsra »at with the r«»
ply, "It la yonr drawing. You may do it howa*sr you wish",
Statsnants indloatlng oonosrn otar artlatlo quality wara
told, "How good an artlat you are doasn't aattar at all,
Juat do It your own way and that will b« quita good anough",
In thla nannar all statamanta and <pi«®ti®n» wsra handlad in
anoh a way aa to not iiiait or guld« tha drawing,
Por group administration of tha ndraw~a«group" tha pro-
eadtirs wa@ tha MUM* sxoept tha aubjaots wara spy®ad out to
tha axtant that they could not eas aaoh othara* drawings,
Thay wara also told not to talk unitas it waa to ask partl~
nant qusstlona, In adalnlstaring tha taohnlqua to tha sub-
jects la Catagory A tha proosdura waa aa outllnad balow,
A regular meeting of aach of the five groups waa at-
tandad. By prearrangement a portion of aaoh of thaaa settings
was sat aalda for "an Important psyohologleal experiment", and
& portion of tha Mating room waa designated at the tasting
araa, To begin tha experiment the following statements wara
made t "Will all thosa praaant who ara not regular members
of thla group plaaaa Isava tha designated tasting araa. Will
all thosa ragular membera of thla group who have not attandsd
at laast two of the group*a aaolals in tha last two months
also plsaaa leave ths araa," Arrangementa had been made so
that people who laft tha araa would not disturb or Influsnoa
29
those remaining. The remaining subjects ware told to spread
out as muoh as possible and were asked to stay silent until
the experiment was finished. They were thee each given paper
and pencil and then told not to make any marks on the paper
until the instructions were given. After thle the following
statement® were mads.
You are about to participate in a serious psycho-log leal experiment. Your group has been ehosen because it is a good group of average and better than average members. The purpose of the experiment has to do with finding ways to help other individuals and groups less fortunate than yourselves. This will be explained fully after you have finished. Any questions you have will also be fully answered after the" experiment is over. You are to remain completely quiet until then except for questions concerning the Instructions given you. If you have a question, raise your hand and then whisper it to ate when I come to you. You may take as Kuch time a® you wish. Please be careful about keeping your own work from the view of others, and please do not look to see what others are doing. It is very im-portant that you not be influenced by others in any way. Let me also say that your work will be kept com-pletely confidential. No member of this group will ever set the results of another*# work. All names will be changed to numbers and will no longer be used.
At this point the basic procedure stated above, was
followed. After all had finished the drawing of a group the
following instructions were given.
Mow everyone please turn your paper blank side up and write your name and age tpause!, How draw a circle around your name and age tpause!, irfrlte the numeral one under your name and answer the following question beaide it tpausel, n0f the people sitting in this area and participating in this experiment, who are the ones with whom you would like to attend a party?1®. You may name as many or as few as you please, but do not us© terms like all, anyone, everyone, etc* Write each per-sonfe name as you know it CpauseJ#
low make the numeral two under your answer to the last question, and answer the following question Cpause},
30
"Of the people In this area and participating in this experiment, who are the ones with whom you would like to go on a sight-seeing tour?" Again, you may name as many or as few as you pleas©, but do not use terms like all, everyone, eto. When you are finished raise your hand and your paper will be taken up. Remember that you have as much time as you wish.
The so instructions, or sections of them,were repeated on
request.
In administering the "draw-a-group" projective to sub-
jects in Categories B (MMPI tested) and C (qualified est i-
/nations) the procedure was as given below«
The subjects were tested individually in situations
similar to that of moat psychological testing. For all the
subjects in Category 3 and for a majority of the subjects in
Category C, preceding the "draw-a-group" projective the sub-
jects were administered the Bender Gestalt and the Humm
Figure Drawing tests. The "draw-a-group" technique was ad-
ministered in the manner previously described as the basic
procedure. Various other tests germane to the subject'a
particular situations followed. The booklet form of the
KMF-1 was included for those of Category B in the tests fol-
lowing the wdraw-a-group" projective.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inveotory is a
true-false test in which the Sooial Introversion tSxtroverslon
Scale (usually referred to as Scale 0) is integrated. The
MMPI M&MU1L states that this scale "aims to measure the tend-
ency to withdraw from social contact with others" (i|,}»
31
Marks and Seaman comment on the obvious face validity
of the test Items and state: "3cale 0 is a 70 item seal® meas-
uring the degree of social Introversion-extroversion. . .It la
also the only clinical scalo for which the criterion group was
comprised of a non-psychiatric (normal) sample" (5)«
Also commenting on the validity and construction of the
instrument, Dahlatrom and vvelsh say:
Tha scale items were chosen by contrasting groups of students in the guidance program at the University of Wisconsin who scored above the 65th centile rank and below the 35th centile rank on the subscale for social introversion-extroversion in the Minnesota T-S-I Inventory. . .The final scale inoludes the items which separated these groups and were endorsed by the test subjects with sufficient frequency to be useful in the differentiation (1).
From studies by Drake and Getting it was concluded that:
Patterns with a high coding of 0 were found ©song persons showing introverslv© characteristics, especially shyness, social insecurity and social withdrawal. , . A low coding of Scale 0 is probably indicative of an adequate social adjustment, even in patterns that are usually associated with somewhat serious problems (3* P« 15) •
Prom the statements of these authors it is concluded
that Scale 0 bears sufficient relationship to the subject of
investigation in this study. However, two areas of caution
should be noted when considering the results of this instru-
ment »s use in Category 3.
Drake and Getting point out that "since Scale 0 was
derived and cross validated on a college group, it is not
surprising to find that patterns including this scale are
related to various aspects of social adjustment in college"
32
(3* P* 15)• How auch social adjustment in college has to do
with the Interpersonal responsiveness or the subjects in
Category 3 is not known; nor is the amount of collage ex-
perience of subjects« in Category B known*
Concerning the second area of caution, it is noted that
the original formation of Scale Q in 19i*4 was baaed on a
sample of 100 women, mm being excluded because of ill® war
and thus the likelihood, of obtaining an atypical male sample
(2, pp, £l-$U)* However, subsequent studies have shown a
strong similarity between the scores of male© and fenalas,
Drake in 191+6 published a research article finding a cor-
relation of -.72 for females and -.71 for xaales between the
Mian#at®tea. T-S-E Inventory aod Scale 0. The coefficients are
negative because the key for Scale 0 shows high scores in-
dicative of Introversion, whereas in the T-S-g low scores sre
indicative of introversion (2, pp. Sl»5tf)#
i ora the evidence describing Scale 0, it seemed reason-
able to assume that this instrument should tap a factor
ocraparabl® to interpersonal responsiveness as described in
chapter one.
