120 male alcoholics were asked to draw a picture of themselves, a murderer, a victim and the victim's parent. Analysis of heights of drawings indicated that self drawings were significantly larger than all other drawings (which did not differ significantly among themselves on this variable). These results were interpreted as lending some support to the hypothesis that male alcoholics will encounter difficulty in empathizing with others, as reflected by a reduction in the drawings of these others when compared with self drawings.
References
1.
ClodfelderD. L.CraddickR. A.Variance in size of drawings in a psychotic population. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 110.
2.
CraddickR. A.Size of Santa Claus drawings as a function of time before and after Christmas. Journal of Psychological Studies, 1961, 12, 121–125.
3.
CraddickR. A.The self-image in the Draw-a-Person Test and self-portrait drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1963, 27, 288–291. (a)
4.
CraddickR. A.Size of Halloween witch drawings prior to, on, and after Halloween. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 235–238. (b)
5.
CraddickR. A.Size of drawings-of-a-person as a function of stimulating “psychosis.”Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 18, 308.
6.
CraddickR. A.Identification with the aggressor through figure drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 28, 547–550.
7.
CraddickR. A.LeipoldW. D.Note on the height of Draw-a-Person figures by male alcoholics. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32, 486.
8.
CraddickR. A.SternM. R.Effect of pre- and post-stress upon height of drawings in a perceptual-motor task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 17, 283–285.
9.
EdwardsA. L.Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960.
10.
FeldmanM. J.GraleyJ.The effects of an experimental set to simulate abnormality on group Rorschach performance. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1954, 18, 326–334.
11.
FreudA.Ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: Internat. Univer. Press, 1946.
12.
GravitzM. A.The height of normal adult figure drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 75.
13.
HuntH. G.The effect of deliberate deception on the MMPI performance. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1948, 12, 396–402.
14.
LairdT. J. A.A comparison of female normals, psychiatric patients and alcoholics for sex drawn first. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1962, 18, 473. (a)
15.
LairdT. J. A.A comparison of male normals, psychiatric patients and alcoholics for sex drawn first. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1962, 18, 302. (b)
16.
MachoverK.Personality projections in the drawings of the human figure. Springfield: Thomas, 1949.
17.
SandsP. M.HansonP. G.SheldonR. B.Recurring themes in group psychotherapy with alcoholics. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1967, 41, 474–482.
18.
SchoeberleE. A.CraddickR. A.Human figure drawings by freshmen and senior student nurses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 11–14.
19.
StarrS.MarcuseF. L.Reliability in the Draw-a-Person Test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1959, 23, 83–86.
20.
SwensonC. H.Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings: 1957–1966. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 20–44.