For each of the subjects treated in Category C a rating
of their interpersonal responsiveness was »ad® by a p«si»s®ia
having dealt with there while working in an occupation con-
nected with behavioral disciplines# Table II sussa&rises
these oooupationa, the subjects they rated, and the approxi-
mate amount of contact they had with the subjects. An
3J
examination of tha second column of the table ahowa that
there viaa considerable variety In the backgrounds of the
qualified observers who rated tha subjects* , Even with this
variety it was fait that the observers bore enough similarity
to be used in this phase of the study. This is due to tha
fast that tha paople with their kinds of qualifications night
represent tha type and range of persons who oould use
teohnlque If It were fully developed and standardised*
TABLB II
OCCUPATION OF PS1S0IS RATIMG ISfMPflSOMX, BKSFOK3IW£Kfc@S OF SUBJECTS A® AM0WT OF. COHfACT. WITH STJBJBOTS II CATEGOKX C
SuMtt% Clas# r . . latad. M ippr'Sfii&i® ,,_fl«i wttfe M l i t i i , r. Rpobl«ffi
ohlldran Juvenile offenders
Unemployed young adults
Hospitalised psychiatric patients
Oariatrio counsalsas
County ehllti worker
County juvenile divi-sion ease worker
Psyehologlst
Psychiatric director of oooupatlonal and recreational therapy
canter gar* la trie group worker
Z ho sirs I'walk 'for J''or mora month®
2$ hours a weak for 3 or eore months
ijr houra a week for l | or more months
Z houra a day* 5 daya a weak for I or mora »onthft
J| hours a weak for 5 or
Saoh of these parsons also aided In tha selection of subjects
thay Fated* To do this they ware asked to seleot from tha
parsons available, the ones that they had worked with tha
longaat.
' She following Instructions were given to each of tha
five people who rated their respeotlve portions of the sub*
jeeta In Category C.
You are about to rat® a number of subjects as to thai# degree of Interpersonal reaponsiveness, Shaft ratlogs Mill lata? b« ocrapared to drawing© which the aubjeota will have dona. The object of thia ooapsi»i-son is to aae if tha subjects will in.aone way project their ova degree of interpersonal reaponaiveness into their drawings. Interpersonal reaponaiveness is de» acribed ass the degree to which a person can auooess-fully respond to others in many and varied situations, thus causing others to increase their positive respon-siveness to. or acceptance of, that person.
You will rate the subjects according to the fol-lowing scale s
5 points - very high Is interpersonal reaponalveness k points » high 1» interpersonal responsiveness 3 points - average in interperaonal responsiveness £ points - low in interpersonal responsiveness 1 point - very low in interpersonal responsiveness
To rate the subjects it is suggested that you follow the procedure listed below,
1. Review all the pertinent records you have for each of the subjects selected for you to rate*
2, interview each of theae subjects and ask tlmm whatever questions you deem necessary to aid you in writing your ratings.
' 3. Question or ask the opinion of others who may be in a position to aid your knowledge of tha subject•« interpersonal responsiveness,
4. Make an outline social history of the subjects, if one Is not readily available, and review this,
5* F*e» the knowledge you have gained and your impressions of tha subjects, rate each of your subjects according to the previously oentioned five point seals*
6« Cheek over your ratings to make sure of de-cisions and then inforn m of your final choioea.
In thia manner the ratings of intsrpersonal responsiveness
mm aade for the sixty-eight subjects in Category C,
For each subject in Category A the number of choioea
received on both eoclonetrio questions was added together
plus one additional point for each nutual choice occurring*
This yielded a choloe-atatus acore for each subject in each
of the five groups* Theae scores enabled all subjecta
35
to be placed ID an ascending order according to their choice-
value within their respective groups.
In Oategory B the subjects war® placed in a descending
order according to thair Social I. fi» aoora on the MMH. the
aualler scores being interpreted as equaling the higher de-
grees of interpersonal responsiveness.
In Category 0 the subjects were placed in an ascending
order according to the rating* they had received along the
five point scale previously described.
In this manner the subjects of ail three categories
received a rating which was, by operational definition, a
measure or ranking of their interpersonal responsiveness.
Next, the "draw-a-group" picture® were placed in order
according to the ranking of the subjects who drew theau
They were then examined at length for characteristics which
night differentiate the aubjeote as to their degree of inter*
personal responsiveness. The results of this examination
were compiled into the evaluating instrument for this atudy,
along with instructions being added. Three persons with
graduate experience in psychology were chosen to use this
Instrument in judging each subject*® degree of Interpersonal
responsiveness by evaluating each subject's drawing. These
three Judges also had some training and experience In the
use of projective techniques and soeloiaetry.
The judges each studied the evaluating instrument for
approximately one and a half hours. Ninety one of the
36
drawings were than shown to them* one at a time, After these
were evaluated a two hour "dinner break" Intervened, The
judges then reviewed the evaluating instrument for another
one-half hear, after which the seoond nlnety~one ploturea
were evaluated,
She evaluating instrument used by the judges is self
explanatory and Incorporates the essential procedure for this
phase of the study,
fhe Evaluating Instrunent, 1. • ,» How to Us# the Experimental "Braw^»Group"~Fro jective Technique
for Measuring Interpersonal Responsiveness
Instructions tm the Judaea
You are about to evaluate a number of drawings uslag the
experimental ndraw«*~groupu projective technique for Judging
interpersonal responsiveness, To do this you will need to
carefully consider the following faotors.
Interpersonal responsiveness is described as the degree
t»o which a person can successfully respond to others in many
and varied situations, thus causing others to increase their
positive responsiveness to, or aoceptance of, that person.
Interpersonal responsiveness can also be thought of as la*
volving a nuasber of other factors such as sensitivity to
othersf a general tendency to interact with people Individ*
anlly or in groupst a person's general choice-value among
others) a lack of interpersonal Isolation)tan ability in inter*
relate meaningfully with numerous persons and that which is
sometimes called social maturity.
3?
The pictures to be judged were all drawn in response to
the state/cent, "draw a group of people", given with very few
other instructions. The judgments you make will be compared
with scclometric data, a true false test of social involvanjont,
or ratings of social interaction. There is a very good chance
that the Hdraw-a-group" technique will with acceptallc accuracy
rate interpersonal responsiveoess, causing a considerable
savings iri tiiae and effort, as well as adding a valuable tool
to those methods of judging this variable. For this reason
your most conscientious effort is requested. The procedure
Mill be as follows;
X* You will carefully study the principles of evaluation
and the jr accompanying check lists. You will keep these with
you while you are judging the pictures so that you o:a$ refer
to them when ever you wish, kh.il© you are studying the mater-
ial you may ask questions concerning clarification of the
terms used,
2. You will next bs given a scoring sheet containing
numbers 1 through 182 which correspond to the numbers in the
upper right hand corner of the drawings. The pictures have
been randomly mixed, so that the crder in which you will see
their: bears: no similarity as to how they should be rated. Be
side each drawing's number on the scoring sheet there is a
blank sptca in which you will place your evaluating score for
that picture, The pictures will be shown to you, one at a tiiae#
38
3# You will judge the pictures according to the fol-
lowing scoring systems
£ points - very high in interpersonal responsiveness
h points * high in interpersonal responsiveness
X points « average in interpersonal responsiveness
2 points - low In interpersonal responsiveness
J, point - very low In Interpersonal responsiveness
ll* Torn may lay aside and return to any picture for
which you would like to postpone evaluation*
You are now asked to give careful attention to the
studying of the principles of evaluation and their accom-
panying eheok lists. Signify when you believe you have
sufficient knowledge of these principles, and we shall then
begin,
Principles of Evaluation
To judge a ndraw-a»group" picture it is necessary to
evaluate from a rather Oestalt or global viewpoint. Judge-
ments should not be made on single or disconnected charac-
teristics but rather on the basis of an integrated pattern.
Some of the pictures will be found to have characteristics
indicating that they could be classified in more than one
category. In these cases one should consider which charac-
teristics are more pronounced or more numerously indicative
of a particular category* thus in some cases the problem of
classifying the picture is one of discovering which set of
39
characteristics outweighs the others. With cartful exami&a*
tion ©f tii® pictures a prepoisdemm« of clues will usually
emerge, indioatiog which categories should be rejected and
which classification should be chosen for each pioture.
'Eha following general faotors will provide the frame-
work toy which to judge the pictures. They are given in
their approximate order of importance. l'he first two general
factors should be thought of as having considerably mora 1®*
portance than the others but not having sufficient strength
to ba.se selections on entirely.
. Degree of lat e rae t i o p.»»M&ny of the drawings will depict
hu»an figures interacting with each other, while others will
not. In general, the greater the decree of Interaction, the
higher a picture should be rated.
The moat common determinants for judging interaction
are the degree and type of conversation probably taking place,
the direction in which the human figures are facing, and what
seems to be going on in the scenap. Drawings in which in-
formal conversation appears to be the major activity occurlng,
usually are to be rated over those where conversation is sup-
ported by other activities, and then these in turn should be
placed higher than scenes in which conversation is only an
adjunct or Is incidental to what is occurlng. The more In-
formal the verbal interaction, the higher the picture should
be rated, except where no verbal interaction is apparent.
These pictures would be rated lowest of all.
J+o
The mora human figures sro drawn fan log each othe ?, the
higher the degree of interaction. Thus, people in & circle
or around a table are rated highly, while those seemingly
willing about are rated less highly, and those all facing in
the 3B.me dire nn would be quite low.
Pictures of social Interaction rate over those of work-
like character, and these are in turn to be rated over those
in which nothing can be determined as probably occurring or
those having a pronounced unrealistic or unnatural quality.
Scenes in which, activity is centered around some object or Ira
which parallel activity is occurring which doesn *t necessarily
call for much verbal interaction are to be rated rathor low.
Degree of role structure,—In the scenes drawn, various
degrees of role structure, ranging from very formal to very
informal, can be observed. In general, the higher ranking
pictures are those in which the human figures are depicted
in situations where the role requirements would be considered
quite flexible. The less flexible or more rigid the role
requirements seem, the lower the picture should be ranked,
except when there are no role requirements evident. These
drawings should be rated lowest of all. Highly structured
scents of a social or recreational nature are to b© ratod
over those of a work situation.
Richness of content.--A3 a general rule, the richor the
content a drawing has, the higher it should be rated. This
it,I
Is especially true when the human fig tiro a or their facial
features so ex,) to have absorbed a majority of the subjects
efforts, However, stick figures do constitute an except ion
to the rule, 2hey# of tan with minimal facial features, are
to be found in ull categories.
Higher ranked pictures have a greater completeness,
mora detail, easily identified. and numerically greater dif-
ferentiation in their drawn descriptions of age, dress, sixe,
and part icularly sax, lis low the a a are pictures In which the
background, and in soma cases the foreground, content is acre
detailed than the husiao figures, Pictures which are to be
ranked in the lower categories have a narked poverty of con-
tent, This is exhibited by hollow body outlines, a sexless
quality, and a lack of clothing, hair or other details; or
an object may occupy the foreground with the human figures
appearing in the background, and in others only the face s
are shown, leaving out the body entirely#
Facial and postural expression,—Drawings which show
human figures in rigid or stiff positions rank lower than
those of a more natural or realistic posture. On the whole
pictures of people sitting down are to be ranked over those
of people standing, except when the people shown are sitting
in rows. Drawings showing people in rows, standing or sitting,
usually rank lower than those which show the figure in al-
most any other position.
I|2
The mors figures differ fron each other Ik postur# and
faolal expression, the higher the picture containing aueh
figures should be rated. Postural expression versus postural
rigidity and saaeness is particularly helpful in differen*
tlating between drawings containing stick figure**
The greater the faeial expressions'.are shown, the higher
the ploture should be ranked, except where everyone has a
similar snlle* Inolusion of sorae obviously frowning or an-
gry people along with others of a different expression
raises the status in which the ploture should be ranked. A
lack of obvious facial expression giving an emotional content,
a laok of at least one full faee view, a sameness of facial
features, and pictures showing little or no faolal features,
exoept for some stick figure drawings, should all be rated
rather low.
fiwtbeg and type of twang fishes,••Pictures which in-
clude very few or very siany human figures are to be ranked
quite low| crowds, audlenoes, nobs, etc* ranking lowest of
all. • Scenes showing aore than one sex, indicated by several
details, rank over one-sex pictures, which in turn rank over
pictures where the sex is indeterminable* Pictures where the
majority of human figures ar« of the SSM approximate age are
ranked above those showing figures of varying ages* Drawings
showing a deainant figure with a najority of obviously
younger figures are to be ranked still lower but not as low
i*3
as drawings In whioh age is indistinguishable• Scenes in-
cluding aniznal figures are not usually ranked in the lower
categories.
uraphie and structural .feadica.tor& {size, placement, line
strength, and forrc, syimaetry and perspective)#—5?hie category
should be considered lass definitive than the preceding ones*
but it is helpful ID DECIDING borderline problems,
ft. use of over half the space available is characteristics
of pictures ranking in the higher categories* figures whioh
are very small (lasc than ooe aod a half inches), or very
large (inor© than six incut*s> arc usually to be ranked in the
lower categories.
Picturee largely occupying the center of the available
space are to be ranked over those primarily drawn in corners,
although the upper left hand corner drawing is sosaetixaea
highly ranked. Pictures in the lower half of a page reay
often be classified below those drawn in the upper half.
Pictures drawn with light skstchy pano11 marks and those
with unusually heavy solid lines are to be ranked lower than
others.
Pictures that as a whole have a syrametrioal quality are
ranked over those that appear out of balance or one-sided.
Drawings having indications of good perspective, proper
size relationships, and a quality of depth, rank over those
of a seemiugly flat nature.
lik * ' T r
Characteristics of Scoring Categories; 5Sec¥ List *
The following oheck list should not fee thought of as
all inclusive or completely definitive in evaluating "draw-a-
group" pictures. The H a t should toe used only as an aid to#
and oot as a substitute for, Judging the ploturea on a global
basis* .Remember that most plot urea will have the character-
istics of several categories and no picture will have all the
characteristic® of any o m category# The following charac-
teristics can be thought of as being listed in their approxi-
mate order of iaportanoe for each category*
A. Characteristics of pictures to be judged "very high"
($ points)i
1. People sitting around a table or in a circular
arrangement.
2. Soenea in whioh informal conversation is the only
major activity possible.
3. Scenes depicting the most flexible of role require-
ments*
ij. Fairly rich in detail, except when stick figures
are included.
f>. A variety of emotion shown in facial expressions
and body postures.
6. Soenes including people of both sexes who are ap-
parent equal© in age, social position and «ia@,
7. Scenes with four to eight human figures.
kS
8. Pictures oriented ID the upper center of til® page#
well balanced, symmetrical, and with son® p«rsp@cti¥e
B* Characteristics of picture® to be judged "high* (It points);
I. Pictures of people faolng each other.
2* Drawings In which conversation would be a major part
of the activity.
3. Seen#® depleting a fairly loose role structure or
fairly high in role requirement flexibility.
Ij,, Scenes in which people might be meeting each other
for the first time.
5. Fairly detailed figures and background content.
6. Scenes in which sow© or all of the people arc seated.
7. Human figures in a variety of postural positions.
8. Faces with all major facial features and with an
apparent expression on their faces* except when all
have a similar smile, let applicable to stick figures.
9. Drawings In which the human figures appear t® be.
approximate equals, although not necessarily middle
class typical Americans,
10. Between three and ten human figures*
II. A use of over half the spaoe available.
12* Scenes oriented in the center or slightly to the
upper left of the available space*
13. A quality of completeness, except when stick fig-
ures are included.
1 6
11}, F igure* one and a half to s i x inches in height* .
15, Scenea with a comic quality.
16, F igures in home-like s i t u a t i o n s ,
C, C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of drawings t o be Judged "average" (3
p o i n t s ) :
1* Pictures of situations where the role requi rements
a r e semiforxaally de f ined or moderately s t r u c t u r e d and
adhered to, such as in parties* dances* o u t i n g s , etc.
2 , Figures more than t h r e e and a h a l f inches in h e i g h t
i f wel l drawn*
3. Picture® of people engaged in table games where the
type of conversation is fairly well defined and likely
t o be somewhat U n i t e d ,
k* People seemingly meeting or greeting each other.
5, Scenes where the f i g u r e s are h igh ly a c t i v e and p e r -
haps comical in appearances,
6 , F igures which have mild but obvious i n e q u a l i t i e s in
age, status, height, physical build, attractiveness, etc,
7, P i c t u r e s in which the human f i g u r e s take up more
space than other o b j e c t s in the scene.
8, Scenes in which conversa t ion i s supported by o t h e r
activities suoh as food, music, games, etc,
9, Drawings cen te red anywhere along a v e r t i c a l mid l ine
of the space available,
10, Separate c o l l e c t i o n s of people seemingly r e p r e s e n t i n g
different noninteracting groups.
k7
11, Highly detailed backgrounds,
120 See a*b including adults, children and pats.
D* Characteristics of drawings to be judged "low" (2 points)s
1* Scenes depioting situations where vol• r*4ulr«MMt«
are well defined or formalized with only a little flexi-
bility allowed*
2* Human figures with ill defined facial features, or
unvarying facial expressions,
3* Figuree faoing toward no particular or common center
of interest.
Somewhat rigid appearing body positions.
5. A poverty of detail and content.
6* Figures participating in competitive sports.
?* ; Figures with poorly formed body parts*
8. ' No more than two human figures, or two adults and
on« child, and no other live figures*
9* : Scenes showing human figures of only one sex*
10. drawing® ©entered or restricted to a corner of the
page, especially fee lower corners.
11* Scenes showing all figures facing the viewer (full
facie views}*
12* Use of less than one-third the space available.
13* Situations where the focus of attention • is on ob-
jects rather than on people*
111* Scenes where inanimate objects have a predominance
of else and emphasis over human figures*
1*8
15# Scenes ehowing physical work to®log carried on by
the prorainanfc human figures#
16* Figures having a transparent or hollow-like treat-
ment*
17, Street scenes where people seem to be milling about,
not obviously doing anything*
18* Scenes vrbere children out number adults, if both
are shown*
19# Figures engaged in parallel but not necessarily
interacting activities*
20* Slightly sketchy or rather heavily drawn lines*
£* Characteristics of drawings to be Judged "very loww
<1 point)i
1* Drawings including large audience®, crowds, raobs ©r
other large groups of people all doing essentially the
same thing, especially if drawn in rows,
2* A lack of facial details in human figures.
3* Figures depicted only by their heads or face®, and
bodies without limbs*
i|* Human figures ail facing In the same direction,
especially if seated and some facing the backs of others *
heads,
5* Figures drawn so that they appear to be at a consider-
able distance from the foreground of the picture*
6* Figures whose sex is indeterminate or whose sex
U9
differentiation is shown only by the length and style of
hair. Small figures one inch or leaa in height.
8# Five or more people assuming a virtually similar poa»
ture# eapeolally if unreallstleally rigid.
9. Figures all having a similar and oonaplouously large
srolle or grin.
10# figures which are out off by the border of the page.
11# Faoeleas figure® or head®, except with etiok fig-
ures*
12. Very aketohily drawn human figurea, eapeeially in
the head and face area.
13. Pioture* showing people or items seemingly discon-
nected or out of context, as if more than one scene had
been drawn.
lit. Himaa figure® apparently without hair, excepting
stiok figures.
15. Lass than three or more than ten human figures with
no obvious Interaction occurring*
16. Asymmetrical pictures poorly formed and lacking any
perspective.
Evaluation
To test for reliability the judges' evaluations were
statistically treated for correlations, each one with the
other two. To test for validity various correlations were
obtained between the Judges' evaluations and the other data
50
previously mentioned. The results of this evaluation are
given and discussed at length In the nmxt chapter.
CHA F r a n s i Buimm
X# i t e l i i i f e f e a , itf* G r o a t « n d Q e o r g a S c t e l f t g t r » e l * l i » M l p | E I M i s i » i a i M & M M 'mSmM m
# » » % ! » « t • X % C # 7 7 •
2 t i * w * 6 S # # " A . , o e i f e i i * & . r.**U f o r fci* • 1 o f
4i» £ P * 1**1% *vi* 4.|| XXX ( F t b r u a i ? *
3 . D r s i t * * U * U £ , a i K i & • H* M M i £ 1 C « . t M e i 8 £ f l g g o t i 8 a « l L w a M ft|iiri«-«i:;-oll»# U f t l v m i t y e i ' r
ftwli'Sy" i f l S ' ' » f
k m a # ft, m o u *f» w H e & l o l « s » l i n g # M n i . | l , i 3 M i l e . .
5 * f t e r « k « # l i t i i l p A . » t m - « < & « « « » i w V a y l i i l W « M £ | £ » t i « 8 # f A b n o m a i . H f Q M l t t o t % I p l i f e t ' l i t M f t e
f j w i C i S ^ r i f t T i T j u T a s tt»u . i i k i i » » j # * t T ¥ l 5 f 5 v »
5 1
Qmnm iv
RESULTS A m DISOUSSIO*
Tasting of %im Hypothesis
In Chapter One It was hypothesised that graphlo respon*
oea to the stiHwlue "draw a group of people" would yield
valid and reliable of interpersonal responsive-
ness. Examples of tha drawings ara given to the Appendix,
To teat tha raIlability of the measurements gained by
the methods described la Chapter Three, the separate sets of
picture evaluations oads by the three judges were correlated
one with another using the Pearson pa?oduot~znen*nt coefficient
correlation (l# 2). The ooefficlent of correlation between
the evaluations of judges A and B was .66 with a standard
deviation of .<ty| between the evaluations of Judges A and C
It was .73 with a standard deviation of .03; and between the
evaluations of judges B and C the correlation was .73 with a
standard deviation of .03* Tha ®e*n of these correlations la
.71 with the mean of the standard deviations being .03. These
figures are Interpreted as meaning that there is a substantial
relationship between the judges' separate evaluations of in-
terpersonal responsiveness. It Is therefore thought that for
this stage of test development, sufficient reliability does
exist and oan be thought of as supporting the hypothesis
52
53
111® procedure to test the validity of the "draw-a-group"
projective technique, is given la the following statements#
Each drawing*a three numerical evaluations were averages! to
give a ffieao judgement of each subject's estimated degree of
interpersonal responsiveness. These means were then cor-
related with the other measurement# of interpersonal respon-
siveness. The previously described Pearson product-moment
coefficient of correlation provided the statistical method
for treating the data. Table III gujaraarlse© these findings.
In Category A of Table III It oan be seen that the
predictive significance of the test seems fairly high for
the Preteen Club and the Civil Air Patrol, an adolescent
group* The validity of the technique with the young adults
in the Social and Career Club, m well as the somewhat older
adult church school couples* class, is apparently fairly
substantial»
Tho low correlation of .25 found with the older adults
belonging to the Golden Fellowship is difficult to explain.
This is especially so when considering the geriatric coun*»
•sites in Category C, whose coefficient of correlation is
measured at .?U» Froia all that was apparent the Golden
Fellowship was an active, well established group with a high
level of Interaction among the members. Reviewing all known
factors, the cause of the difference between this correlation
and the others Is not apparent. It is possible that a number
of unknown variables common to older people such as arthritis,
%
TABLE 111
VALID IT ST CORRELATIONS 01 THE KXPiSHIMENTAL wJ)R&W*•A~G•SO'{JP,,
PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE ?0R INTERPERSONAL HB8P0WSIVSHESS
Category A, Normal: Correlations between ifa&ns of Judges*
Group w w w m* fflr
"Bdoffiottni of Oorr«l*tioo
S aiaA&ri. Deviation
ftptteea dub Cifll Air Patrol Squadron Social and Career Club Adult 3ou.pl<3b church school class Golden fellowship
Moan
.88
.81 • 71 .11 .as
#0? •08 • 18 • OS *23
ftptteea dub Cifll Air Patrol Squadron Social and Career Club Adult 3ou.pl<3b church school class Golden fellowship
Moan •-, , - • - § £ - — —
Category B# Mixed: Correlations between Subjaota1 Sooras on
Til# Social Introversion introversion Scale of the MMPI And Means of the Jud»e a1 Evaluations
Group Coefficient of Correlation
Standarct Deviation
Stt1a'|«o%s iaaftl wtlnfE© Social !•£• Seal# , «... fM,
Category 0, Clinicali Correlations between Numerical Ratings &!?«a by Qualified Observers and Means
Of th® Judaea* Evaluation®
Sroy® Soar f ie jumt of Correlation
Standard D0VlAtl0»
ProbisiB o&ilren Juvenile offenders Obeaployed young adults Hospitalised psychiatric patients Seriatrio eounselves
Mean
• oj .Tk .91 .f8 .fii
.15
.10
.05
.01 ..•M
ProbisiB o&ilren Juvenile offenders Obeaployed young adults Hospitalised psychiatric patients Seriatrio eounselves
Mean .80 .09
Mean Correlation and Standard Deviation of the Means
XU W « » n » K V * ' oeij ieieni of 'Standard! Group Correlation Deviation
Total mean of the oatogorical • 6b . .12 mean correlations • 6b . .12
55
poor hearing, recent death of a e w o a friend, etc, may have
oombined to affect this measurement, but again, this is not
known.
The coefficients of correlation in Category A are inter*
preted as supporting the hypothesis with the exception of the
not just d i s c u s s e d .
In Category B of Table III only a moderate relationship
seems to exist between the mean® of the judges* ratings and
the aeores on the Social. Introversion Extroversion S e a l s of
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory* th® oorre**
lation being ,l+5» It is possible that sooial introversion
and extroversion as measured by the MHPI is not quit® so sim-
ilar to interpersonal responsiveness as was originally thou^it#
nevertheless* a. positive correlation does exist, although
this measurement is interpreted as providing only mild sup*
port for the hypothesis.
The results shown in Category G of Table III apparently
demonstrate a narked relationship between the neans of the
judgerf evaluations and the ratings given by qualified ob-
servers# The oorrelation of ,63 for problem children is
somewhat lower than the others in the category, possibly due
to the fact that some of th® ohildren were oonsidered quite
emotionally disturbed and others mentally retarded*
The oorrelations concerning juvenile offenders and geri-
atric counselees are interpreted as markedly supporting th©
hypothesis. The high correlation of *91 concerning the
£6
chronically unemployed young adults is similarly interpreted.
According tc the qualified observers of this particular group,
tale rather high relationship may be a function of the almost
uniformly low ratings these subjects tend to receive, regard-
less of the measuring device.
The coefficient of correlation concerning hospitalized
psychiatric patient* ia surprisingly high, being *98* For
subjects in this category the Mdraw-a-group" technique 39ens
to do quite well« Thia high aeasureraent nay be possible
because psychlatrio patients seem to produce the most clear*
cut differences, as well as what are apparently obvious ex-
tremes in the drawing of a group of people« Then again, this
correlation nay be influenced by the fact that there are only
twelve subjects in the category, and that the qualified ob-
server who rated these subjects also helped to choose then
for the experiment*
The nean ooef fie lent of correlation for Categories A, B,
and C, thus concerning all 182 subjects, is ,6k* This is
interpreted as aeaalmg « fairly substantial relationship does
exist between the "draw-a~group" projective technique and the
rae as urease nt of interpersonal responsiveness. Therefore, the
hypothesis is considered to be sufficiently supported to the
extent that further investigations of the technique are
merited*
5?
Purtli*r flutings
If th« seventy-eight subjects la Category A can ba coo- ..
sidered as a sample of tha normal population and the subject*
Itt Category c a representation of tha clinical population, •
then a partial co»parlson of the technique'a effectiveness
with these two groups is possible, This comparison is by
nature insufficient in that Category A Involves aocioawfcric
status while Category C incorporated ratings by observers.
Hsvertheless, it la felt that in a general way this compari-
son m y b® informative.
The BMi&n coefficient of correlation for the groups in
Category A, JL. j*. normal, is *68 and for those in Category
C, 1., ®_# clinical, Is .80. This would seem to indicate
that the technique might be better adapted for use among
clinical groups. However, if the relatively low correlation
for the Golden Fellowship is, for some unknown reason, mla~
leading and therefore can be ignored, the mean correlation
for Category A becomes .79 and thus essentially equal to
Category C«s mean correlation of .80. It might be expected
that various clinical groups would demonstrate more sharply
defined differentiations due to their probable extremes of
behavior and psychological makeup. Certainly the findings
for tbs psychiatric j*tl«ot» in this study could b« said to
support this logic• Therefore, it is concluded that the
ndraw-a-group" technique shows prozslses as a predictor of
Interpersonal responsiveness among clinical groups and a
58
more uncertain promise Tor* oonnal or nonclinical groups. The
thirty six subjects its Category 3 ware not used ia this com-
parison, because a ewe of them would fail into the clinical
classification and others into the oorsml. This is due to
the occurrence that aoate were being tested with the lgf.Fl for
clinical reasons, while others were tested for vocational or
general personality assessments, Uo way of dividing these
subjeots was possible.
It would naturally be expected that the "draw-a-group"
projective technique xaight have more validity for certain
age groups than for others. Sable XV shows the mean coef-
ficient of correlations by age groups as compiled from
Categories A and 0# These relationships can only be inter-
pretive in the most general sense, due to the disproportion-
ately large percentage of subjects in the clinioal class,
and the different instrument! used which were correlated
with the ndraw-a-grouptt technique. The thirty-six subjects
in Category 3 have been excluded because of a widely spread
age range• Two age range rows begin with age eighteen*
There ia a division here because the eighteen to twenty-four
age group consists of unmarried subjects and has a mean age
of twenty, while the eighteen to fifty-five group is of mar-
ried and divorced subjects with a mean age of thirty three*
The correlation figures in Table IV follow what would
appear to be a logical progression. The degree of correla-
tion increases as the mean age rises into the area® of mature
59
TABLE IV
MSAI COBBSLmONS BY AGE GROUPS AS COMPILED FROM CATEGORIES A AND 0
Age Rang® in Xeara
Mean Age lumber of Subject®
' 'lean® '"of "the"' Coefficient of Correlation
"Means' of iSa Standard Deviation
7-12 10 26 • 76 • 11
13-17 15 39 .78 .09
18-24 20 18 .61 .12
18-55 33 36 .88 .05
63*»88 11,, 25 »S2 .19
adulthood, than fall® with advanced age. It @@#ms reasonable
to suppose that th® subjects who have not yet fully reached
maturity and those of a declining maturity would do less
wail than those In th® middle groups, who oaa tea assumed to
have better functioning physiological and neurological sys-
tem®.
; Slues the practical use of a measuring device m&y be
largely affected by the attitudes and practice# of those who
us® it, the following information is included in th© results.
After the three judge® had evaluated th® entire 102
drawings, they were asked to freely eensment on their exper-
ience. All three judgea agreed that they had the greatest
difficulty in discriminating between pictures on which they
thought that they might use the evaluative scores 2 Clow)
or (average). They also agreed that the easiest drawings
60
to evaluate were those which ssesed that they should be
evaluated with a £ (very high). Next to this the pictures
evaluated with a 1 (very lo*} seemed easiest to judg*, and
this was followed by the us# of evaluation (high)# Two
of the judges said that the confusion they experienced be-
tween using score a of £ and iy, and 1 ami 2 was about equal.
One of the judges, who had advanced traising ita soci-
ology, suggested that ths instrument for evaluation seemed
to have a cultural bias is favor of "white, Anglo-Saxon,
Protestants of the higher socio-economic strata"• On ques-
tioning the other two judges, they agreed that this could
be quite possible. The amaple did include two Negroes and
four Latin Americans, all in Category Q, J.. clinical
groups rated by qualified observers. On examining the var-
ious measurements pertaining to them, it wag found that they
had all received scores of £ (average) or lessj however, the
sample is believed to bs too small to be interpreted.
Concerning the "draw-a-group" projective technique, the
three judges all consented favorably on its ease of use, the
shortness of tine involved in evaluating a drawing, and
other miscellaneous advantages that it might h&ve over other
methsds* fhe probability of a high degree of accuracy was
doubted by the judges. All three agreed that the evaluative
instrument was in need of further development. It was also
suggested that the interpretations of the technique should
be expanded to take in more than just a gross measurement of
61
interpersonal responsiveness. 'lbs greatest c r i t ic i sm cen-
tered around the poss ib i l i ty of ms>j misuse. If the technique
were to be used without the aid of other l&struae&tsy i t was •
feared that misjudgements aod inaccuracy would be preaainent.
Ac analysis of perfect agreement between the three
judge a i s given i» Table V along with the spread of th« mean
evaluations. In the t r i p l e column en t i t l ed "Mean I t a lua -
t ionsM , the range r e f e r s to mean scores taken from the thres
fABLS V
SFEMO OF MMI EVALUATIONS COJiPA&BD WIfl 11118?® AKD FSR GS» OF EVALUATIONS HAVING JftSRPBCT AQ-BSSMBlf
Mean Sv&luatiofeg Perfect Agreement
„ tow I M t e r Per Cent B*Bg* Htamber P«r 0«nt f#ry mjgk
(S.6~s7©) Higjh
T3.6-4.3) Average
(2.o-3.3) Low
(1.6-2.3) Very low
(1.0-1.3)
9
IS
U 6©
29
4 .9
9.9
36.3
32.9
15.9 ..
Tew'mpT"' '
Kl^h
Average (2.6-3.3)
Low (1.6*2.3)
Very lair (1.0-1.3)
5
2
15
23
—-12.
55.5
11.1
22.7
38.3
- - JmLiiIL .-
r,Am^ ,IH Total 57 • J U L .
judges» ra t ings of the drawings* The ranges are constructed
so that they conform to the f ive point system used fo r mafcing
the evaluations. The number of drawings having a mean score
within the ranges l i s t ed are given next. The table shows
62
that the greater number of pictures are evaluated In the
rang# centering around 2 (low) and J, {average}# The rang®
listed as "very low" contains more than does "high" and
"very high" corcbined. This is probably due to the large
number of subjects in Category C, jl.®« clinical groups.
These subject® would probably be expected to yield a large
number of low score®, thus weighting the scoring pattern
io the direction of the lower evaluative figures. This con-
figuration of scores along the range can also be compared to
the findings of many soclometric studies, JU_ jt* the distri-
butions are often found to be soiaewhat py ram idle al or numeri-
cally incremental from high status to average or low status,
thereby being skewed positively (3).
The triple column listed under the heading "Perfect
Agreement" in Table V gives the number of perfect agreements
between the three Judges within each scoring range. There-
fore, it can be seen that there was perfect agreement among
the Judges on 55.5 per cent of the pictures in the "very
high" range. This is compatible with what the judges had
stated concerning the ease of giving certain pictures a very
high evaluation* Only 11.1 per cent of the drawings in the
"high" range obtained perfect agreement among the three -
Judges, while 22,7 per cent of the pictures in the "average"
rang® did ®o, Perfect agreement existed among the judge*
for 3B»3 per cent of the picture® in the "low" range and
kl.k P«r cent of the pictures in the "vary low" range. The
63
most salient interpretation emerging from these findings
is that it seems to be easier to judge the extremes of the
distribution than it is to Judge the pictures falling into
the center areas. Again, this ia roughly compatible with
what the judges stated.
Sine® it is probable that in the field the greatest
concern of potential users- of a projective each as this would
be with those in the extremes, the technique does not seem
to be devalued by these findings. Also, this would tend to
agree with the thought that the technique would be more use-
ful with clinical rather than normal populations.
Another factor about the use of this instrument would
be the question of Improvement with use. Ninety-one, or half,
of the drawings had been presented to the judges before a two
hour break and the remaining ninety-one drawings after the
break. Perfect agreement occurred among 21,9 per cent of
the evaluations given to the first ninety-one drawings and
among I4.0,6 per cent of those given to the second ninety-one
drawings. This represents an 18,7 per cent increase in per-
fect agreement among the three judges. In observing the raw
data it w»s noted that the rise in agreements seemed to be
gradually and rather consistently incremental. An interpre-
tation which oan be made is that reliability should improve
with practice and, in this area at least, a person*s use of
the technique should improve with experience.
£4
Since tli® purpose of this investigation wm to provide
an exploratory study, and s i l ica the number and strength of
possible Intervening variables was unknown, a mora elaborate
statistical treatment; was thought to be inappropriate for ,
this stage of test development.
In summary, It was found that the reliability measure-
ments were acceptable, the mean coefficient of correlation
among the judges* evaluations being #71« Validity coefficients
of correlations were sufficiently positive, with the except
tion of the correlation for the Golden Fellowship. The mean
correlation for Categories A, 3, and C# thus concerning all
182 subjects, was The mora appropriate mean correlations
for judges * evaluations and the respeotive measurements of
the categories were these: sooioaoetrically measured normals
comprising Category A, ,68j M8PI measured normals and abnor-
mal* comprising Category B, .l|$% abnormal* rated by qualified
observers comprising Category C, ,80* One method of inter*
preting the data would suggest that the ndraw-a-group" pro*
jective would be of more use with clinical than with normal
populations, although in certain ways the technique seems
equally useful for both groups* Some of the evidence Indi-
cates that children and older adults are less validly measured
than are others, but this is not conclusive. Evidence also
indicates that the subjects who can be evaluated as "very
high", now", and "very low" are more easily judged than
are those evaluated "higif and "average1* in interpersonal
6>
responsiveness. In commenting on their impressions the thr®«
judges all agreed that the technique was easily and quickly
used, although it seamed to need various improvements. The
increasing occurrence of perfect agrearuent among the judges,
as their experience mounted, shows that improvement in
reliability should be expected as a user of the technique
accumulates practice.
These findings are interpreted as supporting the hypoth-
esis, and so it can be said that there is reason to believe
that graphic responses to the stimulus, "draw a group of
people", will yield valid and reliable xneasurecionts of inter-
personal responsiveness. Further investigation into this
experimental projective is apparently merited, and it is
assumed that the "draw-i>-group" projective technique holds
the possibility of being developed into a valuable psycho-
logical tool.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
I, Guilford, J, P## Fuodaraental StattatlOB In Payohology and Education. New Tork. MeGraw-HllTHBodfe Co..
T&6, 135-153. 2# Lindquiat, 1-, F, a A First Couree in Statistic®* Cambridge.
Massachusetts S E T S l w i O T e T W a 'Kli2, 167-171*.
3* Morthw&y, Mary L. , A Primer of Soolomafcrsr. Toronto* Canada, University of Toronto Preaa, 1952, 8-27 •
66
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
It was hypothesized that graphic responses to the stimu-
lus, "draw a group of people" would yield valid and. reli-
able measurements of interpersonal responsiveness.
One hundred and eighty-two subjects each drew a group
of people. A measurement of soolometric status was made for
seventy-eight of these subjects who belonged to organised
groups and were termed normal. Social Introversion Extro-
version soores were obtained from MHPI profiles for thirty-
six subjects who were called mixed normal and clinical. For
sixty-eight subjects termed olinloal, rating® of interper-
sonal responsiveness were made by qualified observers.
The subjects1 drawings were examined at length to see
if oriterla oould be found which would enable the pictures
to be differentiated as to their degree of interpersonal
responsiveness,, this factor being operationally defined by
the three measurements mentioned above. The criteria dis-
covered were compiled into an evaluative instrument which
was used by three Judged to rank the 182 drawings along a
five point scale for interpersonal responsiveness.
To test for reliability each judge*© evaluation was cor-
related with the other two. The mean of these three corre-
lations for reliability was ,71.
67
68
To test; for validity tha sociometric measurements, the
SociaX 1, E. scoreaf and the ratings of interpersonal respon-
siveness were each correlated with the J*dgee* evaluations.
The mean of these three correlations, was
A comparison between the clinical and normal categories
proved inconclusive, although aoiae of the evidence indicated
that the "draw-a-group" technique was more adapted for use
with clinical populations. The interpretation or certain of
the findings indicated that the technique might be leas use-
ful with children and older adults than with other ag© groups,
but this was also inconclusive.
After the judges had evaluated the drawings they mad®
comments concerning the technique. These are incorporated
in the results of the study.
A review of the literature revealed a poverty of infor-
mation directly related to this area of drawing analysis.
However, a number ©f studies do have bearing on the problem
surveyed by this paper.
It was concluded that the hypothesis was sufficiently
supported and that this exploratory study shove that further
investigation into the experimental "draw-a-group" projective
technique is merited.
APPENDIX
EXAMPLES OP THE "DRAW-A-GROUP" PICTURES
PRECEDED EX SXPLAHATOH3T NOTES
Bach of the drawings shown received evaluations which
were in substantial agreement among the three judges and with
which the mean evaluations of the judges agreed with the
validity criteria. Drawings In, 2n, 3», l$n, and $xs are ex-
amples taken from Category A# representing normal subjects
belonging to organised groups. Drawings lc, 2c, 3c, 1*9, and
5o are ©xaiaples taken from Category C, representing subjects
belonging to olinioal populations.
Pictures la and lc are example® of drawing® evaluated JL,
very low, Drawing In was done by a thirty-three year old
male member of the couples* church school class, and drawing
lc by a fifty-ftv® year old female hospitalised psyohiatrio
patient,
Pictures 2n and 2c represent drawings evaluated 2, low.
Drawing 2n was made by a sixty-nine year old female member
of the Golden Fellowship, and drawing 2c by a fourteen year
old ®ale juvenile offender.
Pictures 3n a»<l 3c were evaluated 2# average. Drawing
3n was done by a thirteen year old female member of the Civil
Air Patrol, and drawing 3c by a twelve year old female problem
child.
69
To
Pictures i|n and i|C are examples of drawings evaluated ]j,#
high* Drawing I4.0 was produced by a twenty-three year old
male icember of the Social and Career Club, and drawing I4C by
a twenty-nino year old male hospitalized psychiatric patient.
Pictures 5>& and 5c represent drawings evaluated very
high* Drawing $n was made by a thirty-nine year old male
member of the couples1 church school olass, and drawing i>c
by a fifteen year old male juvenile offender.
'C ? — ; ; - v ^ ^ < - ® < E > * 2 * <2» < * « £ * «T7> * £ & ' ^ y m i
£ ^ > < £ > <q> C£» c?r ^ «?=> TS <£*> O <p> s o s a» <-> «*> *?> <^> «^», < - civ ^
O <35 ® O CD « E - ' ® € & < * « , 0 > w O < £ > CO « S » O
O a> & * » ^ ^ S > /gjr•£»-.*» £> <& <K> o » « » " » • • » $ . ' -gj, « a ' c a
£ > o O ' O ' O ' C 5 O O © o < 0 C P < 3 > O C D <*> c S -
v C E P o t S J O ~ c x © ' £ 5 ^ a s t > < 2 5 s o o o < 2 > < s > 0 c s < 2 >
< Z > r ? Z Z > O O © C P £ D ' < 2 ? © O 0 . 0 < 2 >
' < * >
£jg© ©_m©Q
7 X
c 3
C r;A 3 f
i*.J - w » 4 ^
f n s r " r , " > S t - * f ' V i ^ y Vfes )
. . . I A , C 3 X V -^ ^ ; - S '
, . ( J 1 i > / 1 V - ^
fttfiufe* ."ia>'w iV r, Miwt -a AJ • j*"i f
D r a w i n g I n
\
Drawing Ic
K,
Drawing 2B
71+
n
Drawing 2c
J i \1 -. vi
; *-u;: •••-'-•
"I'AtfXW*
Drawing 30
• 11 *»P"
111 0 r\
/ I i. / I w W ^
V> \ %,yj J
76
/
Drawing 3c
!
/
Drawing !±n
73
ay****-*
!
Drawing Ijc
r
Drawing 5&
30
Q -e, ~ j Jg[a>
Drawing 5e
BXBLIOGBAPHST
Book*
Abfc, Lawtscs 1, and Leopold fiell&k, editora, Projective r» law York, Grove Preaa, Inc., iV!50.
Bonney, Merl I#i and Baoeo, Iso*#
Baalish la Ma® at log. Boston, Alljm
Bonney, Marl fi* and Bich&rd S* Haas&pleiaan, Paraonal-Social revaluation geohalqnea, Washington JD, .gy.BgrapSM AlssgAfg#* u Applied Haeearch in fcjducation, Inc., 1962,
Calverton, Saaauel Bertrand, Children1a fhroagh. Drawing* Baltimore, lapyllal,, SiTll«e aaa f ilHisuo# #
Dahlstrow, W. Grant and George Schlager We I ah., An MMP1 Handbook: A Guide to H®« JLn Clinical I!gao$iot<' and WaiilreS^ MTnQ#ap©li5#"^tt#r8«yoFKiQMS6$6 P ess*
Drake. Lewis 1. and 1# R« Oetting, An KMPX Codebook for ~,ounaelora» Minneapolis, University of Minnesota frees.
Good, Pafcriola King-Ellison and John P. Brantner, The Physician»a Gulc to the MHgI« Minneapolis, defityeity ©r ifiaaiaHa Press, Inc. ,"T9tl
Goodenough, Florence L., Meaawyent of Intelligence jfefc Dr'Wl- i xoiucara* iwlfi m®k$ 19&d«
Guilford, 3m P., I Statlit.loa In Pfyahglfgr agd Mwatlon/jfei* Ywk. feQww-HlU tbog C©., 1§|&. ~
Sreaue. Jdward B., M, £ » & The Odyaaey Preaa, 19tyl«»
, 3ew York,
Hilgard, 2psi»tS.# Introduotfoc Haroomrt, Brace and Co.,
Hilgard, iSrneat 1,, the or la a of T Cent«ry-Crofts, lso«, Tf5f."
?>yobsl.frgy« New York,
Maw York Appleton-
81
82
Kadia, Asya L.t n Flnge r-Pa int ing as a Projective Technique,"
Promotive Psychology. edited by Lawrence 1. Abt and u >opold jlWllak, Hew York, Grove Press, Inc., 1950.
Levy, Sidney, "Figure Drawing as a Projective Test," Projective Psychology, edited by Lawrence E, Abt nod £i«opold Bie llafe, Sew I or k, Grove Press, Inc., 1950.
Llbo. Lester M., Measuring Group Coheaiveness, Ann Arbor, Miohlg.n, Unlveraity o^HIchigan,' MS}.
Lindqulst, £. P., A First Course in Statistics, Cambridge, MassachusettsJ flie Rlverside^Trelis, I%Z.
Maohover, Karen, Personality Projection in the Drawing of the Human Figure, Sprlogflaid, Illinois, Charles C. fEoinas, I9W.
Marks, Philip A, and willlan Socman, Actuarial Description of Abnormal Peraonality i An Atlas Ydr tlse""wl'ih tbeMMPI, Baltimore, Maryland, Williams and Wllkins Co., 1963.
Mursell, James L., Psychological Testing, Kew York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1949,
Northway, Mary L«, A Primer of Socloiaetry. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto Prass,
Ruch, Floyd L., Psychology and Life, Dallas, Texas, Scott, Foresman an«f Co j, 1953 •
Stuart, Gilbert, Understanding Children in School. Syracuse, New York, C. W. Eiardeen Co., 18^3.
Woltmann, Adolf G., "The Bender Vlsual-ftotor Geetalt Test," Projective Psychology, edited by Lawrence E, Abt and tedpoid'Bellak, iew York, Grova Press, Inc., 1950*
Articles
Berzaan, Sidney and Julius Laffal, "Body Type and Figure Drawing, Journal of Clinical Psychology, IX (October, 1953), 368^?C '
Brake, Lewis 1., BA Social I.E. Scale for the MMPI," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXX (February, 191+6)
03
Lawton, Marola J* and Lse Sschrsst, "Flgurs Drawings by Young Boys Fr@» Fathar^Prsssnt and Fathsr-Abssot Hoass," Jeurial of CI laical Psychology* XVIII (July* *962)*
Lshnar, Osorge and Erie K. Gundsrson, "RailabiXlty of Graphic Indies• i. • Pr.j«tl« T«8|," jWrolJiE PaycholoCT. fill (April, 1952), 125-120.
Nltsohs, Carl J* and William Tho», "Ohildr«n*a Llk# and Disllk® Drawings,* Journal of Fro .loot lv« TaohPlottas, XXIII (March, 1959), 7«*
Pflaun# Jobs, "Rsstrlottd Figurs Drawing as a Projoofcl?# ttsasurs of Personality," Journal of Sao ill Psychology^ LVIII (1962), 283»287•
Sllvsrstsln, A. B, and H. A, Hoblnson, "fhs Representation of Orthopedlo Disability In Children** Figure Drawings,* 3 3 ^ 1 ° X C o o l l t t U l a* Psyetoeieg'» ** ^©tober, 1956),
Stonesifer, Fred A., nA Goodenough Scale Evaluation of Human Figures Brawn by Schisophrenic* and Hon-Psychotic Adults," Jgirgfl &£ Qllntml Psychology* V (October, 19i*9)#
West, John Haailton, "Correlates of the Draw-a-Seene Teat," Joi»»al of Sllaloal Psychology. XVI (January, I960),
Tests
Hathaway, B. H. and J, C« HoKlnley, Mlnneeot> Multlishaa 1@ I m m t m s Haawl, Ww Torts, 1 titi ¥®y©koiogio&l
corporation* if 51.